This is extremely tricky in while I agree they seem to be failures as parents (of the article is to be believed), the precedent it sets is TOO dangerous.
I can easily see this used against parents who don't comply with guidance councillors and school psychologists' demands in regards to their kids.
I don't trust a lot of parents to watch their kids to protect others OR schools to keep my kids safe, I'd rather homeschool them even if it meant downsizing and living closer to my still sane relatives.
This is extremely tricky in while I agree they seem to be failures as parents (of the article is to be believed), the precedent it sets is TOO dangerous.
I can easily see this used against parents who don't comply with guidance councillors and school psychologists' demands in regards to their kids.
I don't trust a lot of parents to watch their kids to protect others OR schools to keep my kids safe, I'd rather homeschool them even if it meant downsizing and living closer to my still sane relatives.
This was all about persecuting 2A people. Setting a dangerous precedent was the point.
Yea, hopefully they appeal and get the whole thing tossed.