Our Parental Rights

[Guest guest]

Has this been posted yet?

http://www.parentalrights.org/

Today the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is

approaching a possible ratification by the United States. This

treaty, harmless as it may appear, is capable of attacking the very

core of the child-parent relationship, removing parents from their

central role in the growth and development of a child, and replacing

them with the long arm of government supervision within the home.

WHAT IS THE UNCRC?The UNCRC is an international treaty focused on

promoting the rights of children and seeking to give children

priority in the implementation of governmental measures. The

Convention claims to offer a road map that will guide government

officials in the improvement of laws and policies, by defining which

rights the government should give to children.

A VEILED THREAT Since its introduction in 1989, the Convention has

been ratified by every nation in the world, except for the United

States and Somalia. The CRC was signed by President Clinton in 1995,

but early opposition in the Senate persuaded Clinton not to submit

the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

The Senators who opposed the CRC in 1995 believed that the Convention

marked a significant departure from the American concept of the

relationship between state and child, and was incompatible with the

right of parents to raise their children.

These concerns stem from the CRC's repeated emphasis on two

principles that should guide all decisions affecting children:

consideration of the " best interests of the child " and the

child's " evolving capacities. " These two principles are the " umbrella

principles underlining the exercise of all the rights in the

Convention. "

The following sections explain why these two principles will, if

implemented, jeopardize the vital role of parents within the American

family.

WHAT IS REALLY " BEST FOR THE CHILD " ? The " Best Interests of the Child "

Article 3 of the CRC states that " in all actions concerning children,

whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions,

courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the

best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. " Thus,

policies affecting children at all levels of society and government

should have the child's best interest as the primary concern.

The problem for families occurs when this principle surfaces as a

guiding principle for parents. Article 18(1) of the CRC states

that " Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the

primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the

child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern. "

A DEPARTURE FROM AMERICAN LAWBut the Convention's emphasis on

the " best interests " principle is a sharp break from American law. In

the 1993 case of Reno v. , the U.S. Supreme Court held

that " the 'best interests of the child' is not the legal standard

that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody. "

In the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck down a

grandparent visitation statute because decisions about the child were

made " solely on the judge's determination of the child's best

interests, " without regard to the wishes of the parent.

The Court's decisions in Reno and Troxel reflect a fundamental tenet

of American family law, which recognizes that parents typically act

in the best interests of their children. Indeed, " United States case

law is replete with examples of parents fighting for the best

interests of their children, " ranging from a child's right to an

education to the right of personal injury compensation.

Thus, except in cases where a parent has been proven to be " unfit, "

American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests

of the child, and defers to that parent's decision.

The Convention, in contrast, supplants this traditional presumption

in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.

A NEW LEVEL OF INTRUSIONAccording to Geraldine van Bueren, an

international scholar who assisted in the drafting of the CRC, the

language of " best interests provides decision and policy makers with

the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the

child's or the parents', providing it is based on considerations of

the best interests of the child. "

Instead of placing the burden of proof on the government to prove

that a parent is unfit, the Convention places the burden of proof on

those who claim that other interests are more important than the

state's characterization of the " best interest " of the child.

SILENCING A PARENT'S VOICEThe Child's " Evolving Capacities "

The Convention also explains that the decisions of judges and parents

alike should take into account the child's " evolving capacities. " The

Convention recognizes that the ability of the child to exercise his

or her individual rights is often dependent on the child's capacity

in light of his or her age and maturity – in other words, sixteen-

year olds should be viewed differently in the eyes of the law than

four-year olds.

This principle is based on the idea that as children mature, their

capacity for decision-making and participation in adult activity

grows, but capacity and maturity vary drastically from individual to

individual, and the Convention does not offer any standard for how

the " evolving capacities " of the child should be measured. Because

the Convention requires that courts hear the voices and opinions of

children in all matters affecting them, judges will have no choice

but to create their own standards in order to give the

child's " evolving capacities " the respect mandated by the Convention.

Thus, the Convention's command to respect the " evolving capacities "

of the child rejects the time-proven concept that parents are the

most effective advocates of the child's interests and best understand

the maturity and abilities of their children. With one swift move,

the treaty cuts parents out of the equation.

Yet in Troxel, the U.S. Supreme Court thoroughly rejected the notion

that government officers were more qualified than parents in

determining the needs of their children. As Justice Souter noted in

Troxel, the choices of parents cannot be overridden " merely because

the judge might think himself more enlightened than the child's

parent. "

THE APPROACHING STORMThis danger to the American family may not seem

imminent—but it is. Even if the UNCRC is not ratified, the dangers it

contains could soon become reality for millions of parents.

Under the traditional principles of international law, a treaty may

only obligate a nation which has ratified its provisions. But today a

growing coalition of international jurists and legal scholars are

challenging the necessity of ratification before implementation,

citing a complex legal doctrine known as customary international law.

In contrast to international treaties, where a specific document is

drafted, signed, and ratified, customary international law is an

unwritten law, " comprised of the customs and usages among nations of

the world. "

Through customary international law many of the key provisions of the

UNCRC could easily be applied to insert the long arm of government

intrusion into millions of American families—simply because this

treaty is being ratified by governments around the world.

AN ASSAULT ON THE FAMILY The two core principles of the CRC –

the " best interests of the child " and the child's " evolving

capacities " –pose a significant danger to the American family by

fundamentally changing the role of the government in the lives of our

children. All decisions affecting the child—even those made by the

child's parents—are now suspect and can be overruled if they do not

satisfy these two principles.

Such a standard runs completely contrary to the Supreme Court's

declaration in Troxel that the Constitution protects " the fundamental

right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and

control of their children, " and sets the stage for state intervention

in intact families.