What’s Wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
http://www.parentalrights.org/blog/uncr ... -the-child
Posted by: admin on February 12th, 2008
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 toprotect and preserve parental rights.
Radio Interview with Dr. James Dobson
Posted by: Michael Farris on February 20th, 2008
Tag(s): James Dobson • Radio Interview • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Yesterday, I had an opportunity to share with Dr. James Dobson about the threat that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child poses to parental rights. Although the interview is the conclusion of a two-part series on the importance of home schooling fathers, this treaty poses a danger to more than just families who home school. Dr. Dobson and I discuss how the government can use the treaty to override the decisions of parents on the basis of the “best interests of the child,” and how the ratification of this treaty is more of a threat today than it ever has been before.
Listen to the discussion with Dr. James Dobson. The discussion of parental rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child begins about seventeen minutes into the program.
For more information on the threat of the UN Convention 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 blog.