Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues,americast.usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Thu, Sep 24 1992 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 04:37:35 EDT Message-ID: 09-24 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update Sept. 24, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Thursday morning in USA TODAY: Children, Cable TV. TODAY'S DEBATE - CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: USA TODAY'S OPINION: Rarely since Solomon's split decision has a court battle over a child had such an impact. The case, opening (Thursday), involves Gregory Kingsley, a Florida 12-year-old who wants to escape from his natural parents. So he's suing. That's set off a bitter debate. Should children have the right to challenge parental authority? The answer is yes. Gregory's plight serves as a sad reminder that not all children are better off with their biological parents. Nearly 2.5 million children were reported abused or neglected in 1990, up 259% since 1976. Gregory says he's one of them. ... Every year, a million kids run away from home because of family conflict, violence and abuse. Gregory found a better way out - the courts. There's small chance his case will inspire kids to sue over things like curfews. No responsible lawyer or judge would allow such suits, and most kids can't find or afford attorneys. All the court did for Gregory was let him take charge of one small part of his grim family life by letting him speak. ... Like too many kids, Gregory is a casualty of a dysfunctional family and a child-protective system that dropped him and his family through the cracks. He lived with his mother only seven months in eight years and rarely heard from her when they were apart. He lived with a father he says was abusive. Florida might have done more to repair the family. ... Gregory has been in and out of foster care, the latest stint lasting 2 1:2 years. Now his foster family wants to adopt him, and he wants them to. But his mother wants him back. A child has a right to be safe, healthy and loved. That's what Gregory hasn't had. And what suing might give him. If families like Gregory's can't offer safety, health and love to their children, and if the state fails to find a timely substitute, then children should be allowed to speak for themselves in court. OTHER VIEW: CHARMAINE CROUSE YOEST, a policy analyst for the Family Research Council, Washington: One fact is certain: Gregory K.'s life has been tragic. This trial should generate a long-overdue uproar over our foster-care disaster. But it mustn't generate a legal precedent enabling children to sue their parents. Ultimately, such a far-reaching ruling would harm children by separating them, in legal theory, from the protection of their parents. Parents should not be our target when the system is the culprit. Fundamentally, children need protection. If parents violate that duty, the state may step in. This case highlights the state's failure; but do we really want attorneys ... to be the next line of defense? Gregory, for instance, is represented pro bono by an attorney who won the case striking down Florida's parental-consent laws on abortion. With the exception of her attorney, few defend Gregory's mother. She claims her "right" to her child without, apparently, recognizing that those rights are rooted in an awesome responsibility. Most people, however, know that lack of contact with a child for a year ... is clearly abandonment. So why is the state of Florida only now filing for termination of parental rights, clearing the way for adoption, when Gregory has been in and out of its care for several years? ... For the sake of other children in its care, Florida should not be let off the hook. Gregory now stands virtually alone in court; the next scared child who needs protection may not be as bright and determined as Gregory. Most are stuck in the system; it should be held accountable. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON REGULATION OF CABLE INDUSTRY: PEMBROKE PINES, Fla., Leonard E. Atlas, 68, marketing consultant: The experience in our area has been unsatisfactory from most consumer standpoints. I've given up calling them because they don't respond. When cable goes out, you can't get through to them. And you can be off cable for days, and you don't get credit for it. LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Stephanie Sherwin, 44, general sales manager: Being in the broadcasting business, I'm definitely for the bill. It's difficult to go against them in sales; their money comes from rates, not advertising. And here, you have to have cable to get good reception, so we're pretty captive. We have to pay whatever they ask. WESTWOOD, Calif., Jack Naderkhani, 38, hotel general manager: No. If I say yes to that, I have to say yes to regulating the guest suites in the hotels. Knowing the basic foundation of this country is free enterprise, I would say the cable bill would go against that. CONNERSVILLE, Ind., Nancy Rich, 75, retired: I don't have cable. It's too expensive, especially for senior citizens. I'd like to see the price come down. It started out at about $5, and it has gone up so much in the last few years. MILWAUKEE, Wis., Grady J. Davis, 37, program coordinator: With no regulation, cable prices can continue to rise, and consumers have no way of fighting for their rights. It's like the utilities; if there were no regulation of utilities, they could charge whatever they wanted. When I first got cable, it cost $12.95 a month; now it's $28. Issues & Debate Editor: Kate Coughlin. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM