ParentalRights.org » Blog

What gets me is that this is even an option?? who in their right minds wouls be ok with this? do they have children? Come on people we must get off our rumps and deal with this in unity!

The God given right of a good parent is to be an authority over their kids. That is what these people are attacking. They are fighting against it because it is from God, and they don’t like that!

Well, I happen to believe that too extensive parental rights actually can be severely harmful to some children.

Don’t get me wrong: parents are invaluable in the upbringing of children.

But look at the results too extensive parental powers could have:

-a parent could force a teenager to leave school, even though the teenager wanted to continue his/her education and had college ambitions, in order for the child to work full-time so the parent could spend all the childs earnings on him/herself.

-a parent could force a teenage daughter to have an abortion, even though the daughter morally was against abortions and/or really wanted to have the child, and possibly would live her whole life with the sorrow of loosing (killing?) her child.

I am sure there are heaps of other examples that parental powers can harm children. (medical consent for example)

Why is it presumed that every parent always act in the best interest of their children? That is clearly not the case.

Most parents do many good things for their children. But even the best parents make mistakes. Most parents make many mistakes. Some parents are really bad parents even though they are not neglectful or abusive.

Parenthood does not necessarily open the door to wisdom. Nor do the parents have magical powers to understand what is best for the child even though they may be the persons most concerned about the child’s well-being. Even this might not always be the case.

In a civil society, one needs to put limits on what a person can do to another person. This is also true when it comes to a parent (one person) and a child (another person.)

We also need to look at parental rights as a dwindling right that diminishes as the child matures. Children as they develop will be able to make more and more of their own decisions. Minors are not one group of incompetent people. A 16 and 17-year old must necessarily be competent to make most of their own decisions, if they in a few months will be presumed to be able to make all of their own decisions. Nothing magically happens on the 18th birthday. In many countries, young people from the age of 15 or 16 are allowed to make all of their own medical and educational decisions, and in these countries noone questions the ability of teenagers to make these decsions.

Botswana is a wonderful democratic country but due to getting hammered by AIDS in the ’90s it’s life expectancy went from 64 years (in 1990) to 35 years (yes, thirty-five, the lowest in the world) in 2004 (don’t know what it is now), and I suspect the family disruption from that as well as Botswana’s very insightful awareness of certain immigrant populations’ abuse of children under the guise of religion gave rise to their experiment in adopting this Convention.

And yet, even with the uniqueness of their needs the wonderful Botswana is now having problems with it…well, that says something.

Quote: Why is it presumed that every parent always act in the best interest of their children? That is clearly not the case.

Retort: Why is it presumed governments, and especially the UN, act in the best interest of people?

Quote: -a parent could force a teenager to leave school, even though the teenager wanted to continue his/her education and had college ambitions, in order for the child to work full-time so the parent could spend all the childs earnings on him/herself.

Retort: A government could force you to do the jobs it wants you to do, regardless of what your dreams or goals are—oh wait, didn’t that already happen in some now-collapsed country?

Quote: -a parent could force a teenage daughter to have an abortion, even though the daughter morally was against abortions and/or really wanted to have the child, and possibly would live her whole life with the sorrow of loosing (killing?) her child.

Retort: The government can force a grown woman to have an abortion, even though a woman is morally against abortions and/or really wanted to have the child, and possibly would live her whole life with the sorrow of losing her child—oh wait, isn’t that already a reality in some country?

We live in a sin-filled world where parents, children, and governments fail. But thanks, I’ll take my chances with parents.

It is very sad - what is happening in Botswana; the UN and its cohorts will not make it any better - look to the Sudan for an example of UN effectiveness.

If US citizens would turn off their TV’s they would start to notice the families around them - parents love their children and take care of them. Parents make the best advocates for children - they have the greatest emotional, spiritual and economic investment. A government entity can never substitute, replace, or regulate that kind of investment.

The media has become very adept at saturating the American public with small percentages of problems; making it appear as though the majority of parents and families are dysfunctional - its just not true. A new survey last year showed that 65% of American children lived in intact families - meaning they lived with both biological parents. The media makes it seem like every family is splintered.

Here’s a challenge turn off your TV for 30 days - guaranteed your worldview will change.

The US has great parents - we do not need UN Treaties to force us to raise our children in their worldview.

This is so unbelivably sickening, parental rights is about not recognizing some persons as human beings with rights, just because they haven’t lived long enough.

If there is one group whose rights should be defended by the society, it is children.

Thank you Lord for he United Nations Convention on the rights of the child, which only two countries in the entire world have not ratified, Somalia and the USA.

I am sure many of the parents on this site/blog are very dedicated and loving parents.

But I don’t see why a good parent should fear children’s rights. No children’s rights advocates want to destroy the parent-child relationship or prevent a good parent from fulfilling their responsibilities for the good of the child.

Children’s rights are needed to protect children from bad parenting, not to prevent good parenting.

Too long parents have had way much power over children.

Too long too many parents, regarded by society as good parents, in ignorance have treated their children with no respect. Too long children have suffered hard or even cruel child rearing methods. Too long children have have had no say in decisions affecting them.

Even today, only 2% of the world’s children, are completely protected from physical assault.

Children’s rights need to be dramatically expanded so we can end the tyranny in which many children live.

Horrified: Please define “good” parent and “physical assault.”

Horrified, please tell me what decisions children should make on their own… how about sex with a grown up for that matter? if shes 11 should she have that choice? or should we then step in and make that choice for them? The point is that we cannot let the goverment decide certain things, and how would we decide what was “good parenting” or should we let you decide for us? Better yet why dont you and your dictatorship ideas come to each of our homes and TELL us how we should parent!

As a child I made MANY decisions for myself. And I don’t regret a single one of them.

Lisa, not once have I argued that children should make all of their own decisions, but they should make many of their own decisions depending on the age and situation.

I will define physical assault:
any violence whatsoever including slapping, smacking, spanking or whatever you would call a parent’s violence against a child. Any slap is a physical assault.

For us who have grown up in a country where any violence against a child have been unlawful for decades, any parent even thinking about hitting a child is considered brutal and abusive.

I am blessed to know many wonderful parents. I have seen parents with poor parenting skills. I have seen abusive parents as well. All know, I do not agree with the above definition of violence, in a legal/lawful setting, based on my background, if you’ve read my posts.

Laws have to be meaningful, enforceable, practical, and logical. For American life, the UN has no place in our society. Or, what I should say is that America has no place in the UN based on what it is to be American relating to our Constitution. That there is even a discussion on outside regulations over our Constitution should be alarming to all.

There is a natural instinct in mothers to do the right thing by their offspring. Even in the most abusive relationships, protection of the children often causes the mother to leave the abusive father. Within my experience, I cannot see passing laws to undermine the authority of parents in the home. There’s already so much wrong with our young people today. Parents are being reduced to a coaching role. That’s fine after the groundwork has been laid, but not in the early formative years. Early on, parents must lead, must present opportunities to children, must carefully watch while children learn from “self-correcting behaviors.”

There are “bad” parents out there. If we give government full control, there will still be bad parents. Giving government control is not the answer. Nor do I believe giving young children control is a viable answer. The parent is responsible for the child until the child reaches 18.

There appears to be confusion between protecting parents’ rights and child abuse. The laws in each state will continue to protect children. I’ve said it once (twice, and more) and I’ll say it again. If officers and CPS workers do not know how to do their job, investigate abuse, passing a parental rights’ law isn’t going to make any difference for the children. With the passage of the PRA, officers and caseworkers will still be able to do their jobs. Passing a law (accepting UN measures) will only provide rogue CPS workers more opportunities to abuse the law, unjustly separate children from parents, and threaten the success of home schooling. Public education is failing. So what did the government do? Increase the size of the Department of Education. It’s a flop.

No, we don’t need the UN. The CPS workers need to follow-up on the cases they have. The officers need to investigate the calls for service they receive. More child protective laws will not make children’s lives better.

Occasionally, a twist comes up. Can you imagine having to write into law many years ago (1800’s) not to give a two year a particular drug? But now, we have laws about providing drinks to minors. We have laws on cigarettes and minors. We have laws on drugs being given to children. If there is an issue, the states take the appropriate action. Officers and CPS workers are then able to follow up on those violations.

But the answer is not undermining parents raising children. Too many people didn’t have a family to know what it is to have a loving mother and loving father. They cannot conceive the love, nurturing, sacrificing parents are doing. They didn’t receive that. My heart goes out to those who missed out on knowing your parents would do anything for them.

No parent should have the government interfering in his/her home when no law is being violated. America is comprised of many cultures. There is no way every culture can be addressed in the courts. The only way the government can achieve the UN measures is to set a standard for all to follow and that will take away our rights. Parents should have to spend tons of money protecting their families because of misguided measures forced on American families by the UN.

It is better to be united and work out our own problems (by passing laws as they become necessary to protect children) than to adopt non-American laws and values that erode our rights.

Correction:

Parents should NOT have to spend tons of money protecting their families because of misguided measures forced on American families by the UN.

Parents aren’t perfect. In fact, the best parents make a great deal of mistakes. However, good parents have one quality that is irreplaceable: they love their children.

If the government is granted control over children instead of the parents, there is a greater chance of the children being exploited. The strong love of a parent can overcome the natural tendency people have of abusing their authority. However, government officials, who will make rulings on a general basis, will have few, if any, restraints based on devotion. Children will be in much more danger than they are in the hands of their parents.

The right of parents to care for their children and decide what’s best for them is a God-given right, not a right granted by governments. In the absence of government, the right of the parent still exists. Governments should not only try not to interfere with parental rights, they should do everything in their power to protect them. A strong country is made of strong families. When the structure of the family fails, the fall of the nation is not far behind.

Who has the right?
Who gives the right?
Constitution says that the rights come from GOD!
Who received the right to teach, educate, and raise children?

All the “series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations”(Noah Webster - 1828)has to be done for every newborn.

If that right was given by God; than the birth is the act that places the newborn in the hands of the decision makers(PARENTS).

The rare cases in which parents abuse their children should be addressed as isolated cases and not as a reason to remove a fundamental right. The government must demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law TO THE PERSON.

Rights, so true .