What’s Wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Tag(s): Constitutional Amendment • Convention on the Rights of the Child • Danger to Parental Rights • international law • parental rights
It’s usually looked upon as a positive means of holding countries accountable to protect children. But the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is so much more than that.
When the UNCRC was brought up for ratification in 1995, the core group of Senators in opposition concluded that this treaty marked a significant departure from the originally constituted relationship between state and child. They found, in fact, that it was literally incompatible with the right of parents to raise their children as well as a wholesale giveaway of U.S. sovereignty.
But why?
Widespread concerns about the UNCRC stem from the treaty’s repeated emphasis on one key principle used to guide all decisions affecting children: consideration of the “best interests of the child.” This principle underlies all of the rights found in the Convention.
Article 3 of the CRC provides 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.”
In other words, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child’s best interest as the primary concern.
The trouble occurs when this principle appears as a guiding principle for parents in article 18(1), which 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.”
Who knows best?
The Convention’s emphasis on the “best interests” principle is a sharp break from American law.
In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, 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. 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 UNCRC’s Brave New World
But the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child changes all of that. The treaty supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.
According 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.”
So 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 – yes, parents. Any parent who claims that other interests might just be more important than the state’s characterization of the “best interest” of the child could end up battling the state to protect their rights as a parent.
Where do we go from here?
There is a solution to this dilemma. The strongest, most effective way of protecting children and parents from an alarming state-based agenda is to amend the Constitution to protect parental rights. This can only take place through the concerted efforts of millions of dedicated parents across the United States.
Two immediate action items
Maybe you’ve already signed the petition to protect parental rights. If so, we encourage you to take the next step of telling your friends about this important issue. And if you haven’t yet joined the campaign, consider joining today. For a gift of $25 or more, you and your family can take a firm stand in the battle to protect and preserve parental rights.
I think that anything that comes out of the UN is damaging for Christians. The Bible tells of the One World Power that will try to impose a One World Religion. I believe it is going to get worse.
Feb 12 at 11:26 pm
This Convention by the UN has been a particularly difficult issue for me.
On the one hand, I applaud the efforts of the UN to protect the rights of children and to enfranchise them in third world countries, where they are often treated as chattel. And also support the wording which allows governments to have increased flexibility to intervene when chidlren are in abusive or explotive living situtations - whether with parents or not.
The problem comes with the government being the sole arbitor of what constitutes abusive or neglectful behavior on the part of the parents or guardians. Having already battled the department of education to a technical stalement on what constitutes a reasonable and non-neglectful educaitonal plan for a special needs child we decided to homeschool, I am personally and painfully aware of the latitude this convention gives the state in such matters. Even when there is specific language in homeschool statutes allowing homeschooling fro special needs or religious convictions, the state often tries to override the parents’ choices in curriculum and accommodations.
Signing this convention would only grant them increased powers to continue to chip away at the homeschooling movement.
Though my heart bleeds for the children who need this convention ratified and supported by all caring people round the world, the language is a ticking time-bomb for a great number of American homeschoolers.
Feb 13 at 12:00 am
I’m wondering if your group would examine this statement of Parent Rights in their Children’s Education which we compiled from what was considered best practice in various countries in 1977. It is still being published in some Canadian blogs and might have relevance to your group, maybe with revisions. This was not a top-down rights provision granted from any government source, but a bottom-up declaration of parent expectations and which helped equip and empower parents with confidence and sense of “doing the right thing” in efforts to obtain the best education they could for their children.
Feb 13 at 2:18 am
I meant to attach the link, which is:
http://www.theschoolsweneed.com/forums/attachments/43.pdf
Feb 13 at 2:21 am
Do the child’s rights include the right to life?
Feb 13 at 11:25 am
While I do not subscribe to the modern end-times fantasia reading of Revelation 13, and therefore do not fear the development of some mystical one world order, I do recognize the reality of attempts by the world to impose the will of the state over that of the parents, and I therefore sincerely wished to sign the petition. However, there appears to be an enourmous crack in the armour of the proposed amendment language.
In my mind at least, the statement, “of the highest order and not otherwise served” would leave open to courts of the future the interpretation of what is to be considered of the highest order - or what the philosophy of the day determines is the morally superior motivation.
It is already painfully evident that the majority of non-Christians already assume that the good of the proletariat is of much higher significance than that of the individual. Such an interpretation in the courts would quickly undo what this ammendment seeks to establish.
I would recommend striking the demonstration clause in Article 3 and replacing it with “demonstrating that the government interest does not usurp those freedoms of the individual established by this constitution.”
Feb 13 at 6:01 pm
I read the opening page of this site, and I think I am dumbfounded as to why parentalrights.org feels there is only ONE solution. There is never only ONE solution. The fact of the matter is that though I agree that everything detailed on the opening page has full merit for these shameful acts, they are shameful acts on the part of the Government giving too much power to the CPS.
First and foremost is the protection of a child from immediate danger or death. THE CPS has no right to remove a child from a parents custody without an indisputable impending physical damage or death to a child.
Remove the power of the CPS to perform unchecked, unverified, unfounded acts of removing a child from a parents custody, and you will see fewer judges having to rule on such cases.
We don’t need to rewrite the Constitution in order to remove power from an organization that was given the power or too much power, we only need to reverse that huge mistake.
This is not to say that the judicial system doesn’t need changes as well, or judges who rule so blindly that they have no common sense whatsoever or fear being ridiculed if they don’t have “the letter of the law” to back their decisions such as with the case of the woman having to share custody of her child with babysitters?? What the hell!?
Feb 13 at 6:21 pm
“I read the opening page of this site, and I think I am dumbfounded as to why parentalrights.org feels there is only ONE solution.”
You should read more than the opening page before arriving at that judgment.
Feb 14 at 3:10 pm
Rocket,
You would need to amend the constitution if you wanted the power of CPS to be constrained in all 50 states. Congress would not have the jurisdiction to pass a law limiting the power of the individual states’ CPS departments. On the other hand, if you are a state’s rights advocate (as I am), you would argue that there should not be a US constitution amendment because each state should be free to decide the amount of power and authority given to that state’s CPS department.
However, if the UN treaty is ratified by the federal government, all states would be bound by it. At that point, a US constitutional amendment would be required to undo it.
So, the fight in favor of an amendment is an attempt to stop the ratification of the UN treaty before it happens.
Feb 14 at 3:33 pm
John B said:
“In my mind at least, the statement, “of the highest order and not otherwise served” would leave open to courts of the future the interpretation of what is to be considered of the highest order - or what the philosophy of the day determines is the morally superior motivation.”
I had the same concern. Not being a constitutional legal scholar I don’t know how much actual flexibility the language gives the court. But I don’t see how such language can be avoided without leaving the ammendment open to attack on the basis of inadequate protection for the child. Using the phrase “demonstrating that the government interest does not usurp those freedoms of the individual established by this constitution” is too restrictive since any justifiable intervention by the government leads to the interference, restriction or usurpation of an individuals freedoms or rights. Maybe enumerating the conditions under which government interests supercede the rights of parents is the way to go. In any case, Mr. Farris is an expert in constitutional law and I humbly defer to his judgement on the language in the amendment.
Feb 14 at 5:49 pm
It’s a shame that we have to doubt the true intentions of our gov’t (state & federal) but having been through my own battles with a self-serving family destroying cps in CT I can say with certainty that we should support each other in legislating any fight to assure parents’ rights over govt’s. Hard to believe it’s come down to this but we cannot allow these people to ruin our families for $.
Feb 14 at 10:03 pm
I think hitting this with local tv and news channels all around would help a great deal. Alot of people dont no where to turn for help ….just getting them to do a story on it is def. a big start in some places, think about all the people who will see it!!Bring people together on this….so they understand it better.
Feb 15 at 3:43 pm
It certainly scares me to see that we, as Americans, would even allow the UN to dictate to us any more tahn they already do. Why doesn’t the President of these United States do something to stop this! I think what we need to do as Ameicans is for God’s people to humble themsleves and seek God’s face and turn from our wicked ways and then He will hear us and answer our prayers and heal our land and in this case will protect our children and keep parental rights out of the hands of the government.
I challenge all of us to pray!
God bless!
Feb 19 at 11:58 pm
I don’t understand why this is such a big issue-or so “immediate”. From my understanding, the Convention was ratified and passed into World Law in 1989, going to effect in 1990 (exemptions being USA and Somalia). Personally, I think someone is really going out on a limb to pull all these suppositions out of this 18 year old law. Honestly, it seems like it would do a whole lot of good. It is rather hypocritical of a country to hold up a set of guidelines for third world countries to live by but to not hold themselves to those guidelines….
Feb 20 at 3:34 am
I can’t believe there is a website dedicated to this nonsense. Please put your kids in public schools. It is their only hope.
Feb 20 at 11:05 am
[…] on the Rights of the Child, visit The Attack on Parental Rights. We are also launching an in-depth e-mail series on the dangers that the CRC poses, which you can find posted here on the ParentalRights.org […]
Feb 20 at 2:08 pm
This is real, and the time for action is now. This is about losing our parental rights. The frog is in the kettle. What will you do?
Feb 24 at 3:26 pm
[…] week, we began our series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) by looking at the Convention’s central focus on the “best interests of the child,” which […]
Feb 25 at 5:38 pm
TO mellowyellow: if public schools are our “only hope” , we are indeed i n trouble!
To those who say “leave it up to the states”, I say Family Marriage Act. Even 10 years ago, I would not have believed that we would need a constitutional admendment to define and defend over 2000 years of marriage.
The “frog is definitely in the kettle” but too many think it is only a hot tub.
E-mail this site to your friends.
Feb 27 at 2:22 am
To mellowyellow: I have heard several people say what you have said. These specifically do not want responsibility for their own children. They want someone else to do their job. …sounds like you might be one of these people who wants someone else to be responsible for their children. Did you actually read what is printed in ParentalRights.org and analyze what it means, or was that too much trouble for you.
Feb 27 at 11:52 am
[…] Last week, we began our series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) by looking at the Convention’s central focus on the “best interests of the child,” which […]
Feb 28 at 12:11 am
I have tried to tell the media but it does no good in the DesMoines Register awhile back it was in the news that the DHS workers abuses their own children and they get to keep their children and their job DHS knows all the secrets to get out of thei messes ,these Judges who take oath under the constition they go against a parents constitional rights they should be inpeached their decision should be voided it is called treason these judges who know that DHS lies and go along with DHS should be proscued this is fraud and a scandal DHS is prorected by the 11th amendment and the 13th ammendment they can lie and get away with it a parent should have immunity also. Judges never go against attorney general and county attorney they repersative DHS and you know they are going to win everytime.
Feb 29 at 5:57 pm
With all this talk about the rights of the child, why is abortion still legal? I am not for this piece of crap rule from the United Nations, but let’s be consistent. I am just balked by the idea that the US, or any other nation, should bend over backwards for some anti-American organization. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of The UNITED STATES from enemies, foreign and domestic. Somebody needs to grow a backbone and get the US out of the UN.
Mar 7 at 8:47 am
Melissa
Feb 24 at 3:26 pm said:
This is real, and the time for action is now. This is about losing our parental rights. The frog is in the kettle. What will you do?
Unfortunately, Americans tend to be extremely apathetic so there probably won’t be a strong enough reaction until the kettle is at full boil…too late.
Mar 8 at 2:42 pm
Mainstream media does not care. They will display what the Washington neocons want and not what is really important to Americans. People are really oblivious to what’s happening in our country right now. Heads stay in the sand…it’s easier that way.
Mar 8 at 2:45 pm
good info good points I adress infighting it needs attention
Mar 8 at 10:50 pm
“For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich.They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and theright of the needy do they not judge. Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?” - Jeremiah 5:26-31.
There ARE wicked men, now some more people are finding out.
Money, Power,and Control, is whats happening to the School system.
And now they want YOUR kids.
However there is hope Jesus Christ IS the ONLY hope in this day and end of this age. BELIEVE !
Mar 13 at 6:04 pm
[…] our legals system is built on the “best interest of the child” instead of the parental rights doctrine we can expect that the first people to lose will be […]
May 20 at 11:25 am
[…] our series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, most of the articles we have considered have focused on the relationship between the state and the […]
Jun 24 at 5:24 pm
We need to restore accountability to our government: He has made our Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their offices, and the
amount of their Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices by a Self-Assumed Power, and Sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.
He thumbs his nose at the constitution, and lies to the nation, to commit acts of genocide, tyranny and is an unquestionable warmonger.
These offices which are rouge likewise thumb their noses at the law committing acts of genocide, tyranny and WAR against the people.
Abolish all rouge agencies, restore accountability and may the Government fear the people!
Jun 25 at 5:29 pm
As MLK said, “if not now, when?” There’s never a wrong time to do the right thing (and I don’t know who said that but I strongly agree).
Every politician in Congress who does not uphold our Constitution needs voted out of office at the next election. There needs to be a Fall Cleaning in the White House.
Our Constitution will not mean anything once we are a one-world government? Why would any American want to eradicate the first successfully drafted constitution of a nation? Yes, the Iroquois was our model, but the United States’ founding fathers put a great deal into drafting our Constitution. We should find out what the politicians vote for and elect them only if they support real American values.
Once there is a one-world government, there will be a one world religion. That religion will involve a science base, with a “spokesperson” and either all will agree or find themselves in a Nazi Germany homeland. Even if you have no belief in Revelations, it is not difficult to see where a one world government will lead. History has taught us of the oppression from dictators and fantasies of one right way of the government. Usually, it is a communist country that comes from such one world aspirations. But, it doesn’t stop there. Do you have a disability? Make way for the healthy. Do you have a different belief? Make way for lynchings and burnings. Do you have more than two children? Make way for forced abortions and sterlizations. Are you old? No retirement for you. Walk into the community enhancement chamber to make way for younger, productive citizens? Physical defect? Who should have to look at you. Send the to the lab for testing out new drugs to be used on enemies who oppose the world order.
There is nothing new under the sun. Even when our country was fighting for independence, not everyone agreed. Some disagreed, some fought, some watched.
One world means no U.S. Constitution in effect. We know the prophesy, but we can still protect our rights for as long as possible.
It’s up to those who are willing to fight for freedom now to do so again. There will be dissenters. There will be watchers. I’m a doer.
Jun 25 at 7:37 pm