W. Va. High Court on Placing Children with Amish Foster Families

From Thursday's decision in In re M.B. (written by Chief Justice William Wooton):

The petitioner ("the petitioner") is the guardian ad litem of M.B., a two-year-old child who has been in the continuous care of the … foster parents … since shortly after his birth. The petitioner appeals from the February 29, 2024, order entered by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, denying her motion to remove M.B. from the foster parents' home, arguing that because his placement in the home cannot lead to permanency, i.e., adoption, it would be in his best interest to be placed with another family that can offer him permanency.

The petitioner offers several bases for her contention that the foster placement here cannot lead to permanent placement. First, the petitioner contends that the foster parents, being members of an Old Order Amish community, would restrict M.B.'s formal education to grades one through eight and thus deprive him of his constitutional right to a thorough and efficient education. The petitioner also argues that remaining with Amish foster parents would not be in M.B.'s best interests because he would not have regular pediatric checkups, would not be vaccinated, would not be exposed to technology, and would not learn to drive. Finally, the petitioner suggests that M.B.'s adoption into the Amish community is problematic, at best, in that the community might not welcome a biracial child.

The respondent, the West Virginia Department of Human Services, and the foster parents, argue that to the contrary, it is in M.B.'s best interests to remain in what all parties acknowledge to be a loving home with the foster parents and his three siblings, who are part of the family unit…. [W]e affirm the circuit court's denial of the petitioner's motion to remove M.B. from the foster parents' home….

[A.] M.B.'s Right to Formal Education Past the Eighth Grade

We begin by recognizing that this issue is unique: whereas the relevant precedents guiding our consideration all involve the right of parents to the free exercise of their religion versus the interest of a state in establishing and enforcing educational standards, this case involves the right of a child to receive an education that meets this State's educational standards. In this regard, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged this distinction in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), noting that

[t]he dissent argues that a child who expresses a desire to attend public high school in conflict with the wishes of his parents should not be prevented from doing so. There is no reason for the Court to consider that point since it is not an issue in the case. The children are not parties to this litigation. The State has at no point tried this case on the theory that respondents were preventing their children from attending school against their expressed desires[.]

In contrast, here the petitioner, M.B.'s guardian ad litem, acting on his behalf, is a party to this appeal and advocates for what she claims to be his … statutory right to a high school education….

Thus, we turn to the petitioner's statutory claims, which first requires us to examine the FCBR [Foster Child Bill of Rights] …:

(a) Foster children and children in a kinship placement are active and participating members of the child welfare system and have the following rights:

(1) The right to live in a safe and healthy environment, and the least restrictive environment possible;

(2) The right to be free from physical, sexual, or psychological abuse or exploitation including being free from unwarranted physical restraint and isolation.

(3) The right to receive adequate and healthy food, appropriate and seasonally necessary clothing, and an appropriate travel bag;

(4) The right to receive medical, dental, and vision care, mental health services, and substance use treatment services, as needed;

(5) The right to be placed in a kinship placement, when such placement meets the objectives set forth in this article;

(6) The right, when placed with a foster of kinship family, to be matched as closely as possible with a family meeting the child's needs, including, when possible, the ability to remain with siblings;

(7) The right, as appropriate to the child's age and development, to be informed on any medication or chemical substance to be administered to the child;

(8) The right to communicate privately, with caseworkers, guardians ad litem, attorneys, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), the prosecuting attorney, and probation officers;

(9) The right to have and maintain contact with siblings as may be reasonably accommodated, unless prohibited by court order, the case plan, or other extenuating circumstances;

(10) The right to contact the department or the foster care ombudsman, regarding violations of rights, to speak to representatives of these offices confidentially, and to be free from threats, retaliation, or punishment for making complaints;

(11) The right to maintain contact with all previous caregivers and other important adults in his or her life, if desired, unless prohibited by court order or determined by the parent, according to the reasonable and prudent parent standard, not to be in the best interests of the child;

(12) The right to participate in religious services and religious activities of his or her choice to the extent possible;

(13) The right to attend school, and, consistent with the finances and schedule of the foster or kinship family, to participate in extracurricular, cultural, and personal enrichment activities, as appropriate to the child's age and developmental level;

(14) The right to work and develop job skills in a way that is consistent with the child's age and developmental level;

(15) The right to attend Independent Living Program classes and activities if the child meets the age requirements;

(16) The right to attend court hearings and speak directly to the judge, in the court's discretion;

(17) The right not to be subjected to discrimination or harassment;

(18) The right to have access to information regarding available educational options;

(19) The right to receive a copy of, and receive an explanation of, the rights set forth in this section from the child's guardian ad litem, caseworker, and attorney;

(20) The right to receive care consistent with the reasonable and prudent foster parent standard; and

(21) The right to meet with the child's department case worker no less frequently than every 30 days.

Focusing on subsections (a)(13) and (18) of the FCBR, the petitioner argues that M.B.'s continued placement with Amish foster parents will deprive him of his statutory right to attend school—specifically, high school—and his right of access to information about available educational options, thus mandating his removal from the foster parents' home. We disagree. The petitioner appears to view each and every provision of the FCBR as mandatory, i.e., one strike and you're out. However, our precedents make clear that with the exception of subsections (a)(1), (2), and (3), the provisions of the FCBR constitute an interwoven set of factors to be considered and weighed in making a determination of whether a foster child's placement is in his or her best interests….

[B.] M.B.'s Right to Medical Care and Vaccinations

The petitioner next alleges that pursuant to the FCBR, M.B. has a right to medical care—care that he will not receive because the foster father testified that the Amish community does not have a doctor, that children are taken to the doctor only in situations where home health remedies are clearly inadequate, and that community members do not routinely vaccinate their children. We reject this claim both on legal and factual grounds.

First, as discussed supra …, an allegation that the placement of a child will result in a deprivation of a right enumerated in subsections (a)(4) through (21) of the FCBR does not, in and of itself, mandate removal from the placement; rather, the facts and circumstances are to be considered and weighed by the circuit court together with all other facts and circumstances supporting, or not supporting, the placement.

Second, the facts of this case simply do not support the petitioner's allegations that M.B. has been or will be denied medical care. The evidence of record shows that the foster parents have scrupulously abided by all of the DHS's requirements, taking M.B. for regular medical checkups, having him vaccinated, taking him to a specialist for treatment and a surgical procedure to correct bilateral hydronephrosis, and giving him all prescribed medications therefor. Further, the undisputed testimony of the foster father was that he and the foster mother would continue to seek medical care for the child when necessary and would consider additional vaccinations if they had reason to believe that those vaccinations would be efficacious.

Third, the petitioner points to no statutes or case law supporting her claim that "medical care," as the term is used in West Virginia Code section 49-2-126(a)(4), mandates regularly scheduled preventative medical checkups for children and/or vaccinations for children who will not be attending public school….

[T]he circuit court considered and weighed all of the evidence presented and concluded that placement with the foster parents would not result in the denial of M.B.'s right to medical care. Again, the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are amply supported by the evidence of record, and we therefore will not disturb the court's ruling.

[C.] M.B.'s Placement With a White Family …

In his testimony, the foster father acknowledged that the foster parents had expressed a preference for White children but explained that they did so out of a concern that the Amish community might not accept children of another race, a concern which proved to be wholly unfounded. {The foster father testified that the community had been completely accepting of, and welcoming to, all four of the children.} The foster father further testified that if this ever changed, i.e., if the community became less accepting or welcoming as time went on, the family would move to another community. Finally, notwithstanding any initial hesitation they may have had, the fact is that the foster parents went ahead and welcomed four mixed-race children into their home, have adopted three of them, and hope to adopt M.B. as well.

We reject any suggestion by the petitioner that the foster parents' initial stated preference for a White child should somehow disqualify them from providing a home for children of other races or ethnicities, or that they in any way have denied M.B. a safe and healthy environment. The evidence in this case is undisputed that the foster parents have provided M.B. and his sisters with what the special commissioner characterized as a "loving and spiritual" home….

Each of the other four Justices on the five-Justice court wrote separate concurrences. Justice Thomas Ewing's and Justice Haley Bunn's concurrences stressed the importance of keeping the child with (to quote Justice Bunn) "the only family he has ever known." Senior Justice John Hutchison's concurrence likewise took a similar approach: "There was no showing by anyone establishing that it was in M.B.'s best interest to remove him from his foster home or that any of the other statutory requirements … were present."

Justice Charles Trump's concurrence stressed that Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) was irrelevant here:

In holding that Wisconsin could not compel Amish parents to send their children to school beyond the eighth grade, the Supreme Court [in Yoder] made clear that its decision was based on the combination of the parents' free exercise rights … with the parents' [substantive] due process rights …. The case before us does not involve parental due process rights. Rather, the circuit court was tasked with deciding whether M.B. should remain in a foster placement with his foster parents who, like the parents in Yoder, also happen to be Amish…. Yoder involved a state's attempt to regulate the choices that parents may make concerning their own children's education; the case in front of us does not….

[F]oster parents do not have parental due process rights, such as the right "to direct the religious upbringing" of foster children whom the State places in their care. Foster children remain in the legal custody of the DHS while they are in a foster placement, and the rights and duties of the foster parents are contractually defined in an agreement between the foster parents and the DHS….

Wyclif Farquharson represents the state and Aimee N. Goddard (Legal Aid of West Virginia) represents intervenors.

 

Comments

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Sounds like the guardian ad litem is the real bigot here, and needs to check his privilege.

[Rossami]

I used a cruder word than "bigot" for the GAL.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I was trying to change my S to Subtle, but I guess that was too S for MollyGodiva.

[MollyGodiva]

You think vaccines and high school are a "privilege"?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You think you understand how that word was used? You need a new sarcasm meter.

[Swede425]

LOL!
"The Amish don't like the darkies" is a hell of a take.

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, the family itself expressed that concern initially.

[TwelveInchPianist]

They're Amish. They can say it.

[Internet sloth]

They're probably more concerned about the social impact on the Amish community. They might find out more about themselves than they want to know.

[wvattorney13]

If taken to its logical conclusion the State could remove ANY children from the care of an Amish family because they are being abused and/or neglected by not having vaccinations, high school, exposed to an allegedly racist comment, etc.

It also highlights why there are not enough foster parents. You want to do the right thing and care for unwanted kids? Brace yourself, the State will drag you through the mud.

[MollyGodiva]

No, because the law in question is limited to foster children.

[not guilty]

"If taken to its logical conclusion the State could remove ANY children from the care of an Amish family because they are being abused and/or neglected by not having vaccinations, high school, exposed to an allegedly racist comment, etc."

Uh, no. Unlike the parent-child relationship, foster parenting is not a fundamental constitutional right. Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000), summarized the relevant authorities:

The liberty interest at issue in this case-the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923), we held that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925), we again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." We explained in Pierce that "[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." Id., at 535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Id., at 166.

In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'" (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 753 (1982) (discussing "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child"); [Washington v.] Glucksberg, [521 U. S. 702,] 720 [(1997)] ("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ[t] ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce)). In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.

SCOTUS relied upon this fundamental right in setting aside criminal convictions of members of the Old Order Amish religion and the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church for violating Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law (which requires a child's school attendance until age 16) by declining to send their children to public or private school after they had graduated from the eighth grade. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

[wvattorney13]

I have practiced in this area before. The line that "parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children..." is filler. It is a throwaway line that is cited before moving on to the latest outrageous destruction of the right.

Right after that line you get the disclaimer that the right is not unlimited and that the best interests of the child are paramount in these situations. Then a description of the parental right at issue, the listing of the bad things that will happen to the child if the parent's belief controls, and then a conclusion that in this "limited" circumstance the child wins the contest.

As I said before, the only time this line ever has legal weight is when a judge subjectively agrees with what the parent is doing.

[Krychek_2]

I find this a difficult issue because it is about where the line is to be drawn and not whether the line exists. I think we would all agree there are some lines a parent may not cross. They may not pimp out their minor children as prostitutes. They may not introduce their children to crack cocaine. They may not discipline a child by breaking his arm. The easy cases are the easy cases.

But there's a whole long list of other issues in which children really are being harmed but not to the immediate extent in the examples I gave. A child whose diet consists of ice cream for breakfast, 4 donuts for lunch, and half a chocolate cake for supper, and who develops diabetes, heart disease, and morbid obesity before age 35 as a result, has certainly been harmed, but is that the kind of harm in which the state should intervene? What about the child who is raised to be a white supremacist? That carries First Amendment implications, but I don't see how one could argue that the child -- and society -- aren't being harmed in the process.

So again, that line is there; I'm just not sure there's any objective way to draw it.

[wvattorney13]

This is certainly running throughout all of the cases. The extremes are not hard to police.

I have seen a shift in the last couple of decades. What used to be chalked up to parental choice is more and more categorized as abuse that the government should police. And the playbook has reflected that.

Make no mistake that the government, under current jurisprudence, can find any of us abusive and neglectful parents, and terminate our parental rights. That is despite the flowing language about fundamental rights.

[Krychek_2]

It's because Americans seem wholly incapable of doing things in moderation. At one time we had the extreme where the state would not protect children at all; as a practical matter they were the chattel property of their parents. We've now gone from that extreme to the other extreme of courts siding with social workers whenever there's a dispute between a parent and a social worker. That there might be a happy medium between those two extremes doesn't seem to occur to anyone. And this is far from the only field in which we govern by extremes.

[Armchair]

"So again, that line is there; I'm just not sure there's any objective way to draw it."

Except we have...the first 3 "easy" cases are illegal. Not just for parents. For anyone. The latter two cases are not illegal.

The "line" has been drawn. Certain items are illegal, no matter who is involved. Others aren't.

[wvattorney13]

It does not follow that because a parent is not violating a criminal law that his act cannot still be considered abuse and/or neglect of a child.

If you scream at your wife all day and call her a worthless whore you likely aren't violating a law. If you do it in front of the kids, you will get a visit from CPS.

[David Nieporent]

Rather bizarre that the govt placed the kids with this family in the first place. Unless the GAL is just going completely rogue here, they knew all of those things going in; they didn't suddenly discover the family was Amish.

[JimM47]

According to the opinion, the same family had adopted the child's three older siblings. So it was a relative placement, so to speak.

I suppose that only refers the question back one step: why was this the placement for the older siblings? We don't know. There could have been some other connection.

The court quotes someone saying that the placement was made “under the erroneous impression that the [foster parents] were relatives,” but the court also says it doesn't know if that is correct. So, maybe they actually were relatives.

[David Nieporent]

Ok; you did more research than I did. Thanks.

[wvattorney13]

I would guess that those were different cases with a different GAL who didn't have the same anti-Amish zeal.

[JimM47]

Also, it looks like the GAL did almost immediately object.

Child was placed on June 1, 2023. GAL objected on September 12, 2023. The trial court didn't hear it until January 31, 2024, and didn't make its decision until February 29, 2024. The appeal wasn't submitted until October 22, 2025.

That's a long timeline. And it's a strong disincentive to second-guessing the placement after the child has been in a single family for almost 2 and a half years.

[wvattorney13]

"And it's a strong disincentive to second-guessing the placement after the child has been in a single family for almost 2 and a half years."

This is what kills any appeal in this line of cases. Sure, the lower court may have been wrong, but you want us to throw a bomb into this kid's life? Judgment affirmed.

[Bubba Jones]

Thanks.

This explains why there was an objection about vaccines, even though the child had been vaccinated.

Things happened out of order.

It's complete speculation on my part, but I wonder if the kid would have been vaccinated without the ongoing proceedings.

Either way, sounds like a win win.

[gormadoc]

The child was placed immediately after birth in May, the June date is when proceedings were began against the bio parents.

[Ken Arromdee]

>would consider additional vaccinations if they had reason to believe that those vaccinations would be efficacious.

This is a loophole that's a mile wide. If they didn't want to vaccinate the child, they'd just say "we don't consider any vaccinations to be efficacious".

And people's attitude towards the Amish is excessively positive. Not going to high school and avoiding technology is a bad thing and massively affects someone's life. (And it's too bad that nobody at the hearing brought up the Amish attitude towards gays and lesbians.) If the Amish started today instead of a long time ago, we'd consider them a cult.

[Drewski]

This is all true but it's better for foster kids to have permanent placements as long as they aren't actively being abused. In a utopian society, we'd select the very best foster parents we can imagine. On the ground we just need enough parents that aren't beating, fucking, financially exploiting, or ignoring the kids.

[Swede425]

They built my cabin so I admit I have some positive bias towards them.
That being said, they can read, write, do arithmetic, speak English, farm, build, raise and butcher animals, and run successful businesses. All without the benefit of a high school education. My guess is that they don't find social studies useful. How many people that graduate from a high school have actual, useful skills like that?
Less and less, it appears.

[Incunabulum]

Ask Ken how many people *with* high school educations can read, write, do arithmetic, speak English, or even hold down a minimum wage job.

[wvattorney13]

I will agree with you insofar as that we don't get to the Yoder decision without judges having a subjectively positive view of the Amish lifestyle and traditions. If you scrub that, if it was any group other than the Amish, you don't get that opinion or possibly not the opinion in this case.

I think that is a bad way to structural a judicial opinion. It sows the seeds for its own demise.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Not going to high school and avoiding technology is a bad thing"

That's just your opinion. Amish live productive, useful lives.

[M L]

Yes, the lack of technology and education must be why you see all these Amish folks on drugs, committing crimes, loitering around the welfare office, etc. Dregs of society!

[Drewski]

The Amish commit crime at a similar rate as people in other rural US communities - which is to say, a higher rate than people who live in cities but with less violent crime and drugs and more property crime and drunk driving. Amish in particular have an alarmingly high rate of violent sex crimes, however.

[David Nieporent]

More drunk buggy riding, though.

[Incunabulum]

>Not going to high school and avoiding technology is a bad thing and massively affects someone's life.

1. So the school shootings, drug use, and poor education coupled with crippling social media addiction are *good things*?

2. Avoiding technology massively affects someone's life? No shit - that is *the whole point of being Amish!!!!!*

[TwelveInchPianist]

And we know they have workarounds for technology.

[MollyGodiva]

This decision was wrong. We normally see courts rule for the rights of the parents over the rights of the children, but in this case they are placing the rights of unrelated adults over the rights of the children. This kid will be permanently disadvantaged for their entire life because they will be denied a proper education. The state is doing this to the kid knowingly and willingly. This could have been easily mitigated by ordering the foster parents to vaccinate the kid and ensuring they go to high school.

The kid is a ward of the state and the state is screwing them over.

[David Nieporent]

This could have been easily mitigated by ordering the foster parents to vaccinate the kid and ensuring they go to high school.

The kid is two years old. I think addressing high school might be a bit premature.

We normally see courts rule for the rights of the parents over the rights of the children, but in this case they are placing the rights of unrelated adults over the rights of the children.

They are not. There is no issue presented about the rights of the child here.

[MollyGodiva]

Did you miss the long discussion about the Foster Child Bill of Rights and that the child is a party to this proceeding?

[David Nieporent]

The child is a party because the GAL brought the proceeding. But the court did not rule in any way about the rights of the parents overcoming the rights of the child here. They did not say that the parents' rights were being violated, and they did not rule what the parents could do, or not do, for or with the child. There was no ruling, e.g., that the child did not need to attend high school; that was not at issue. They ruled that the interests of the child were to stay in the only home he has ever known, which appears to be safe and loving, rather than being prophylactically removed because of the GAL's prejudices about Amish people.

[wvattorney13]

The child is two. By the time that vaccines would be otherwise monitored by the state, it would be at age five and only if the child goes to public schools. High school starts at age 14.

Foster care is not forever. The child would be adopted by this family then. The family would have the parental rights as in Yoder. Therefore any fear of violating the child's foster care "rights" are not ripe and will be a moot controversy when it happens.

That is the reason for my comments above. If this is so bad, it makes little sense to hold that parents have a right to do terrible things to their kids. Children in foster care don't get special treatment, or at least they shouldn't. You go down this road, then it makes complete sense to simply rule that parents who do this to their children are not "fit" and throw them into the system.

[ReaderY]

This case is purely a one of state statutory with none of the juicy constitutional issues Professor Volokh likes to bite into.

At the same time, the court here managed to avoid such issues by a rather remarkable interpretative strategem, giving the legislature’s “bill of rights” statute what might be called a Ferengi interpretation.

In Season 4, Episode 9 of Deep Space 9 (“Body Parts”), Quark, believing he has a terminal disease, signs a contract to sell his remains for 500 bars of latinum. He later learns the medical test was in error. The buyer, who turns out to be an old adversary, demands performance and cites the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. A contract is a contract, and a contract must be performed on. Quark discusses methods of killing himself.

That night Gint, the first Grand Nagus of the Ferengi and author of the Rules, appears to Quark in a dream and tells him that he called his work the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition as a marketing ploy. Would anybody buy his book if he had been honest and called them suggestions?

The Supreme Court of West Virginia appears to be taking a similar approach to its Bill of Rights for foster children. It was all a marketing ploy. They are in fact suggestions, and not rules at all.

[wvattorney13]

The lower court ruled that Yoder prevented it from removing the child. It held that as the foster children bill of rights conflicted with the Constitution, it had to yield in this instance.

The Supreme Court was having none of that and deftly punted. It didn't exactly pin the ball inside the 10 for the reasons you note, but it ducked having a cultural war ruling.

[MollyGodiva]

Yup, The court danced around the child's rights to come up with the conclusion that the rights are not really rights, just suggestions.

[tuphat]

If I finish all of my chores, and you finish thine
Then tonight, we're gonna party like it's 1699
"Amish Paradise"

[NvEric]

Shocking !
The poor child will not grow up speaking Black English if he remains with the Amish. He'll never know the taste of soul food. These are serious concerns. Maybe he should attend a Mosque too, just to be on the safe side.

'The right to be placed in a kinship placement' might be important and I would be concerned too. However, the rest of the arguments fail somewhat. But then, is there a standard, All-Satisfactory way to foster parent foster children ? The guidelines above are given and will be followed, I assume, and as they are guidelines, they are concerns to addressed as time goes by depending on the situations encountered. If this 'kinship placement' issue is important, then what is the solution ?

Kinship or conditions of the original parents ? What then is the Kinship of this child in question ? Or is this question of 'kinship' obscured by facts not in evidence ? Is it the desire of the guardian to raise the child a certain way ? To that there may be some merit. However, whose concerns have the greater weight, society or the child ? Neither as they must be equal. Equality is a foundation upon we rest our whole on to balance and reach an equitable outcome.