Sweden and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

There’s an old saying that once you reach the top, you can only go down.

For the nation of Sweden, however, reaching the top was only the beginning.

Sweden has long been regarded as a model nation, whose policies and laws are at the cutting-edge of international thinking on children’s rights. Sweden was the first nation to completely ban corporal punishment, the first to make sex education a mandatory feature of its educational curriculum, and the first to offer working parents free child-care for all children between the ages of 1 and 12. Thus, it should come as no surprise that on June 29, 1990, Sweden became the ninth nation in the world – and the first industrialized Western country – to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

And apparently, such innovations were only the beginning.

The modern regime in Sweden enjoys broad discretionary authority over parents, and is presently engaged in what Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson has termed a “parental inquisition.” The inquisition is broad, affecting educational decisions, child-rearing practices, parental discipline, and even the removal of children from their homes. The state wields incredible power, guided solely by its own “insights” into the child’s “best interests.” Against such power, no child or family is safe.

Sex-ed: No exemptions… period

When it comes to schools teaching children about the birds and the bees, American parents are used to two familiar words: “opt out.” Even parents who do not take advantage of parental exemptions are aware of their availability.

Apparently, that option has become outdated in Sweden.

In March 2008, Sweden’s government sought to take its trend-setting policies on mandatory sex education to the next level by eliminating all exemptions for parents – including parents with religious and philosophical differences.¹ According to the state, all students, irrespective of religious or cultural beliefs, should receive instruction in the same subjects, and parental “exemptions” were being used as a ploy to keep children in ignorance. “Our belief in a tolerant society,” state officials wrote in a local paper, “should never result in us covering our eyes when women are the victim of attacks or being denied their rights with the excuse that it is a part of their culture or religion.”²

According to the state, the changes were primarily aimed at Sweden’s large Muslim immigrant populations, many of whom claimed religious exemptions for sex-ed classes.³ 

Although the proposal prompted a national debate, particularly among the nation’s major newspapers, nearly all of them came down firmly in favor of the government’s position.  According to one paper, “religion has its given place in people’s lives. But in school, religious convictions ought to be studied, rather than be in control.”⁴ Another paper opined that eliminating the parental exceptions would be a good thing because it would give individual students “more power to decide for themselves whether or not they want to attend lessons which their parents find objectionable.”⁵

No more “time outs”

The idea that parents are ultimately responsible for raising their children is a foreign concept in Sweden.  According to the state Ministry of Education and Science, local communities believe that it is “the responsibility of society to satisfy the need for child care,” and to look out for the “best interests” of children.⁶ In fact, Sweden’s laws specifically require that all decisions affecting children must be made in accordance with “the best interests of the child.”⁷

Unfortunately, this “highly developed view of the child”⁸ often works to the detriment of the family as a whole, especially when it comes to child training and discipline. In 1979, Sweden passed a law banning parents from using “physical punishment or any other humiliating treatment” to train their children.⁹ According to the Nordic Committee on Human Rights, the Swedish courts have applied the ban broadly, criminalizing everything from slaps and spankings to “time outs” and sending children to their rooms.¹⁰

As a result, Swedish parents “negotiate” with their children¹¹ instead of providing training and discipline. For the parents who choose to buck the trend and brave the risk of training their children, however, the likely outcome is criminal prosecution and punishment at the hands of the state.

Sweden’s “Parental Inquisition”

Sweden’s government places so much pressure on families to conform with its dictates that Ruby Harrold-Claesson, an international human rights lawyer and a citizen of Sweden, has gone so far as to call their actions a “parental inquisition.”¹²

“The prosecution of parents in Sweden has taken the form of an Inquisition where children accuse their parents of ill-treatment,” Harrold-Claesson wrote in 2000. Laws aimed at controlling parents have “resulted in serious interference in people’s family and private lives, and has damaged the relationship between parents and children – to the detriment of the family.”¹³

Harrold-Claesson traces the source of the problem to Sweden’s community view of child-rearing: “In Sweden, family as an institution, which socialises children and passes on values, is not taken seriously. The status of the Family has been usurped and instead the school system and the social institutions have been given monopoly over the children.”¹⁴

Because of her opposition to official state policy against parents, Harrold-Claesson represented Swedish parents in Swedish and international courts for years, until she was barred by the courts in 1996 because of her opposition.¹⁵ She continues to work as chairman of the Nordic Committee on Human Rights, where she continues to warn others about Sweden’s “cutting-edge” policies.

“There is therefore great deception in the Swedish system which displays extreme brutality towards the parents and children,” she wrote in 2005. Sweden’s child-policy “gives rise to much suffering, but this does not appear in the official reports about the Law. Instead, [it is] portrayed to be ‘in the best interest of the child.’ This is a very dangerous law and a law that is unsuitable in a civilized, democratic society…. It opens the door for arbitrary decisions, which have proven to be devastation for Swedish children and their families.”¹⁶

Notes

1. “Liberals call for mandatory sex ed,” The Local (Sweden) (March 6, 2008) <http://www.thelocal.se/10298/20080306/> (accessed January 17, 2009)
2. “Liberals call for mandatory sex ed,” The Local (Sweden)
3. “Liberals call for mandatory sex ed,” The Local (Sweden)
4. “Immigrant girls and sex education – who knows best?” The Local (Sweden) (March 7, 2008) <http://www.thelocal.se/10340/20080307/> (accessed January 18, 2009)
5. “Immigrant girls and sex education – who knows best?” The Local (Sweden)
6. “Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in Sweden,” Ministry of Education and Science, Stockholm, Sweden (November 27, 2000): 4 <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/22/1917636.pdf> (accessed January 17, 2009)
7. The Children and Parents Code of Sweden (SFS 1949:381), “Chapter 6: Custody, residence and contact” <http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/76/55/12308db5.pdf> (accessed January 17, 2009)
8. Ministry of Education and Science, 2.
9. Ruby Harrold-Claesson, “When Parents Become Victims,” The Nordic Committee on Human Rights (February 11, 2000) <http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm> (accessed January 17, 2009)
10. Harrold-Claesson, “When Parents Become Victims”
11. Ministry of Education and Science, 4.
12. Harrold-Claesson, “When Parents Become Victims”
13. Harrold-Claesson, “When Parents Become Victims”
14. Harrold-Claesson, “When Parents Become Victims”
15. “Wrong skin color made her ‘unsuitable,’” Society Magazine (Norway) (March 8, 2004, re-published in English, January 15, 2005) <http://www.sfm.no/Arkiv-2005/Art-Jan-05/14.01.2005-RHClaesson.htm> (accessed January 21, 2009)
16. Ruby Harrold-Claesson, “Confiscating children: When parents become victims,” The Nordic Committee for Human Rights (February 11, 2005) <http://www.nkmr.org/english/confiscating_children_when_parents_become_victims.htm> (accessed January 17, 2009)”

Despite the apparent intrusion by the court in this case and the considerable publicity it has garnered, it is likely this is in fact a basic, run-of-the-mill custody dispute. When the parents could not agree on the terms of their daughter’s punishment (since both parents had forbidden her internet privileges, but disagreed on whether to ground her from the trip), the court stepped in to decide for them. The daughter was represented in her suit by the court-appointed guardian ad-litem (attorney) who had been representing her interests throughout her parents’ decade-long custody battle. All publicity to the contrary, this apparently was not a case of court versus parent, but of the courts deciding for one parent and against the other. As terrible as the outcome may be, that is just how it is in family courts.

Still, this case with all its alarmist publicity does paint a pretty fair picture of what life could come to look like under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If through her internet abuses this young girl “hooked up” with a predator and ended up on an international flight to meet him, the courts would cite the parents for neglect and endangerment of a minor. Yet, for those parents to seek to curb her dangerous behavior through disciplinary measures is intolerable under the Children’s Rights convention. Corporal punishment is to be rejected as “physical violence” according to convention Article 19, but grounding may likewise prove unacceptable. Article 37, Section (d) states that “Every child deprived of his or her liberty” (as one placed on restriction certainly is) “shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.” No exception is made for parent-mandated “deprivation of liberty”, such as grounding or restriction. Thus, while in this case Canada’s family court only got involved to decide between mom and dad, under the CRC a court could be called upon to arbitrate between the daughter and her parents, even when both parents agree on the decision to ground her.

According to Article 13, “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…through any…media of the child’s choice.” While the article provides restrictions to this right, they are limited to those “necessary; (a) for the respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.” Since this case is a private and not a public matter, and the girl’s actions do not harm the rights or reputation of anyone else, the restrictions allowed for in the article do not apply. Private morals are not listed among the approved reasons for restriction of this child’s right to self-expression, including her right to “impart information through any media of her choice.”

In addition, signatories would be obligated under the CRC to uphold even a pre-teen’s right to do as she likes on the internet, without interference from her parents. Under Article 16 of the Convention, “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home, or correspondence” and “the child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” One could argue – and the courts just might agree – that a father shouldn’t have been monitoring his daughter’s internet activity so closely in the first place, and that the actions of the father in a case such as this constitute an “arbitrary interference with her rights to privacy and correspondence.”

What’s more, this threat to parents even in “traditional, two-parent” families does not exist merely in Canada. By its own claims, “the Convention [on the Rights of the Child] is a universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations” which our own courts say makes it part of “the Law of Nations” cited in Article I, Section 8 of our own Constitution. As such, it is part of “Customary International Law”, and is legally binding even in the United States, though the Senate has never ratified the treaty.

For parents in Canada, or any of the other 192 nations who have signed the UN-CRC, it may already be too late. For parents in the United States, only one solution remains that can address these international challenges to the rights of parents to be parents – the Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution. We expect that the Senate will take up ratification of the UN-CRC this very year. They will also be called on to consider passage of the PRA. The two are contradictory, even mutually exclusive. The question is, will parents have the right to be parents to their children, or will the next generation be raised with a government-mandated sense of entitlement and disregard for authority, like a 12-year-old girl who would sue her own father for trying to protect her from her own rash folly? You and I have a sacred duty as citizens to protect children by empowering parents through the Parental Rights Amendment.

When Kris Wylie returned from her training mission with the U.S. Air Force in October 2007, she expected to be greeted by her seven-year-old daughter Leighlora, and her five-year-old daughter Lillian Ann.  Instead, Kris returned to hear that, while she had been away, Italian authorities had removed her two girls from their home in Aviano, Italy, near the American military base where she was stationed.¹

The trouble began when a neighbor called Italian police back in mid-August claiming that Kris’s fiancé was beating the two girls, though an examination at a local hospital produced no evidence of abuse. “All the investigations led to nothing,” said Francesco Furlan, the family’s attorney in Italy. “We have the official paper from the Aviano Base command saying there is absolutely, absolutely no case of child abuse.”²

Yet, while Kris was away more than a month-and-a-half later, Italian authorities came to her home and removed the two girls. Apparently, “nothing” was all the Italian authorities needed to seize the children.  Upon her return, Kris began a month-long struggle to regain custody of her children. During that time, she was allowed one hour-long, supervised visit each week, and her conversations were limited to one thirty-minute session each evening, which was conducted in Italian and recorded by the authorities.³

When the charges were finally dismissed just before Christmas, 2007, Kris and her attorney could only wonder what had happened. “If you have the real and concrete suspicion that something’s happening to the girls in August, you take them away from that environment in October?” Furlan asked, rhetorically. “This is silly.”⁴ Kris suspects that the charges could have stemmed from a cultural bias against her. “I think the Italian society saw me — being a single military mother — as being an odd duck. I felt very, very discriminated against. I don’t think they understood me.”⁵

A Culture of Intrusion

Unfortunately, Kris’s story is only one example of the sweeping authority that Italian bureaucrats have under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to “look out” for the best interests of their children.

According to the United Nations, Italy ranks among the top-ten nations in the world in which to raise your children, and Italian children rank first overall in their “Peer and Family Relationships.”⁶ A closer examination, however, reveals that this high rank is the result of direct and pervasive “intervention” into the lives of its citizens.  Such government intrusion comes at a significant cost to parents and families – and is increasingly reminiscent of Italy’s dark past.

They Just Keep Coming Back…

Bill Cosby used to joke about how his grown children always seemed to find their way back to his house.  For Italian parents, grown children leaving their parents’ house practically is a joke.

In 2002, Italy’s highest appeals court ruled that parents are required by law to support their adult children until the children “find a job to their liking.”⁷ One would expect such a case to revolve around a family in poor circumstances, but that could hardly be further from the truth.  The father, a former member of the Italian parliament, was paying more than $680 a month to a son who had a trust fund worth 250,000 euros (roughly $224,000 American dollars) at the time. The son also had a university law degree, lived in one of the smartest parts of Naples, and had turned down several job offers.⁸

The decision was a dramatic intrusion into the Italian family, and sent a shiver down many parents’ spines.  The fact that nearly one-in-three Italians between ages 30 and 34 were already living with their parents only makes the ruling more disturbing.  Psychologists warned that the decision could discourage people from having children in a country whose birthrate is already one of the lowest in the world, while commentators said it could boost Italy’s already high unemployment rate.⁹

Sorry, Mom and Dad, Pick Another Name

Five years later, the same Italian appeals court once again reached into the family, this time to change a one-year-old child’s name. 

In December 2007, the court ordered the parents of Friday Germano to rename him Gregory.  When the parents refused, the court changed the child’s name itself, over the parents’ objections, because the judge felt that the name recalled the servile savage in Daniel Defoe’s novel Robinson Crusoe, and because superstitious Italians consider Friday an unlucky day.¹⁰  The court picked “Gregory” after the saint whose feast day fell on the boy’s birthday.¹¹

“I am livid about this. A court should not waste its time with things like this when there is so much more to worry about,” said Mara Germano, the mother of the one-year-old child. “My son was born Friday, baptized Friday, will call himself Friday, we will call him Friday but when he gets older he will have to sign his name Gregory.”¹²

Under Italian law, officials at city hall are required to report all “unusual names” to the Italian government, which then has the authority to change them – even over the objection of the parents.¹³

Shadows of the Past

Unfortunately, parents in Italy are discovering too late that, once the state begins a pattern of intrusion into the family, government power only grows. The Italian state has only expanded its authority over its citizens and their families in the months following little “Gregory’s” name-change.

In May 2008, Italian authorities announced a plan to fingerprint all of Italy’s Roma population, including children. According to the state, the Roma, or “Gypsies” as they are often called in the Italian media, are the source of Italy’s rising crime rate, and the state must know the identities and whereabouts of all of them – even the children.¹⁴

Opponents of the proposal characterized the plan as an “unacceptable ethnic headcount” and a measure that “increasingly resemble[s] those of an authoritarian regime,” but two months later, the Italian courts shocked the world by upholding the state’s policy. In so ruling, the Court concluded that the government had sufficient basis to conclude that “all the Gypsies were thieves.”¹⁵

Even the United Nations’ Children’s Fund (UNICEF) expressed “serious concern” over the measure, but only because it discriminated against Roma children. Their solution? According to Vincenzo Spadafora, who directs UNICEF in Italy, the problem of discrimination could be avoided if “every child in Italy” were fingerprinted instead.¹⁶

One has to wonder what Italian parents would think of such a “solution”.  Or perhaps the better question is this: Would their thoughts even matter at all?

Editor’s note: We regret an incorrect detail which appeared earlier but has been removed from this article — the home from which the girls were taken was not on the U.S. military base as previously reported. 

Notes:

1. Sara Bonisteel, “Air Force Staff Sergeant Fights for Return of Her U.S. Daughters From Italian Custody,” Fox News (November 28, 2007) <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313234,00.html> (accessed December 28, 2008).
2. Bonisteel, 2007.
3. Bonisteel, 2007.
4. Bonisteel, 2007.
5. “U.S. Servicewoman Reunited With Children After Custody Battle With Italian Authorities,” Fox News (December 22, 2008) <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317989,00.html> (accessed December 28, 2008).
6. The United Nations Children’s Fund, “An overview of child well-being in rich countries: A comprehensive assessment of the lives and well-being of children and adolescents in the economically advanced nations,” Innocenti Report Cards, No. 7 (Jan. 2007): p. 34, 37. <www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf> (accessed December 28, 2008).
7. CBS News, “Court Ruling Makes Italian Parents Quake” (April 5, 2002) <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/05/world/main505524.shtml> (accessed December 28, 2008).
8. CBS News, 2002.
9. CBS News, 2002.
10. Philip Pullella, “What to name a child? In Italy, a Court can decide,” Reuters News Service (December 17, 2007) <http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKL1845852920071218?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0> (accessed December 28, 2008)
11. “Court orders parents to change baby’s name from Friday to Gregory,” USA Today (December 19, 2007) <http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/12/court-orders-pa.html> (accessed December 28, 2008).
12. USA Today, 2007.
13. USA Today, 2007.
14. “Italy: Court inflames Roma discrimination row,” The Guardian (UK) (July 1, 2008) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/01/italy> (accessed December 28, 2008).
15. The Guardian, 2008.
16. “Unicef among critics of Italian plan to fingerprint Roma children,” The Guardian (UK) (June 27, 2008) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/27/race.italy> (accessed December 28, 2008).

Winter is finally upon us, ushering in the joys of the holidays and, at least for most of the country, the arrival of cold weather. As the temperature falls and the days get shorter, Moms and Dads brace themselves for the first signs of inevitable winter sicknesses: everything from a simple cough and cold to wheezing, strep, and the dreaded stomach flu. For many Americans, the solution to these illnesses is a simple medication, or perhaps vaccination in certain cases, but the choice of proper treatment is left to the parents.

Now imagine a place where the government threatens parents with fines, or even jail time, if they refuse to vaccinate their children – all in the name of “watching out” for the best interests of “its” children. Imagine a country that permits doctors to terminate the lives of “deficient” children up to a year old, even without parental consent, for the sake of “a better society”.  To find such a place, you need look no further than the nation of Belgium.

This Won’t Hurt a Bit . . .

In March 2008, Belgium made international headlines when it sentenced two sets of Belgian parents to five months in prison,  and fined them 4,100 euros ($8,000).¹ The crime?  Failing to vaccinate their children against polio.  The government, hiding behind privacy laws, declined to comment on why the parents had refused the vaccine in the first place, or how long a reprieve they had been given in which to comply before going to jail.²

Unlike the United States, which allows most parents to refuse vaccinations based on religious or philosophical objections, Belgian parents can only opt-out of vaccinations if they can prove that their child might have a bad physical reaction to the vaccine.³ In the absence of such proof, Belgian parents have no choice but to either consent to vaccinations, or accept the criminal punishments that accompany refusal.

Monitoring Their Education

According to the United Nations, Belgium has the best education system among all developed nations.⁴ The Belgian government is also deeply involved in education. Parents can place their children in community schools, or in public or private schools.⁵ Unlike their American counterparts, however, Belgium’s “private schools” are not strictly run by private individuals, but receive subsidies from the government, along with significant oversight from national and local education ministries.⁶ All schools – even within the home – are required to teach children “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the cultural values of the child and others,” under Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.⁷ Public, private, and home schools are all inspected by the government to insure compliance, and disobedience could result in the children being placed in a school of the government’s choosing.⁸

Unfortunately, Belgians are discovering too late that it is difficult to rein in the government once it gains power in all schools.  In September 2006, the town of Merchtem banned all persons in local schools from speaking French, even though the town is only nine miles from Brussels, a French-speaking metropolis.⁹ Anyone caught speaking anything other than Dutch on school premises – even parents picking up their children – is subject to reprimands.¹⁰  Parents are not even allowed to have parents’ meetings in their native language, but must use an interpreter instead.¹¹

In 2008, the town of Liedekerke – also near Brussels – followed suit by banning French-speaking children from holiday outings.¹² According to Marc Mertens, secretary of Liedekerke’s town council, public outings should have “a Dutch character,” and monitors should be able to “refuse children who ‘disturb’ the outings.” Of course, Mr. Mertens said, smiling, “one can understand ‘disturb’ in different ways.”¹³

Building a Better Society

The Belgian government’s authority over the health and education of its children is deemed by many as a mark of progress toward a “better society” where children’s rights are properly recognized and protected. Those that satisfy the government’s standards live in peace.  For the rest, there is no peace, and sometimes, they are not even allowed to live.
Since 2002, Belgium has allowed doctors to terminate the lives of infants under the age of 12 months if they feel the baby is somehow disabled or deficient, and is likely to suffer in life as a result.¹⁴ More than half of the Belgian babies who die before they are a year old are killed by deliberate medical intervention.¹⁵ In 16% of cases, parental consent was not even considered.¹⁶ To put these numbers in perspective, the CIA World Fact Book estimates that roughly 106,000 babies are born in Belgium each year.¹⁷  Even using conservative estimates of Belgium’s rate of “assisted-suicide” in infants, one can estimate that some 470 children will die before they celebrate their first birthday.  Of these 470, more than 200 will die not from natural causes, but from direct medical intervention. Forty (40) of them will die regardless of their parents’ wishes, objections, or pleadings. Such a program might produce a “better society,” but one is left in horror at the ultimate sacrifice of innocent babies.

Unfortunately, the program has been deemed so “successful” in Belgium that in March 2008, the government began considering legislation that would also make assisted-suicide available to teenagers and younger children who are terminally-ill.¹⁸

In Belgium’s Shadow

Although much of American society still largely resists government control of children and their families, shadows of Belgium’s pro-government approach are being cast upon our shores.  In November 2007, parents in Prince George’s County, Maryland were shocked and outraged when they were ordered to take their children in for shots, or face fines and jail time.¹⁹ “Our goal is to get kids in school, not to put parents in jail,” said Glenn Ivey, the county’s attorney, “but if parents continue to be recalcitrant, they face up to 10 days in jail and a $50 a day fine.”

The drastic measures had parents and physicians up in arms. Dr. William Schaffner of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine described the county’s hard-nosed stance as “grabbing the parents by the collars and saying, ‘You must vaccinate your children.’”²⁰ Dierdre Young, the mother of a high school freshman and junior, agreed: “What good are you going do if you lock up the parents?  Then the parents can’t feed [their children]. They still can’t come to school. They still don’t have their shots. So what have you solved?”²¹

Someone in Belgium must have forgotten to ask that question.

Notes
1. Maria Cheng, “Parents may be jailed over vaccinations,” The Associated Press (March 12, 2008) <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_he_me/polio_vaccine_prison> (accessed 03 December 2008).
2. Cheng 2008.
3. Cheng 2008.
4. AngloInfo.com, “Education and Schooling in Belgium” <http://belgium.angloinfo.com/countries/belgium/schooling.asp> (accessed 03 December 2008).
5. AngloInfo.com.
6. The United Nations Children’s Fund, “An overview of child well-being in rich countries: A comprehensive assessment of the lives and well-being of children and adolescents in the economically advanced nations,” Innocenti Report Cards, No. 7 (Jan. 2007): p. 34, 37. <www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf> (accessed 03 December 2008).
7. Expatica.com, “Expats and home-schooling” (July 19, 2006)
<http://www.expatica.com/be/survival/education/expats-and-home-schooling-31671.html> (accessed 03 December 2008).
8. Expatica.com (2006).
9. BBC News, “Belgian town bans school French” (September 1, 2006) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5305484.stm> (accessed 03 December 2008).
10. BBC News (2006).
11. BBC News (2006).
12. Steven Erlanger, “Seams of Belgium’s Quilt Threaten to Burst,” New York Times (May 14, 2008) <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/world/europe/14belgium.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all> (accessed 03 December 2008)
13. Erlanger 2008.
14. Bruno Waterfield, “Teens need right to ‘medically assisted suicide’,” The Telegraph (UK) (March 26, 2008) <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/1582882/Teens-need-right-to-%27medically-assisted-suicide%27.html> (accessed 03 December 2008).
15. Waterfield 2008.
16. Waterfield 2008.
17. Central Intelligence Agency, “The World Fact Book: Belgium” <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/be.html> (accessed 03 December 2008)
18. Waterfield 2008.
19. ABC News, “Md. Officials: Vaccinate Your Kids or Face Jail” (November 17, 2007) <http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WaterCooler/Story?id=3880578&page=1> (accessed 03 December 2008).
20. ABC News 2007.
21. ABC News 2007.

If you could choose any country in the world in which to raise your child, which would you choose?

You might be inclined to choose the comforts of the United States or Britain, the charm of European mainstays like France and Germany, the Mediterranean climate of Italy, Spain or Tuscany, or the thrill of expanding opportunities in Hong Kong and Japan.  But according to the United Nations, the best place for you to raise your children is in a small cluster of countries nestled in Northern Europe.  That’s because the rights of your children are most likely to be protected in Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, or the number-one spot in the world . . . the Netherlands.

Kiss me, I’m . . . Dutch?

In 2007, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) released a comprehensive study  that evaluated the quality of life of children in more than twenty developed countries.  Starting with the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the authors of the report developed different factors to use in compiling their list of the world’s most child-friendly countries.  Surprisingly, the Netherlands was at the top of their list.

According to UNICEF, Dutch children lead the rest of the world in terms of their “subjective well-being,” based on several international surveys where youth expressed their own opinions on their health, enjoyment of school, and overall satisfaction with themselves and their lives.¹ Put simply, children in the Netherlands are the most likely to feel healthy, like school, and enjoy their everyday lives.

A Child-centered Society

UNICEF’s findings were so unexpected that reporters from the United Kingdom (which had placed dead-last in the report) went overseas on a quest to discover the secret of the Netherlands’ success.  One such reporter, Kathryn Westcott of the BBC News, made a shocking discovery: Dutch children were certainly happy, but they were also the center of their society .

According to Westcott, the secret to Dutch children’s success is that “their parents go out of their way to please them, and teachers expect less of them than some of their European counterparts.”²  Moreover, this is hardly a new phenomenon.  “The Netherlands has always been a very child-centered society,” said Professor Paul Vangeert of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.  “Their wishes become so strong that parents have to work very hard to give them what they want.”³ 

The Land of “Freedom”?

When it comes to making personal decisions, children in the Netherlands also enjoy an extraordinary amount of freedom.  According to Westcott, the Netherlands is famous for its tolerant attitudes toward activities like drinking, smoking, drugs, and sex, and this tolerance extends to its children as well.⁴  Sex education in the Netherlands begins at the age of 4, and the age of consent is set at twelve.⁵  In 2006, over 92% of fifteen year-old boys admitted using some form of contraception, and the rate for fifteen year-old girls was even higher, at 97%.⁶

Given these societal attitudes, children who choose to drink, smoke, do drugs, and have sex are rarely confronted by their parents.  When asked about these issues, 16-year-old Laura Vos from Amsterdam told reporters that “in this country, it’s very free; you can do anything you want. . . . You can smoke at 16, you can buy pot in the store next to the school. You can do what you like and because it’s not illegal, it’s not that interesting for us to provoke our parents with it.”⁷

Still Not Enough

Surprisingly, the Netherlands did not have long to bask in the glow of UN commendation.  Just a year after the UNICEF report was released, the UN released another report which criticized the Dutch government, saying they still had not done enough to fully implement the CRC: “Judges should be making better use of that [Children's Rights] convention. The same goes for professionals who work with children. They, too, should be paying more attention to the pedagogical values that are represented in that convention.”⁸

In response, the Netherlands is ceding to its government even more authority to “look out” for children.  In addition to its special government minister for young people and the family, legislators are calling for a special government agent, or “ombudsman,” who will fight for the interests and rights of children, “always ready to point out where children’s interests are not being served either properly or at all.”  Perhaps then, after even more government and societal resources have been channeled into promoting children’s rights, the UN will be pleased – at least for a while.

Counting the Cost

UNICEF may consider the children in the Netherlands to be the most fortunate in the world, but their happiness comes at a great – and often hidden – cost to their families.  In a culture that revolves around its children and a government that affords them incredible freedom over their personal decisions, parents in the Netherlands are relegated to a position of mere caregivers: responsible to feed, clothe, and satisfy, but not to rear, guide, teach, and train.  Of course, parents want their children to be happy . . . but at what cost?

Notes
1. The United Nations Children’s Fund, “An overview of child well-being in rich countries: A comprehensive assessment of the lives and well-being of children and adolescents in the economically advanced nations,” Innocenti Report Cards, No. 7 (Jan. 2007): p. 34, 37. <www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf> (accessed November 1, 2008).
2. Kathryn Westcott, “Why are Dutch children so happy?” BBC News (February 14, 2007) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6360517.stm> (accessed November 1, 2008).
3. Westcott 2007.
4. Westcott 2007.
5. World Population Foundation, Fact Sheet Young People and Sexuality in The Netherlands” (May 2006) <http://www.wpf.org/documenten/20060522_FS_youthsexnl.pdf> (accessed November 1, 2008).
6. World Population Foundation, 2006.
7. Westcott 2007.
8. Sebastiaan Gottlieb, “Netherlands failing on children’s rights,” Radio Netherlands (January 21, 2008) <http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/080121-childrens-rights-mc> (accessed November 1, 2008).

Every time I start to feel that this is a big delay, however, I remember a father named Joe from Paradise, California, who is still waiting to have his 9-month-old son returned.  Joe, who has done nothing wrong, went to court on November 10 to get his son back after a week of separation.  The judge told him to come back on the twentieth.  Now that is a big delay. 

According to three reports from KHSL, the local CBS affiliate for Northern California, Joe returned home from work on November 3, and when he didn’t see or hear his son, he asked his wife where he was.  She told him to watch the news and find out.  Joe turned on the news to discover that his son had been left on a local golf course for a stranger to find – and he immediately phoned the police to claim his son.

The mother apparently took the child to the Butte Creek Country Club in Chico, California, where she placed him in a park-like setting between the 12th and 13th holes.  Then, she waited out of sight until someone found the child, presumably so that she could know he would be safe before she left the scene.  Joe, who had no idea this was going on, was working only two miles away.  Had he known, Joe says, “I would have been there in a heartbeat.  I would move mountains for my son.”

His wife’s erratic behavior was the result of post-partum depression and suspected pesticide poisoning.  She spent the rest of the week at the Butte County Behavioral Health Clinic under observation.  No one accused her of any criminal action.  No one believes this was a rational, intentional decision on her part.  No one suggested that Joe could ever have seen this thing coming.

Yet, Butte County Children’s Services continues to hold the little boy.  A spokesperson says they’re “following procedure” by keeping this boy from his father, though no charges have been filed and no wrong-doing has even been alleged.  Joe went to court on Monday, November 10, hoping to take his son home with him.  Instead, he was given a new court date of November 20 and told to come back.  In the meantime, Children’s Services continues to hold the boy.

A man left for work one morning, trusting his wife to care for his child – his wife, who had shown no signs of being a danger to herself or anyone else.  When he returned home, his son was gone and he could not get him back.  If this kind of thing can go on in this country, who among us is safe?  What is to say my children will be awaiting me when I get home tonight?

And what a terrible delay this ten days must be for Joe, to say nothing of his frightened and confused little boy.  At nine months, he doesn’t have the faculty to understand what is going on, to cope with the trauma of being separated from his momma and daddy for so long.  One week was bad enough, but to more than double it before a judge will even hear from this poor father is unconscionable.  The very fact that a person can lose his own child without ever once being accused of a crime and made to stand trial is a violation of everything this nation stands for, everything our Bill of Rights was designed to protect.  If this does not constitute an unreasonable seizure without due process, there is no such thing!

This is precisely why we need the Parental Rights Amendment.  By putting into the very text of the Constitution that parental rights are fundamental rights, we will ensure due process and protect the precious parent-child relationships that should be enjoyed by people like Joe and his little boy, without intrusion by the bureaucrats at Child Services.  We can bring an end to the seemingly unending stream of stories that report that, “No charges have been filed, but the children are in the custody of Child Protective Services.”  We can return our system to the sane and simple approach that, since child abuse and child neglect are crimes, children should never be removed from their parents unless such a crime has been committed – in which case charges should be filed!

ParentalRights.org is by no means supportive of child abusers or negligent parents.  However, we firmly believe in due process and the Constitutional rights of parents.  If parents are innocent of wrong-doing, like Joe, the bureaucrats should give them back their kids and leave them alone.  If they are guilty of abuse or neglect, they should have their day in court.  These are the principles that have made America strong.  These are the principles the Parental Rights Amendment has been written to protect. 

Imagine an Air Force mom, serving her country on a month-long deployment, who learns that her daughter has been secretly removed by local authorities, claiming the child has been “abandoned.” Children begin mandatory sex-education at the age of four, regardless of their family’s opinions, beliefs, or convictions, and parents are imprisoned if their children fail to receive any of their mandatory vaccinations. Parents live in a state of constant supervision and suspicion.

Imagine if your national government had the audacity to appoint a “guardian” to monitor your child from birth, charged with the legal responsibility to evaluate your decisions as a parent and armed with the legal authority to “intervene, prevent or rectify” any violations of your child’s rights. Public and private schools alike are policed by the national government, and classes begin with singing about the principles of peace, tolerance, and the United Nations. Your child’s confidential medical records, stored in a nation-wide electronic register from birth until age twenty, can be accessed at any time, without your knowledge, by any physician, teacher, or government social worker in the nation.

Now stop imagining, because for parents in the 193 countries that have ratified the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, each of these scenarios is true.

Constant Supervision and Suspicion

Since its adoption by the United Nations in 1989, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has become the most widely accepted international agreement in history, ratified by every nation of the world except for the United States and Somalia. All signatories pledge to protect children’s rights, foster their development, and uphold their best interests by re-writing their national laws to conform to the standards set forth in the treaty.

While all this may sound harmless and even commendable, the reality is that the Convention allows and even demands that national governments interfere in the decisions of individual families and parents. By invoking the “best interests of the child ,” policymakers and government agents have the authority to substitute their own decisions for those of the child or parent. In short, parents lose their rights to be parents, and become merely caregivers. The result, as parents across the globe are now discovering, is that the family is being steadily undermined, often with tragic and devastating results for the very children who are supposed to be protected.

The Need for Vigilance

Thankfully, the United States still remains the sole organized government of the world that has rejected the Convention on the Rights of the Child, because our elected leaders emphatically rejected the Convention’s incursions on American law and the American family. America believes that international committees and courts should have no authority in the affairs of her families, and that the right and responsibility of lawmaking should be wielded only by her own sons and daughters.

This emphatic resistance, however, must be more than simply a one-time stand, for without vigilance on the part of its citizens, America is unlikely to remain the last stalwart defender of parental rights. Nations across the globe are reaffirming their commitment to the Convention every day, and domestic scholars, activists, judges, and politicians continue to urge us to join them.

To challenge their cries, ParentalRights.org will be taking a closer look at countries who have been recently cited by the United Nations as “model-governments” in the battle for children’s rights. Beneath their shiny veneer of success are stories and movements that reveal the dangers taking shape beyond our borders. Americans everywhere need to be informed about the true nature of the international movement for “child rights.” In short, they need to hear the stories of real parents, in real countries, who are becoming the real casualties of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Editor’s note: This begins a series of articles to be posted at the rate of one every two weeks.

With Election Day tomorrow, voters across the country will choose not only a president, but the 111th Congress.  Once that happens, we will get to know the new Congress and begin to work in earnest on pushing H.R. 97, the Parental Rights Amendment bill.  We already have several very exciting plans and tools in the works that are almost ready for launch.  For many of you, long months of sitting, waiting, wondering what you can do next, are almost over!

The first change many of you will notice is our new website, scheduled to make its debut on November 18.  Those of you who have spoken to us at conferences or by phone in the last couple of months know we were aiming for November 4 (Election Day), but delays with our database forced us to push back the launch two weeks.  Hey, this stuff happens to NASA all the time, right?

The new website will still contain a lot of the information you are used to finding at parentalrights.org, but better organized (we hope) to serve your needs.  There is so much information, it is hard to keep it available and not overwhelming, but we hope to find the proper balance.

The site will also be better targeted to new visitors, making the need for the Amendment clearer and more powerful from the moment they first log on.  It will be more streamlined, too, to “keep the main thing the main thing” and still help you find what you are looking for.

A second change is the moving of our weblog, and setting up new blogs over time.  There is one very important reason for this: Parental Rights is a huge issue, covering a wide array of smaller sub-issues, and drawing the attention of a wide variety of people.  Not all Parental Rights supporters are home-schooling conservatives worried about curriculum choice.  Some are inner city unmarried minority moms whose children are being taken away by Social Services in disproportionate numbers.  Some are divorced moms, or divorced dads, who have lost parental rights simply because their marriage fell apart.  Parents come from Red states and Blue states; they’re Democrats, Republicans, Constitution Partiers and Independent Greens.  Some parents don’t vote at all.  But they are all parents, and they all have fundamental rights to direct the upbringing of their children in accordance with their values.

If all of these opinions from all of these angles on all of these topics converge on a single blog, things can get messy pretty quickly.  We want our blogs to get people talking about Parental Rights, not how much they hate an opponent party or point-of-view.  With that in mind, we want to set up blogs where people can come together and debate these individual issues, or just encourage and support one another, without the threat of splintering our common cause, which is the passing of the Parental Rights Amendment.

The third big change will be the trial launch of our 2×10 Action Plan, a forerunner of the full plan to be unveiled early next year.  This grassroots movement will involve getting signatures in every Congressional District and building our grassroots power base so that every Senator and Congressman, regardless of experience, economic status, or party affiliation, will be forced to listen when we call for the passage of the Parental Rights Amendment.  For those of you involved in this trial launch, you will have some very specific work to do.  Those of you who are not yet a part of this will probably still see signs of it on our new website as things get underway. 

One final change to our website will be what we call our “Activist Page”, a part of the site where you can go to “see the score”, so to speak.  This page will start slow, and will evolve over time based on what kind of “game” we find ourselves in.  But we plan to always keep it interesting, and keep on it a current tally of the numbers that matter at the time: petition signatures, 2×10 Representatives, House or Senate co-sponsors, and so forth.  It will be kind of like watching election coverage in October, but hopefully much less annoying.  Once the Amendment has passed Congress and gone to the States for ratification, the page will evolve to feature how we are doing in each individual state.

All of these changes make for an exciting time here at ParentalRights.org.  We are launching a lot of new things this month, which also makes it a great time to encourage your friends and family to join!  The 111th Congress is our target Congress to pass H.R. 97, and they will be chosen tomorrow.  So gear up, friends – It’s time for kick-off!

The debate over the benefits and dangers of vaccines is not new, but it is drawing new attention.  First there is incessant advertising promoting Gardasil as a vaccine against the human papilloma virus, which in turn is purported to cause certain kinds of cervical cancer.  The new drug is being mandated for sixth graders by various school systems across the country, and has been added to the list of vaccines required by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for all women between ages 11 and 26 seeking citizenship.  Yet, the New England Journal of Medicine warns that the drug only went through five years of clinical studies – much shorter than normal — while it takes twice that long for HPV to result in cervical cancer.

Then there are Hollywood starlets Jenny McCarthy and Amanda Peet, who exchanged barbs in recent months, the former claiming the possibility of a link between vaccine preservatives and autism, the latter opining that “parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites.”  McCarthy has recently released a book on the subject.

According to an APP.com September 23 article on vaccinations, two candidates in the up-coming presidential election have also touched briefly on the issue, including Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.  Obama, in an April rally in Pennsylvania, said “the science [regarding vaccines and autism] right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”  At a Texas town hall meeting in February, McCain said that while “it’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise among children, the question is what’s causing it. … [T]here’s strong evidence that indicates it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines.”

Proponents of vaccine legislation cite “herd immunity”, the theory that immunization even extends to those too weak to receive the vaccine if a super-majority of the community – something between 95 and 99% of healthy citizens –  are immunized.  This argument makes immunization a public health issue, rather than a matter of personal or parental choice.  Looking at the issue from this perspective – and considerable evidence supports the “herd immunity” theory – it is not such a stretch to see where Peet is coming from.  If the community members too weak to be vaccinated can only stay healthy if everyone else is vaccinated, then to say “parents who don’t vaccinate their children are parasites” may not seem unreasonable.

On the other hand, despite insistence to the contrary by medical associations and pharmaceutical companies, an indisputable body of evidence suggests a correlation between thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in certain vaccines, and autism or autism-like symptoms resulting from heavy metal poisoning.  New Jersey, as mentioned above, requires more vaccines than any other state.  Is it a coincidence that the Garden State also has the highest per capita autism rate in the country?  While no studies exist to conclusively prove such a link, none exist to disprove a causal relationship, either.  Such studies, one way or the other, are not needed by parents who have seen an immediate down-turn in the health of a child after vaccines were administered. 

Carolyn Schmidt of New Jersey attended the rally in Trenton, holding a picture of her son at five months, healthy and smiling.  “He got his DPT shot the day this picture was taken,” she told a Times of Trenton News reporter.  “Within five hours, he was rushed to the hospital with a grand mal (epileptic) seizure that lasted an hour. He’s never been the same since.”  Today, the 16-year-old is mute and bound to a wheelchair.

Another rally attendee, Patricia DiFiglia has an even more tragic story.  Her daughter Gianna was only four months old when she received four vaccines at a routine doctor visit – and died two days later.

Are vaccines safe?  Or are they too risky?  Parentalrights.org does not claim to have a solid scientific answer to these questions.  Then again, it seems no one else does, either – and this is reason enough to leave this important, potentially life-or-death, question up to the parents.

At Thursday’s rally, one of its organizers, Louise Habakus, made the point we would make: “This is not an anti-vaccine [issue]; it’s a freedom-of-choice [issue].  This one-size-fits-all approach is really very anti-American.” 

The Parental Rights Amendment will aid parents in retaining their fundamental right to make important medical decisions in the lives of their own children, with common-sense exclusions for clear cases of abuse or neglect.  Should a series of sound scientific studies arise proving vaccines are safe and necessary, they may one day constitute a government interest “of the highest order” to protect children’s lives by mandating inoculation.  Likewise, a similar body of evidence arising to the contrary may see vaccines, or at least thimerosal, banned.  Until such evidence exists one way or the other, as long as the only “proof” on either side is opinions and associational positions, the final responsibility rests with parents to do their own research, draw their own conclusions, and make their own choices in the life of their child.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the law, claiming curfews interfere with parental autonomy.  David McGuire, a lawyer for the Connecticut ACLU chapter, told The Courant the union is considering taking legal action to strike down the intrusive ordinance.

This is not the first time the ACLU has spoken out against curfews.  In a 2003 article of the Cincinnati Enquirer, ACLU of Ohio legal director Raymond Vasvari is quoted as saying, “Whether or not their kids are on the street is a matter the parents should decide.”  The 2003 article focused on a daytime curfew being considered in Springfield Township, Ohio.

That’s right.  A daytime curfew.  A similar law was passed in Monrovia, CA, in 2002, and survives despite legal opposition in the courts.  At the time of the Enquirer article, Springfield was nearly the only Cincinnati locality that did not already have such an ordinance.  Nearby Reading’s curfew was in its seventh year, adopted in 1996.  By contrast, Grain Valley, Missouri, just adopted a daytime curfew on August 25 of this year, and citizens of Rock Springs, Wyoming are still waiting to hear what their City Council decides.

Proponents say a daytime curfew empowers police to keep teen trouble-makers – such as truants and students expelled from local schools for behavioral issues – off the streets without parental supervision.  Opponents fear losing the right to be “presumed innocent until proven guilty.”  “This seems to create a presumption of criminality against kids just because they’re kids,” Vasvari said. 

There are legitimate reasons for (otherwise) law-abiding teens to be about town in the middle of the day.  Home-schoolers come quickly to mind, but so do teens with a dentist or doctor’s appointment.  Sometimes, teens are kept home from school to care for a sick parent or younger sibling, a task which can be made much harder if they are afraid to make a run to the pharmacy or the grocery store for fear of a ticket.

The ACLU is right; curfew laws do interfere with the rights of parents to direct their own children.  Laws already exist to handle truants and vandals.  Crime-riddled localities do not need daytime curfews, but rather better communication between schools and law enforcement agencies. Innocent students, at their parents’ discretion, have a right to move freely about their communities without fear of being stopped or harassed by law enforcement officials who, while admittedly just trying to do their jobs, overstep constitutional bounds.  America is not a police state.  Or not yet, anyway.