ParentalRights.org » Blog

An In-depth Look at Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

During our e-mail series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a constant theme has been the recurring intervention of government power in the relationship between children and their parents. Broad discretion for the state is particularly prevalent in the Convention’s “freedom” provisions, which guarantee choices to children when it comes to expression, information, religion, and association.

Perhaps the most troubling of these “freedom” provisions is article 16, which stipulates that “no child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence.” More so than any other section of the Convention, article 16 invokes the power of the government in ways previously unseen and untested in America’s legal and political history.

Paradigm Shift

The key to understanding article 16 is found in its absolute language: no child is to have his or her right to privacy violated. According to American law professor Cynthia Price Cohen, article 16 “uses the strongest obligatory language in the human rights lexicon to protect the child’s privacy rights.” Read the rest of this entry »

Is separating 416 children from their mothers to place them into foster care a good idea - ever? Dr. Phil doesn’t think so. A few quick statistics on the foster care system can erase any notion that these children could have a normal, healthy life once separated from their mothers. Clearly, the polygamy sect puts authorities in a difficult situation. But separating hundreds of children from their mothers and purposefully sending them into a such a potentially turbulent existence - which will likely land the majority of them on the street or in prison - is enough to make any concerned citizen think twice.

King: Let’s turn to the polygamy matter. If the allegations of abuse are true, do you see any problem with all of these children in foster care? Watch Dr. Phil talk with Larry King about the removal of the FLDS children »

McGraw: I see huge problems with it, Larry. Read the rest of this entry »

An In-Depth Look at Article 14 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

This week, we continue our series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child with Article 14, which says that the government shall “respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” and shall also “respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.”

Proponents of the CRC, such as law professor Jonathan Todres, has commented that Article 14 “provides for the role of parents in teaching religion to their children, while ensuring that the government does not impose restrictions on any child’s right to freedom of religion.” Nevertheless, a deeper understanding of this provision reveals that the purportedly “pro-parent” language is really another avenue for government power, not a shield to protect parental rights. Read the rest of this entry »

Updated with another video.

Updated with video.

Tenured University of Michigan classical archeology professor, Christopher Ratte, took his 7-year-old son to a Tigers baseball game at Comerica Park in Detroit, Michigan. He ordered a drink for himself and what he thought was a lemonade for his son. The reality was he had ordered a Mike’s Hard Lemonade, which is an alcoholic drink for his young son. Ratte said that he didn’t even know that there was such a thing as alcoholic lemonade. Check out this photo of a sign of the drinks menu.

A security guard witnessed the boy drinking it and the eventual result was this young boy spending three days and two nights in foster care. Before you jump to conclusions please read the details about this case below.

Read the rest of this entry »

The following article by ParentalRights.org board member Michael Smith originally appeared in the Washington Times on April 28, 2008. It can be read at the Washington Times website here.

It’s often said that California is a trendsetter. Ideas that begin in California have a habit of making their way across the country.

Currently, many families have been alarmed at the recent California Court of Appeal ruling that prohibits homeschooling unless the parent is a certified teacher.

In just 10 days, more than 250,000 people signed the Home School Legal Defense Association petition opposing this decision. Not all these families were homeschoolers. James Dobson of Focus on the Family says the ruling was an “all-out assault on the family.”

The good news is that the Court of Appeal has granted a request for a rehearing of its decision on homeschooling, which by law, automatically vacates the decision, meaning it’s no longer binding.

The court has solicited a number of public school establishment organizations to submit amicus briefs, including the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, the California Department of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and three California teachers unions.

Although there is no guarantee the outcome will be different after the rehearing, The homeschool community welcomes the opportunity to file an amicus brief advocating that the court retain the current method of homeschooling in California through the private school exemption.

Just when things seemed to be settling down in California, on April 3, Assembly Bill 2943 was introduced by assembly member Sally Lieber. This bill would have the practical effect of making a noninjurious spanking with an object such as a ruler, folded newspaper or small paddle illegal in California. The bill is identical to Assembly Bill 755, which failed to pass the assembly last year. Read the rest of this entry »

Implicit or explicit in the arguments of greater government intrusion in families is that we can’t trust parents (e.g. the debate over homeschooling in California). Never said but always implicit in those arguments is that government can always be trusted with children without check.

When anyone says that we should abandon the fundamental right of parents in favor of the “best interest of the child” they are saying that parents cannot be trusted and government can.

Those of us that support the parental rights doctrine say that the presumption of trust should be with the parents. As a society we have always presumed that parents love their children and want what is best for them. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said in the Parham v. J.R. (1979) opinion:

The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.

…

The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.

I love that line, “repugnant to American tradition.” Speaking of repugnant to the American tradition, check out this video that highlighs the sad tale of government power intruding into the family: Read the rest of this entry »

Part II of an In-depth Look at Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

In an age where information is becoming easier to access every day, children face new and uncharted risks. Our American heritage has long honored the right of parents to direct their child’s access to information, recognizing that in the vast majority of circumstances, parents are best situated to monitor their child’s activities and to provide necessary guidance during the transition from childhood to adulthood. Unfortunately, this vital role is being undermined by the rising tide of international thought, far removed from our own tradition and championed by international agreements like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Read the rest of this entry »

Part I of an In-depth Look at Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

This week, we continue our series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by considering Article 13, which states that “the child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.”

The crux of this article is the child’s “right to information.” Children access information through what they are taught and what they discover on their own. This week, we will consider the Convention’s implications on what children are taught.
Read the rest of this entry »

This short promo can be used at events or a coffee in your home. Check it out below here and download a high quality version for showing at your event here.