US Colleges--the Culture of Entitlement

(CNN)We can avoid it no longer. The crisis in academia has reached a boiling point. Too many students are wasting their educational years going to college -- and earning degrees in self-indulgence. The academic institutionalization of entitlement is lobotomizing America's kids. If I had been a black college student at the University of Missouri last week,

 I hope I would have had the courage and conscience to support their effort to end the school's vestigial racism. In some twisted "Twilight Zone" anomaly, on this campus, the South won the Civil War. It's impossible to read the students' heartfelt reports of discrimination and not share their anger and pain. I also hope I would have resisted student demands to institutionalize their intolerance by censuring speech, muscling journalists, demanding confessions of "white privilege," and requiring "safe spaces" fenced by race.

 As ridiculous as it sounds, the expression of legitimate grievances at Mizzou has devolved into ultimatums that we protect college students from life's real brutalities -- sombrero-themed trick-or-treating, other offensive Halloween costumes, and politically indecorous language.

 At least at Yale University, freedom of expression has been preserved: It's in a bottle of formaldehyde in the Department of Outdated Privilege. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but Yale will not allow mean words to hurt. Don't be too quick to judge Yale protesters Don't be too quick to judge Yale protesters (Opinion) An early-childhood education researcher at Yale was concerned that her helicopter-parenting university was "afraid that college students are unable to decide how to dress themselves on Halloween." I doubt this is how Yale produced five presidents. Erika Christakis wrote an email to students recommending radical advancement: Lighten up, academe, and trust students to pick out their get-ups.

 Christakis suggested that Halloween costumes should be allowed to scare people and, in ghastly moments, even offend them. She wrote, "Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society." Crazy talk, a student responded. "It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It's about creating a home here!" An intellectual debate? In academia? Get over it! So much for preparing our kids for thoughtful, independent lives by exposing them to the world and its challenges. In academia, we no longer put steel to stone to hone edges. We sharpen the next generation on mashed potatoes.

 On campuses, speakers who don't echo what students revere have suddenly found themselves nixed from college forums. Even Condi Rice, the first female African-American secretary of state, and first female National Security Advisor to a U.S. president, was not tolerated by advocates of tolerance at Rutgers. That university pledges to "challenge and support our students to think critically ... and make informed choices" -- unless informed thoughts make waves.

 Where did today's under- and upper-classmen, sorry, under- and upper-class-people, get the idea they are entitled to rich, full lives in "safe spaces," where their success and superiority is unthreatened? From yesterday's college students, their indulgent parents. Boomers built this soft culture of entitlement, where great things are expected, but few have to be earned. Today's students are the sons and daughters of parents who refused to face the consequences of their irresponsible social choices and poor economic decisions.

A $20 trillion debt? That's not a problem: It was the solution America preferred over paying its bills and working to renew its economy. Now, we are all entitled to "safe economic spaces" where no one should be denied a $15 minimum wage, our neighbors must pay for our health care, and our retirements are magically guaranteed. Perhaps I have it backward: Maybe college is preparing them, if only for the entitled lives they have been promised for participating. At the University of Connecticut, students can claim a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Puppetry. At Skidmore, you can twerk to "The Sociology of Miley Cyrus." At Brown, there is a course "On Being Bored." At Occidental, in a rare victory for truth in marketing, they can take a course in "Stupidity." We are sending the next generation into the world, but not with diplomas of what they can contribute. Instead, on their foreheads, they wear a "Scarlet E," an emblem of what they are entitled to get. When colleges make it their business to stop teaching and start agreeing with students, they surrender their purpose: their opportunity to enrich a young student's development. In this bizarre world of academic cowardice, we see college presidents tested by students, and students running our universities.

Our children have embraced our entitlement culture, enjoying its calories without the guilt. Every country should have a president. One day, we will, too. He will show up when we need him, to address issues of importance. If we had a real president now, he would have gone to the University of Missouri and done more than bathe Mizzou protesters in praise. He would have reminded impressionable students that the "black zones" they demand are no different than segregation. He would have informed them that, in silencing others, we eventually mute ourselves. He would have explained that we defeat immorality and injustice by confronting them, not by avoiding the fierce heat of debate. But that is too much to ask. Where would young, black students in Missouri find a president like that today? Alex Castellanos

Hiding behind a religion, tear away the facade

The way I look at it, the extremists Muslims have hijacked a religion, in order to hide behind it. What they stand for is an ideology, just like the Nazis. After WWII, the Nazis were tried, executed and jailed. They were hunted down, and are still being hunted down, the same thing should happen to those who espouse terrorism and the murder of innocents, based on an ideology.

Movie Friday

A TV movie that explores the conflicting laws on adoption, custody and parental rights.  The case on which the movie is based, led to laws preventing convicted murderers from seeing their children, where the victim was the mother or father of the children.

John Oliver Slams the Criminal Justice System for Setting Former Prisoners Up to Fail

On Sunday, John Oliver dedicated his show to exposing yet another aspect of our broken criminal justice system, this time focusing on what happens to former offenders once they leave prison and attempt to re-enter society. As the Last Week Tonight host explained, it's an especially timely issue that comes on the heels of the government's recent release of 6,000 federal inmates once accused of committing low-level crimes.



"The fact that around half of people who leave prison end up going back is horrifying, but when you look at the challenges they face, it gets a little less surprising," Oliver said. "In fact, let me walk you through what it's like when you get out of prison—and let's just start with minute one, because when inmates exit that gate to start a new life, they could find themselves in the middle of nowhere, with little to nothing in their pockets."

 Oliver then sat down with a former prisoner, Bilal Chatman, to help address the seemingly unending number of obstacles he and countless others faced upon leaving prison—starting with society's negative approach to ex-inmates.

 "People are judgmental—people that don't know," Chatman said. "I don't want anybody to look at me as the ex-con. I want them to look at the person I am now. I'm a supervisor. I'm a good employee, I'm an employer."--From Mother Jones

Movie Friday

An Al Pacino Tour de Force

In a first, de facto parent is granted shared custody

Non-biological parent prevails in dispute with her same-sex ex-partner

 By: Brandon Gee October 15, 2015 DeSantis

A woman is entitled to shared custody of two children she jointly raised during and after a same-sex relationship with their biological mother, a Probate & Family Court judge has ruled in a case of first impression. While the parties agreed that the plaintiff qualified as a “de facto parent” to the children under Massachusetts case law, the defendant biological mother argued that it was not within the power of the court to award shared legal custody to a de facto parent. Judge John D. Casey disagreed. “Both parties have been equal parents to the children throughout their lives and should be afforded equal parental rights upon their separation,” he wrote. “The Court finds the authority to make such an award in the Court’s equity jurisdiction.”

The 36-page decision is Partanen v. Gallagher, Lawyers Weekly No. 15-005-15. The full text of the ruling can be ordered by calling 617-218-8305. New ground Lawyers say the ruling is the first in Massachusetts to award joint child custody to a de facto parent. “The dispute they brought to the judge was not whether she was a de facto parent, but, given her de facto status, was she able to share custody?” said Boston’s Pasquale DeSantis, a family law practitioner who was not involved in the case. “To date, no court has given a de facto parent shared custody or sole custody.” The plaintiff was represented by Elizabeth A. Roberts of Boston and Teresa M. Harkins La Vita of Danvers. They and other lawyers who lauded the decision said it helps fill a statutory gap in Massachusetts for dealing with custody issues that arise when unwed same-sex couples — specifically those who use assisted reproductive technology to have children — separate. Prior to Casey’s decision, La Vita said, non-biological parents were treated as second-class parents. “She doesn’t fit into the statutory scheme in the way other couples do,” La Vita said of her client. “The judge had to use equity here because the Legislature hasn’t acted for people like her yet.” La Vita said she hopes the decision will prove useful to other parents in similar situations who might now point to it in pushing for shared custody instead of settling for visitation. “It’s given family law attorneys a good beacon to guide our ship into port when we have these kind of cases,” Winthrop family lawyer Edward L. Amaral Jr. said.

 Boston lawyer Mary Beth L. Sweeney, who was co-counsel for the defendant biological mother, said she, too, expects the case to impact other litigants — but in a negative way. “It’s a monumental deviation from existing law,” Sweeney said. “The question going forward is whether such a drastic decision should be dictated by the judicial branch, or the Legislature through a change of the law.” Sweeney also rejected attempts to cast the issue as one of gay rights, claiming the decision will “weaken” biological parents’ rights regardless of their situation. “It’s not only gays and lesbians who can seek de facto parentage,” Sweeney said.

As defined in the 1999 Appeals Court case E.N.O. v. L.M.M., a de facto parent is “one who has no biological relation to the child, but has participated in the child’s life as a member of the child’s family. The de facto parent resides with the child and, with the consent and encouragement of the legal parent, performs a share of caretaking functions at least as great as the legal parent.” Sweeney warned that Casey’s decision could create a slippery slope by encouraging de facto parents — no matter the age of the children or how long the de facto parent has been in their lives — to seek custody after their relationships with biological parents end. She further rejected the notion that there is a gap that needs filling in Massachusetts, noting that the parties could have taken any number of steps to provide the plaintiff with parental rights before her relationship with the defendant biological mother ended. For example, the couple could have agreed to add the plaintiff’s name to the children’s Florida birth certificates, gotten married once they moved to Massachusetts, or arranged to have the plaintiff formally adopt the children.

 But other lawyers said the main function of the Probate & Family Court in custody battles is to protect the best interests of children, who know and care little about the formal legal actions taken by those they consider their parents. In Partanen, the plaintiff was deeply involved in the decision to have children, personally performed one of the artificial inseminations of the defendant, was present at both births, lived with the children and biological mother, shared child-rearing duties, and was held out as a parent to the public, health care providers, school officials and others. “I think it’s a really helpful and natural progression in our jurisprudence,” Cambridge lawyer Patience W. Crozier said of the decision. “Family law in the court needs to protect children and the parental relationships they know and depend on.” Equity judgment Roberts, the plaintiff’s co-counsel, said the judge’s decision to apply a gender-neutral reading of the Massachusetts paternity statute in reaching his ruling was one of the most significant aspects of the case. “Any time you can see an intact family preserved in the eyes of the law is a good day,” Roberts said. “As lawyers, it’s very rare that you get to [address] a gray, unsettled area of the law.”

Sweeney said the defendant is evaluating whether to appeal. If she does, the case could be consolidated with a related action the plaintiff filed, a previously dismissed motion for a determination of parentage that has been appealed but not yet docketed. In the related matter, the plaintiff is represented by Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. GLAD lawyer Jennifer L. Levi said while they ultimately hope to prevail on the motion for a determination of full parentage, Casey’s decision is helpful in the interim. “It’s a very important victory,” Levi said. “The children in this case just simply viewed [the plaintiff] as ‘mommy.’ … It’s important to [all] couples who bring children into the world and raise them together and then split up and have conflict over allowing the non-birth-parent to be fully involved in the children’s life. From a child’s perspective, this decision is hugely important because it is looking at the way people are functioning.

 If you are acting like a parent, the court will recognize that and ensure you continue in that role.” History and legal analysis From the time they decided to have children while living in Florida, plaintiff Karen Partanen and defendant Julie Gallagher had mutual responsibility and involvement in major decisions regarding the welfare of their children, Jordan and James. That continued after the couple moved to Massachusetts and eventually split up. Even after parenting conflicts arose, the couple agreed that Partanen, the non-biological parent, was a de facto parent to the children. They disputed whether a de facto parent could seek custodial rights. “The [Supreme Judicial Court] has not yet specifically reached the issue of whether a de facto parent may be awarded shared legal and physical custody,” Casey wrote. “In a footnote of a recent unpublished decision of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, the Court suggested that the issue of whether a de facto parent may be awarded custody is still an undecided question.”

The SJC has ruled, however, in a custody battle between a biological parent and a de facto parent. In its 2009 decision in R.D. v. A.H., the SJC determined that a judge “correctly ruled that the de facto parent, in seeking appointment as permanent guardian with custody, has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the legal parent was legally unfit.” In that case, the SJC looked to the statute governing custody awards for children born out of wedlock, G.L.c. 209C, §10, and construed the word “parent” to mean “biological parent.”

Probate Court Judge Casey did not feel bound by that determination, however. “The Court finds that the present case is distinguishable from R.D. v. A.H.,” Casey wrote. “Unlike R.D., Karen did not enter the children’s lives after they were several years old. Karen was part of the decision to create a family. Karen and Julie presented themselves to medical providers as partners who were starting a family. Although at various points prior to this litigation, marriage and adoption were options for the parties, both these options require assent.” Casey noted that while R.D. brought her petition for custody under the guardianship statute, Partanen brought a complaint to establish de facto parentage pursuant to the court’s equity jurisdiction. The judge also pointed out that other jurisdictions “have held that de facto parents have the same rights and responsibilities as a biological or adoptive parent, including the right of shared legal custody if it is in the children’s best interests.” “Both parties have been equal parents to the children throughout their lives and should be afforded equal parental rights upon their separation,” Casey wrote. “The Court finds the authority to make such an award in the Court’s equity jurisdiction.” In addition to the court’s equity jurisdiction, Casey relied on a gender-neutral reading of G.L.c. 209C, §6, which states: “In all actions under this chapter a man is presumed to be the father of a child and must be joined as a party if … while the child is under the age of majority, he, jointly with the mother, received the child into their home and openly held out the child as their child.”

 Partanen v. Gallagher

THE ISSUE: Was a non-biological de facto parent entitled to joint legal custody of two children she jointly raised during and after a same-sex relationship with the children’s biological mother?

DECISION: Yes (Probate & Family Court)

LAWYERS: Elizabeth A. Roberts of Todd & Weld, Boston, and Teresa M. Harkins La Vita of Danvers (plaintiff)

 Mary Beth L. Sweeney and Gretel M. Dufresne, of Atwood & Cherny, Boston (defense)

Sometimes others say it better than I possibly can--an Essay by Bob Beckel

(CNN)In my youth, it took me many years of heavy drinking to become a career alcoholic. This year, it took less than eight weeks of medical treatment to become addicted to OxyContin and Percocet.

It started in the spring when long-standing pain in my back, dating to my high school football days, led me to go in for a complex -- and, as it turned out, somewhat risky --surgical procedure. The operation, called a lumbar fusion, took nearly 10 hours; the attending team of doctors were amazing; it was successful. For the first time in a long time, my back was pain-free.

There were, however, complications. Many of those who undergo this surgery suffer a temporary motor neuropathy -- diminished use of one or both legs due to nerve damage -- a setback from which they generally recover quickly. A much smaller percentage take a hit in one or both legs for a longer period of time, sometimes indefinitely.

Bob Beckel

As it turned out, I fell into that latter category. Recovering even partial use of my left leg would require a strict routine of extensive physical therapy and rehabilitation for at least a year, the doctors told me, maybe more, combined with severe limitations on travel and mobility. And while the long-standing back pain was gone, now there was the excruciating pain of post-op recovery.

As bad as the back pain had been, the agony following surgery was worse. My doctors prescribed OxyContin and Percocet, which were amazingly effective. Unfortunately, they also proved horribly addictive -- which I knew posed a risk in some ways greater than the surgery.

I am an addict, and have been my whole life. At the time of my surgery, I was 14 years clean and sober -- but addiction isn't something that goes away just because it's dormant. (There's a reason recovering alcoholics live by the dictum "one day at a time.") While the surgery had been a success, now my sobriety and, in a very real sense, my life were on the line. I elected to check in to the Hazelden Betty Ford Center Pain Management Program to help me get off the meds and to treat my pain.

At Betty Ford I discovered that, ironically, I was one of the fortunate few. My long history of addiction notwithstanding, the pills did not get their hooks into me all that deeply. Back in the halcyon (read: perpetually stoned) days of the '60s and '70s, I'd been exposed to drugs that functioned much the same as OxyContin and Percocet, but my drugs of choice were alcohol and later cocaine. Now, in 2015, I had little difficulty prying myself completely off the meds as my post-op recovery progressed. I never felt that irresistible gravitational pull that had nearly killed me many times over at the height of my destructive affair with alcohol and cocaine.

I was lucky. Many others I saw at Betty Ford were not. It was appalling to witness. One after another, I encountered a steady procession of fine, otherwise healthy people coming through the center who, unlike me, had never in their lives been addicts or alcoholics, good people who had done nothing but follow their doctors' orders and taken the meds they were prescribed to take—and as a result had now plunged off the cliff into addiction.

There are millions like them. The problem of prescription-induced addiction, I've come to learn, is at epidemic levels in the United States. In June a Time magazine cover story called it "the worst addiction crisis America has ever seen." Two months later, to my utter amazement, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of OxyContin for children 11 and older.

Ostensibly, the doctors prescribing these drugs are well-intentioned; they don't mean to create addicts. They simply don't have the education to know better. During their four years of medical school, doctors receive no more than an average of eight hours' training in addiction, according to a survey in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. The bitter irony here is that not only are these meds fiercely addictive, they also aren't an especially effective solution to the problem they're used to treat. Dr. Peter Przekop, director of pain management at the Betty Ford Center and one of the nation's leading authorities on pain management, says, "There is overwhelming evidence that opioids are not effective for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. Indeed, they have created a wealth of unwanted problems and suffering."

According to Przekop, research over the last two decades says chronic pain is a disease of the brain, and that adequate treatment that addresses the brain and mind, as opposed to simply attempting to dull the pain signal, can be accomplished with non-pharmacologic methods. "The time is long overdue," he says, "to create novel research-based treatment options." We need to do everything we can to support research into more effective approaches to chronic pain.

Meanwhile, we as a nation need to do a much better job of regulating these substances -- and our medical schools need to get serious about teaching our physicians the true, often life-shattering impact that opioids are having in people's lives. Millions of American are addicted to these opioids. More than 16,000 died from overdose in 2013 -- that's 44 a day, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It's a national tragedy -- one we can and must change.