UN Report: Sweden

Parental Inquisition

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.”

Much Ado About Nothing…Yet

According to Canada’s CBC News, the Quebec Court of Appeal in Montreal on Tuesday (January 13) heard arguments in the case of a Gatineau father seeking clarification of parental rights after his daughter took him to court in June 2008 and won a judgement to overturn a grounding he had imposed on her for disobedience. In the original case, decided by Judge Suzanne Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court, the man’s 12-year-old daughter challenged his right to prohibit her from attending a school trip after she defied his orders to stay off the internet. He imposed that rule when he learned the girl was posting “inappropriate” pictures of herself on adult dating sites, but the pre-teen circumvented his parenting by using a friend’s computer instead. As a result, the father told her she could not attend the three-day overnight trip that her school was taking to celebrate their graduation from sixth grade. Judge Tessier ruled that the father had in fact overstepped his authority, and that the punishment was too severe.

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).

UN Report: Italy

Shadows of the Past
Italy and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

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. 

UN Report: Belgium

Watching Out for Her Little Ones
Belgium and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

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.

UN Report: Go Dutch!

A Child-Centered Society
The Netherlands and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

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 .

Delays Big and Small

Today is November 18, and I am greatly disappointed to have to tell you our new website is still not up and running.  This makes the second postponement while we settle the technical issues so that everything will work properly.  We hope to have everything ironed out by the first of December, and I will keep you posted as the day draws near.

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. 

“Imagine if . . .”

The Reality of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

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.

Change Is Coming

Change is coming.  No, I’m not talking about Barack Obama or John McCain (and aren’t you glad!).  I’m talking about big changes in the works here at ParentalRights.org.

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!

Vaccines, Autism, and Parents

TRENTON, NJ — Hundreds rallied at the New Jersey Statehouse on Thursday, October 16, to protest a new state law adding four more vaccines to the state’s list of mandatory inoculations, already the longest such list in the nation.  Various reports estimate the crowd of parents and children at 300 to 500, gathered to draw attention to the new regulation, which requires for the first time that children from 6 months to five years of age receive an influenza vaccine to attend day-care and public schools.

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. 

Should Parents Decide Curfew?

According to an August 16 story from The Hartford Courant, Hartford  (Connecticut) hopes to stem a wave of teen crime by reviving a curfew law already on the books.  Authorities believe the 9:00 pm deadline for minors under 18 to be off the streets will reduce crime, though many residents express doubts.  And teens with a legitimate reason to be out past the deadline wonder what will become of them.  Will they have to face police on a nightly basis as they take the bus home from work?

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.