Circum Spective

Who's your daddy?

Is the king (the government) our father or is God our father?

Can we serve both simultaneously? What about in this case:

Wausau, WIS. (AP) -- A central Wisconsin man accused of killing his 11-year-old daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care was found guilty Saturday of second-degree reckless homicide.

This AP story presents a very difficult dilemna to think through. Who is right? The prosecuter and jury or the defense lawyer and the parents? Or is there some "rightness" in both sides views?

The real question may be: Where does our society draw the line and say the power of parens patriae be damned, the government may not cross this line. This is none of the government's business. Parens Patriae is the power of the state to act toward its citizens in a parental or condescending manner, as a parent does toward a young child.

Well, I think that line has been moving, just like so many other lines in recent decades (and especially in this current decade). People in the United States seem to be not only allowing, but asking for more and more government intervention into areas that used to be considered none of the government's business.
My theory is that this trend is the result of the same rotting root at the bottom of all recent trends: Americans are increasingly lazy. Their laziness extends even to the effort it takes to think through problems and reach difficult decisions. We can't have any "gray area". We need mommy and daddy to draw a bright line on the ground and say: "There's the line, junior. If you stay on this side of the line you'll be safe and you won't risk being criticized -- or punished. Now, go play with your satellite television, computer and ipod and stop bothering mommy and daddy. We have to make decisions for 300 million other children today."

Should this kind of case should be dismissed preliminarily and never allowed to reach a jury?

WAUSAU, Wis. (AP) -- Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or drink. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.

Sitting straight in his chair, Neumann stared at the jury as the verdict in a nearly empty courtroom was read. He declined comment as he left the courthouse.

Defense attorney Jay Kronenwetter said the verdict would be appealed. He declined further comment.

Prosecutors also declined comment, citing a gag order.

Leilani Neumann, 41, was convicted on the same charge in the spring. Marathon County Circuit Judge Vincent Howard set Oct. 6 for sentencing for both parents, who face up to 25 years in prison.

Their case is believed to be the first in Wisconsin involving faith healing in which someone died and another person was charged with a homicide.

Last month, an Oregon jury convicted a man of misdemeanor criminal mistreatment for relying on prayer instead of seeking medical care for his 15-month-old daughter who died of pneumonia and a blood infection in March 2008. Both of the girl's parents were acquitted of a more serious manslaughter charge.

Neumann's jury - six men and six women - deliberated about 15 hours over two days before convicting him. At one point, jurors asked the judge whether Neumann's belief in faith healing made him "not liable" for not taking his daughter to the hospital even if he knew she wasn't feeling well.

Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified Thursday that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.

"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."

The father testified that he thought Madeline had the flu or a fever, and several relatives and family friends said they also did not realize how sick she was.

Assistant District Attorney LaMont Jacobson told jurors in closing arguments Friday that Neumann was "overwhelmed by pride" in his interpretation of the Bible and selfishly let Madeline die as a test of faith.

Neumann knew he should have taken his daughter to a doctor and minimized her illness when speaking with investigators, Jacobson said, calling Neumann no different than a drunken driver who remarks he only had a couple of beers.

Doctors testified that Madeline would have had a good chance of survival if she had received medical care, including insulin and fluids, before she stopped breathing.

Kronenwetter told the jury that Neumann sincerely believed praying would heal his daughter and he did nothing criminally wrong.

"Dale Neumann was doing what he thought would work for his daughter," Kronenwetter said. "He was administering faith healing. He thought it was working."

Parens Patriae: A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.

The parens patriae doctrine has its roots in English common law. In feudal times various obligations and powers, collectively referred to as the "royal prerogative," were reserved to the king. The king exercised these functions in his role of father of the country.

In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs. The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents. This inherent power is generally supplemented by legislative acts that define the scope of child protection in a state.

The state, acting as parens patriae, can make decisions regarding mental health treatment on behalf of one who is mentally incompetent to make the decision on his or her own behalf, but the extent of the state's intrusion is limited to reasonable and necessary treatment.

The sad truth is simply this: fewer and fewer people consider it necessary to preserve from invasion by federal officials the right of the parent to the custody and care of his child and the sanctity of his home.