a support network and the resources and skills necessary to help him successfully transition to independent adulthood. The government argued that courts generally do not impose a more lenient sentence because of a defendant’s troubled background. The court agrees with the premise of the government’s position — that family support and upbringing (whether good or bad) generally will not serve as the basis for altering a sentence — but this case presents a distinct inquiry for two reasons. First, the State of Alabama removed Terry from the custody of his parents and family and placed him in the state’s dependency system around the age of ten. When the State takes over a child’s parenting, which is a drastic step, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923) (<HOLDING>), it is not unreasonable to expect the State to
recognizing that pjarents have a fundamental liberty interest protected by both the florida and federal constitutions in determining the care and upbringing of their children recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children recognizing 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 recognizing liberty of parents  to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control as against law compelling publicschool attendance holding that a parents right to control a childs upbringing is a fundamental liberty interest under the fourteenth amendment