A lot of people around here are opting for home schooling because of learning of kids taking guns to school. But then bomb threats and gun controls efforts are being taken more seriously here. I agree there is some paranoia to it.

Parents Are Not Trustees Over Their Children

That is a false assertion...

I feel I should correct my last post with something of an addendum...

The assertion I was addressing that I called a false assertion is in fact true in most instances, but only because the state has "tricked" the birth parents into making the state the child's trustee, just as the state is the trustee of the parents (It considers most parents to be themselves "children of the state" and in the state's care under the state's obligation to care).

(IMO, the state can be a bad trustee and operate in breach of trust, but the state will always have plausible deniability, so breach of trust becomes nearly impossible to prove.) This explains why children can be removed from the care of loving parents simply on the word of a CFS social worker (who may have either a grudge against the parent(s), or stands to profit in one way or another from what amounts to child abduction).

So like most things, the truth of the matter goes both ways. Parents are INHERENTLY the trustees of their children, but when they register the live birth, they inform the state of a new vessel in port, and the vessel then comes under the care of the state parent/trustee, who turns that care over to the caretakers (who now get some form of consideration, like child tax benefits, etc. for taking care of the state's child) who were once the parents/trustees of the baby.

The original assertion is both false (at birth) AND true (after registration).

I feel I should correct my last post with something of an addendum...

The assertion I was addressing that I called a false assertion is sort of true in some instances (like when the state takes the child from his parents), but only because the state has "tricked" the birth parents into making the state the trustee of the baby's estate (and therefore the grantor of his care).

(IMO, the state can be a bad trustee and operate in breach of trust, but the state will always have plausible deniability, so breach of trust becomes nearly impossible to prove.) This explains why children can be removed from the care of loving parents simply on the word of a CFS social worker (who may have either a grudge against the parent(s), or stands to profit in one way or another from what amounts to child abduction).

Like most things, the truth of the matter goes both ways and is confusing as hell. Parents are INHERENTLY the grantors & trustees of their children, but when they register the live birth, they inform the state of a new vessel in port, and the vessel then comes under the care of the state "parent/trustee." The state in turn, and acting now as grantor, entrusts the care of the baby to the caretakers (formerly parents), who receive some consideration for their new job to care for the state's charge, the baby mama gave birth to.

The caretakers (birth parents) are now answerable TO the state for any alleged breach of the state's trust (in them). The burden of proof of child abuse has switched. Where the state might once have had to prove that the parents are acting in breach of the innocent child's trust, the parents might now be called upon to prove they are NOT acting in breach of the state's trust.

The original assertion remains false in that the parents are always the trustees of the baby, but they have unknowingly lost their position as grantors & trustees to the state, which is now their boss and has charged them with a trust they had in the first place. It has also burdened them heavily with having to prove a negative if an allegation of abuse is ever made against them.

Advice to parents who have registered their child's birth: If ever you get a visit from a CFS worker, be as friendly as possible and for heaven's sake, make sure the house is immaculate...You are going to get the "white glove test" as they look for ANY imperfections in your household.

I'll fall back onto John Locke on this matter in Repeating that Parents are Lord & Master over their Children, until the Child is able to tend to his/her own affairs.
This is a Tempory Status; from Birth, to Early Childhood, through Teenage Years, a Child is viewed as Unfit to tend to His/Her Own Needs (Different Countries set different ages as Adulthood) and until the Child is able to tend to His/Her Own Needs, the Parents are the ones who has Authority over the Child.

That is not the same as saying that a Parent has Licence to do as one wills over the Child; even Kings have to face Limits. Parents are the Law Giver inside the Home, they Rule Over Their Children until the Children are able to Rule Over Themselves.