“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.

Protecting Kids by Preserving a Parent’s Right

According to an August 12 report from KXLY in Spokane, Washington, the Department of Child Protective Services for nearby Colville has come under investigation after a number of parents and legal guardians complained about the department’s practices: removing children from perfectly good homes, splitting families for no apparent reason, and treating legal guardians with great disrespect. Added to parental complaints is a letter by local area physicians claiming they have no confidence in the Colville DCPS office.

All by itself, the story should raise concerns, but Colville is not alone.

A Second Chance in California

Parents across California and the nation were relieved to hear the California Court of Appeals decision last night granting a motion for a rehearing in the ruling that banned homeschooling across the state — unless parents held a teacher’s license qualifying them to teach in public schools. The possibility now exists for changing the decision, when the court holds a new hearing in June. Read more here.

Home Schooling Illegal in California? A Radio Interview with Dr. James Dobson

Two weeks ago, I had an opportunity to speak with Dr. James Dobson about the threat that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child poses to parental rights, particularly the right of parents to direct the education of their children. In retrospect, these warnings almost appear to have been prophetic.

Suing Mom and Dad?

An In-depth Look at Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Last week, we looked at how Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child gives the government authority to intervene in the decisions of parents simply by appealing to the child’s “best interests.” This week, we continue our in-depth analysis of the CRC by examining Article 12, which says: “States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”

Upcoming ParentalRights.org Rally!

ParentalRights.org Rally in Dallas, TX – Saturday, March 1, 2008

We’d like to remind you of an exciting upcoming rally on Saturday, March 1, 2008. Michael P. Farris, J.D. will speak on the important topic of eroding parental rights in the U.S. This issue affects EVERY PARENT IN AMERICA. Don’t miss this special opportunity to hear Farris’s SOLUTION, which he describes as “the battle of the century for every parent in America.” This is a free event, and all parents and concerned citizens in Texas and surrounding states are invited.

What’s Wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

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.

Parental Rights and the Pledge of Allegiance

A Palm Beach County case on parental rights reached the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday. The case started with Boynton Beach High School student Cameron Frazier, an eleventh grader who refused to say the pledge of allegiance with the rest of his class in 2005. The following year a district court judge handed down a ruling that minor children possess “autonomy” from parents to decide whether or not to say the pledge of allegiance.

The district court ruling directly contradicts Florida law, which seeks to protect the rights of both students and parents by requiring parental consent for students wishing to “opt out” of saying the pledge. But Frazier, his mother, and the ACLU were intent on striking down the state law and altering the state education policy which allows parents to make crucial decisions for their children regarding attendance of certain classes, or, in this case, determining whether or not to say the pledge of allegiance. In comments praising the district court’s decision, Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida said, “It was long past due for this unconstitutional law in Florida to be struck down and the conscience and rights of young people to be respected by school officials.”

Is teaching faith to children a form of child abuse?

Playwright Julie Pascal’s recent article decrying the teaching of religion to children offers a revealing glimpse into some of the dangerous potential found within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Referring to teaching religion to children as a form of child abuse, author Julie Pascal cites the Convention’s wording on the importance of “respect for the views of the child.”

The UNCRC has been challenged because of it’s reliance on government definitions of the “best interest of the child” — rather than observance and respect for a parent’s concept of what is right for their child.

Read more about some of the dangers of the UNCRC.

Parental Rights: Why Now is the Time to Act

From the March/April 2006 Court Report Cover Story

Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong — these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history. — Winston Churchill, speech, House of Commons, May 2, 1935.i

There were early warning signs that homosexual “marriage” should be taken seriously. On May 27, 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to three same-sex couples. A voter initiative eventually trumped this decision, but at least by this date the battle was fully engaged.

Yet, the responses of the pro-family community, judged with the aid of 20/20 hindsight, have to be regarded as too little, too late. Homosexual marriages are now being performed in this nation. And while there have been a number of successful efforts to place traditional marriage language into state constitutions, efforts to bring in a federal constitutional amendment are essentially stalled. Even more troubling is the fact that the momentum in the legal system is moving rapidly in the direction of declaring homosexual marriage a federal constitutional right. If this happens, all state constitutional efforts will be for naught.

A friend in Congress recently told me that if the issue had been brought to the floor of the House 15–20 years ago, there is no doubt that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage would have passed. There is substantial doubt that such an amendment will ever pass at this point.

The pro-family movement waited until Congress believed there was a real problem before attempting a constitutional solution, even though legal experts have been united for nearly a decade in saying that the only way to stop the courts’ march toward homosexual marriage is with a federal constitutional amendment. By now, our opponents have gained so much strength in both law and culture that the prospects for the right solution are daunting at best.

This article is about the need to save parental rights. I use the story of the battle to save marriage solely as a cautionary tale. The threats to parental rights are real and growing. And we must face the fact that the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is not explicitly written in the text of the Constitution. If we wish to preserve this right, it is my contention that now is the time to put parents’ rights into black and white—that is, to adopt an explicit constitutional amendment.

If we wait until the threat fully matures, we will have waited too long.