FAMILYrnLicensing Parentsrnby Christopher CheckrnL icensing Parents, a new book by Universityrnof Wisconsin psychiatristrnJack C. Westman, bewails a recent surgernin “incompetent parenting,” a phenomenonrnwhich he defines as deprivingrna child not only of sufficient food, clothing,rnand shelter, but also of “affectionaternholding, touching and talking,” all thernwhile displaying an “insensitivity to arnchild’s initiatives and reactions.” Thernresult? An unacceptable number of miserablernAmerican children who, on reachingrnadulthood, spend their lives makingrnthe rest of us miserable. But Dr. Westman,rn”an esteemed child advocate,” hasrna solution: national “parenting” standardsrnand licenses only for those whornmeasure up. Sweeping as it is, his planrndoes not outline a policy on license renewalrnand fails to include provisions.rnNor does his plan provide for curbingrnprocreation by the unworthy.rnDr. Westman’s plan is an idea whoserntime has come. But before we take uprnthe question of licensing parents, wernshould look into the credentials of peoplernlike Jack C. Westman, for presumablyrnit is they who will hold the licenses.rnAn army of professional life-repairers hasrndescended upon us—therapists, psychiatrists,rnsocial workers, counselors, etrnal.—brandishing certificates that arernworth as much as the diploma conferredrnupon the Scarecrow by the Wizard ofrnOz. Who are they, really?rnMany if not most “substance abuse”rncounselors proclaim that they are theirrnown trade’s best customers. Today’s 12-rnstep counselors (pick your addiction) arernyesterday’s addicts. Of course, if theyrnhad reallv stopped being addicts, theyrnwould not remain in a state of perpetualrntherapy. The social workers who performrnhostile takeovers of poor familiesrnare not always models of correctness, ArnMassachusetts social worker recentlyrnapplied his cutting and pasting skills tornjoin the photographed head of his 61-rnvear-old female colleague to the photographedrnbody of a woman of fewerrnyears (and fewer clothes) whose posernimplied the phallic utility of a certainrntropical fruit. Even Ellen Goodmanrnwas shocked, wondering how anyonern”trained in the human skills” couldrnbehave so badly.rnFor all we know, Jack Westman mayrnbe a fine family man, gracefully agingrnwith his first wife; but does not thern”public’s right to know” and the principlernof “truth in labeling” demand thatrnwe err on the side of caution and requirerncomplete disclosure of all who presumernto treat our ills and reform our conduct?rnHow many counselors are divorced, howrnmany psychiatrists abuse drugs, seducernpatients, or commit suicide?rnAmerica’s most famous marriagerncounselors, for example, twins Ann andrnAbbey, are themselves veterans of divorce,rnand the duchess of beautiful living,rnAlexandra Stoddard, whose formularnfor happiness comprises equal parts ofrnparchment, silk, and humanism is alsornenjoying her second go-around. Thernrecord, however, may be held by radiorntalk show shrink Barbara De Angelis,rnwho is on her fifth husband; her qualificationsrnas a marriage counselor apparentlyrnincrease with each matrimonial experience.rnIs it just the superstar shrinks whosernmarriages wither under the gaze of thernpublic eye? Well, no. The rates of divorcernare uncommonly high among evenrnthe average purveyors of social “medicine.”rnAnd indeed, high rates of divorcerntell only part of the story. Witness thernrecent report that a large number of IllinoisrnDCFS workers are themselvesrndelinquent on their child support payments.rnWho will counsel the counselorsrnor license the licensers?rnIn times past we had a system of licensingrnparents, and the licenser wasrnDad. In the Christian era, it is true, thernChurch protected a girl from marryingrnagainst her will, but on the other hand, arnmarriage without the consent of thernbride’s father was uncommon, if notrninvalid. In more recent times, even afterrnthe father’s blessing was relegated to thernstatus of something nice to have, thernChurch made every effort to marry couplesrnsingularly committed not only tornlifelong unity but to rearing as Christiansrnall the children that God mightrnsend. The hoops, for example, that anrninterfaith couple of a generation agornwere forced to jump through bear witnessrnto how seriously the Church viewedrnits responsibility not only to get the rightrnpeople together but to keep the wrongrnpeople apart. The rights of parents,rnalong with the Church’s scrutiny, havernbeen replaced by therapeutic handholding.rnHaving ourselves exiled fathers andrnthe Church, however, we have no rightrnto take offense at what has crawled in tornfill the void. And as long as we are numbrnand happy in our delusion, we will notrnhave to read “failure to form the soul ofrnone’s child” among Dr. Westman’s listrnof childrearing sins. Measured by this,rnthe only real “parenting” standard, manyrnmore American children are consignedrnto misery than Dr. Westman’s statisticsrnsuggest.rnChristopher Check is the associate editorrnof The Family in America, a pubhcationrnof The Rockford Institute.rnFKnNIST PARADOXrn”I think I understand u-hat you’rernlike now. You’re %’eiy beautiful andrntliink iiien arc only interested in raurnbecause vou’rc heautihil. But yournwant thi;m to be interested in yournbecause jou’te jou. The problem is,rnaside from all that beauty, you’re notrnvtTv inteiesliug, you’re rude, jou’rcrniiostile, uiu’rc sullen, you’re withdrawnrn1 Invw, you w.mt someone tornlook past all that, at the real personrnundLrneath But tlie onlv reasonrntli.jt .myoiK- would bother to lookrnpast all lliat is because ou’ie bciulifuirnlionic, isn’t it? In an odd way,rnsou’rc i)ur own problem.”rn—jack u hokou tornhdielle Pfe’tf””””rnMike Swhoh’filmrnWolf i’J994)rnMAY 1995/55rnrnrn