United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

<exile> · Feb 12, 2008

A little bit of 'support our non-profit' going on but this is probably something we're going to continue to hear more about in the U.S.

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.

http://www.parentalrights.org/blog/...-the-un-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child
Click to expand...

All member nation states (countries) of the United Nations, except the USA and Somalia, have ratified it, either partly or completely. The United Nations General Assembly agreed to adopt the Convention into international law as an advisory resolution on November 20 1989; it came into force on September 2 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. The Convention generally defines a child as any person under the age of 18, unless an earlier age of majority is recognized by a country's law.

http://www.reference.com/search?q=UNCRC
Click to expand...

Tracy · Feb 12, 2008

I've seen both sides of "the best interest of the child". In some instances, good parents have their children removed until they can prove themselves "worthy" (for lack of a better word). The burden of proof definitely lays on the parents. How does one prove that they are a good parent after losing their child? They can't say "I was a good parent until you took my child and removed my ability."

The other instances are too sad for words . Children are repeatedly neglected and abused. Nobody helps, noone wants to get involved.

Talk to the educational authorities about the young child, left alone all day, who never leaves to attend school and is not home-schooled, and: There's nothing that they can do. But one misinterpreted conversation: They'll take a child out the back door while the parent is walking in the front door (back to parental burden of proof).

Log in or Sign up

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

<exile> Padawan Learner

Tracy Insatiably Curious Moderator Founding Member

Log in or Sign up

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

<exile> Padawan Learner

Tracy Insatiably Curious Moderator Founding Member

Useful Searches