I have a half-sister who is three years older than me, and until the age of eleven my sister and I maintained a good relationship. My father had partial custody of her and would get her on every summer and some breaks in the school year. Even though my sister and I didn’t see each other as much as a regular brother and sister we still maintained a good relationship. However, on September 27, 2007 a horrible tragedy occurred and our dad died, and with his death came the loss of any sort of custody of my sister. When he died my sister’s mom gained full custody, and got complete control over whether or not my sister and I could see each other. My sister’s mom was a bitter woman and despised both me and my mom, so she decided to never let
…show more content…
Many people don 't want the legal system in their family life, and would much rather be able to handle these situations on their own with as little legal interference as possible. It is possible to say that in the ideal situation I just described, that rights are being taken away from my sister 's mom. Having the courts involved telling a parent what their children can do, or where the child could go could be seen as the court getting too into their personal life. The courts telling my sister 's mom how to parent her child could be an infringement on her rights as a mother. In a regular scenario, until the age of eighteen the parents of a child have the right to choose what they get to do and where they can go. In my proposed situation the courts would be interfering with the way my sister 's mom gets to parent her …show more content…
If taking away a parent 's right to be in complete control of the child 's life means that that child would be granted the right to see their sibling where they otherwise wouldn 't, I would consider that to be a case of the ends justifying the means. The right of siblings to see each other, even if it goes against the will of the their parents, is necessary. If it is necessary to not fulfill the will of ill-meaning parents so that children have the right to see their own their own sibling, then so be it. In my sister and I 's case it would have been necessary to have gone against my sister 's mom 's will for me to have seen her, and it would have been for the
Many people don 't want the legal system in their family life, and would much rather be able to handle these situations on their own with as little legal interference as possible. It is possible to say that in the ideal situation I just described, that rights are being taken away from my sister 's mom. Having the courts involved telling a parent what their children can do, or where the child could go could be seen as the court getting too into their personal life. The courts telling my sister 's mom how to parent her child could be an infringement on her rights as a mother. In a regular scenario, until the age of eighteen the parents of a child have the right to choose what they get to do and where they can go. In my proposed situation the courts would be interfering with the way my sister 's mom gets to parent her …show more content…
If taking away a parent 's right to be in complete control of the child 's life means that that child would be granted the right to see their sibling where they otherwise wouldn 't, I would consider that to be a case of the ends justifying the means. The right of siblings to see each other, even if it goes against the will of the their parents, is necessary. If it is necessary to not fulfill the will of ill-meaning parents so that children have the right to see their own their own sibling, then so be it. In my sister and I 's case it would have been necessary to have gone against my sister 's mom 's will for me to have seen her, and it would have been for the