IMPORTANT LEGISLATION

 

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Cause for Concern but not Panic

Article found in WPA newsletter, December 2008, summarized by Tomi Fay Forbes

 

Anyone who is part of a Christian network of any sort has no doubt received one or literally hundreds of emails regarding the UN Rights of the Child issue.

For the United States to ratify this convention, the President must send it to the US Senate for 2/3rds approval. None of the past three Presidents – either Democrat or Republican – who have served since the convention was adopted by the UN has sent it to the Senate.

 

The convention addresses serious problems around the world which need attention, such as hunger, poverty, and child slavery. The issue is that of increasing the power and authority professionals and so-called experts have over families while reducing the rights and responsibilities of parents. Rather than working to strengthen families, the convention views children as independent units. Presently in U.S. courts this applies to custody and child abuse cases. The convention would apply it to all areas, including parent-child relations, education, health, mass media, recreation, foster care and adoption, and juvenile justice. While we want children around the world to have solidity and care, it is naïve and short-sighted to view children as independent units whose best interests can be separated from those of their families and society as a whole. Children need to be part of strong, stable families. Rather than looking at a child in the context of the family, the child is separated from the family.

 

The convention repeatedly gives decision making authority to “competent authorities” (professionals and experts in child development, child psychology, social work, etc.) rather than to the parents. When overwhelming problems such as poverty, war, racism, and genocide make parents incapable of making decisions in their children’s best interests, the real problems should be addressed. Undermining families and sometimes taking children away from their parents will not solve these problems.

 

In addressing issues surrounding education, the convention unfortunately calls for compulsory education rather than compulsory attendance. (Remember, this was the issue with the bill regarding virtual schooling a year ago.) If schooling must be compulsory, it is much safer to require attendance, which can be verified without intrusive measures like testing or review of curriculum and which allows freedom of thought. By contrast, compulsory education allows the state to dictate what knowledge, attitudes, and skills children must acquire and demonstrate.

 

The original convention was adopted in 1989. All counties of the UN have ratified it except the US and Somalia. The US has also refused to ratify other UN conventions in the past. Before it can be ratified, lawyers in the state department assess ways in which it is at odds with current federal and state laws and constitutions. Any country can agree to the convention as it stands or modify it by adopting “reservations.” If the US were to seriously consider ratifying the convention, it would undoubtedly change provisions in the convention that are at odds with current US and state laws, the Federal and state constitutions, and widely accepted practice. In the past, it has taken three to five years for conventions like this to be ratified.

 

While the convention raises serious concerns, it is unlikely to be ratified in a form that will significantly impact US federal and state law. However, the ratification process could encourage discussions of children’s rights and the principle of “the best interests of the child.” (Of course, this would give supporters of families an opportunity to present their views as well.) Ratification would undoubtedly encourage advocates for children’s rights to press for more legislation. It would encourage the current trend to undermine families by turning to professionals through increasing preschool for children of younger ages, mental health and other screenings, etc.

 

We can strengthen our position on important issues by understanding and exercising our rights and responsibilities as families and working to prevent professionals and experts from taking over the roles of parents.

 

Martin Guggenheim's book: What's Wrong with Children's Rights, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 2005