Loss Of Parental Rights? United Nations and Progressives in Hot Pursuit
By Carmen Reynolds, Boogai.net, Editor-in-Chief
Just try coming between a mother and her suckling infant. Or a mama grizzly.
Any predator must first posit the dire consequences of interfering with a parent while nurturing its offspring – until now.
As Orwellian as it may seem, powerful leaders, activist judges and the United Nations have been quietly working to remove parental rights.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty aims to give “the state” new powers, usurping parental rights, establishing the child and the United Nations (Hillary’s Village) as partners in determining what is best for the child.
This could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion.
Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WorldNet Daily that under the purview of this treaty, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest.
Under international law, this treaty would override our U.S. Constitution. Already in Europe, homeschooled children are being removed from parents’ homes.
Take the case of homeschooled Domenic Johansson of Sweden. In June 2009 Swedish police boarded a plane where the Johanssons were leaving the country for Mrs. Johansson’s home country of India. The police had no warrant and did not charge the Johanssons with a crime.
The family continues to be kept apart through actions of Swedish government officials. Nine-year-old Domenic remains in state foster care, now separated from his parents Christer and Annie for more than 18 months. Christer, who took Domenic home for a short but “unapproved” overnight visit in early December, is still imprisoned. http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Sweden/201101110.asp
In 2008, Gerno and Andrea Schöneich, along with their four children, fled Germany to New Zealand where they hoped they would be free to live and educate their children in peace. As homeschool parents, they faced threats from authorities, hefty fines, and even jail time. German authorities continue to show extreme prejudice toward homeschoolers, prompting families to leave their homeland rather than give up homeschooling.
Unable to obtain work permits in New Zealand, and unable to return to Germany because of the very real fear that their younger children could be removed from their custody, the Schöneichs decided to apply for political asylum in New Zealand. In mid-November the family received invitations to present their claim for refugee status before New Zealand officials. The family is representing themselves in the asylum process, and after many months, he has obtained a work permit.
Now ratified by 193 nations, CRC is the most widely-adopted human rights treaty of any kind, with the United States and Somalia the sole hold outs. Progressives in the Administration want to change that, counting on unaware Americans to ramrod this outright threat to parental rights and American sovereignty through Congress.
The two central principles of the CRC are the “best interest of the child” and “the child’s right of participation” in all relevant matters.
In a 1980s Washington case, a child didn’t wish to attend church as frequently as his parents. The child was then removed from the home, despite no allegations of abuse. The attorney for the parents did not appeal because the court ruled the child needn’t attend church but once per week, and they feared losing permanent custody.
“This case is an absolute perfect example of what would happen if the United States were to adopt the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,” states www.parentalrights.org which advocates for a Parental Rights Amendment in the U.S. Congress to prohibit the effects of a UN treaty.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child issued an official report Sept. 29, 2006, regarding Ireland. It urged the state party to prohibit all forms of corporal punishment in the family and sensitize and educate parents and the public about the unacceptability of corporal punishment. It also identified a lack of information provided to the students on reproductive health.
In the 1995 report on the United Kingdom’s compliance with the CRC, it was criticized for allowing parents to make decisions to remove their child from participation in sex education classes in government schools without adequate measures to ensure that the child’s viewpoints were considered and weighed appropriately.
“[T]he United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, criticized Egypt and Indonesia on the proportion of their budget spent on defense, as compared to the proportion spent on children’s social expenditure. It also criticized Austria, Australia, Denmark, the U.K. and others failing to spend enough tax dollars on social welfare for children.”
According to www.parentalrights.org, the CRC is a human rights treaty which mandates a socialistic duty of the government to furnish a child’s needs in economic, social, and cultural areas. There are many troubling aspects of this treaty, if passed:
Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:
- Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
- A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
- Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
- The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
- A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
- According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
- Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
- Christian schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that Christianity is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29″ of the treaty.
- Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
- Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
Readers concerned about passage of this UN treaty can go to the www.parentalrights.org Web site and participate in working against it both at a national and local level. Rep. Fleming (R-La.) has introduced the Parental Rights Amendment (HR 3) in the U.S. Congress this session.
Forty-one states are now working on resolutions to be sent to Washington D.C. in support of a Parental Rights Amendment.
The movie “The Child,” which is available on the Web site, can be shown in communities to convey the critical aspects of exchanging parental rights for the collective global good. Churches and homeschooling groups can play a critical role in taking this message to their congregations and to the public.
Proponents of the UN treaty are relying on deception and ignorance to facilitate its passage.
Let the deafening roar of America’s moms and dads begin.
Carmen Reynolds is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel with a BS in Criminology and Law Enforcement, MA in Business Personnel Management and BA in Journalism. She is Editor-in-Chief of boogai.net and can be reached at journalist@bellsouth.net.
American MOMS-DADS -GRANDPARENTS all those that have children enrolled in American public schools. The National Education Association runs American Public schools,or should I say Socialist indoctrination clinics. The NEA is tied at the hip with the United Nations and their agenda is converting our children to international socialist (Citizens of the World)
Please take the time to listen to the following expose
The Gettin after Lefty Show-THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION PUBLIC SCHOOL SEX CURRICULUM’S STARTING WITH YOUR FIVE YEAR OLD
click on url to listen to this show, you will hear things about public schools the media refuses to broadcast
http://tinyurl.com/4oyboyf
Why would anyone in their right mind leave their child or children in government (public) schools? In order to pay for their selfish indulgencies, families are spending all their time working, racking up debt they can’t pay off to pay for things they can’t afford, and to give their kids things they “think” will make them happy and forget about why their parents aren’t around. So they sacrifice their kids on the alter of “me” and then they don’t understand why their kids are lost mentally and spiritually. My advice to parents, cut out excessive spending, cut down debt, live within your means, one parent work, one stay home and homeschool your child before its too late. Is it hard? Yes, but God has trusted you with YOUR child. Trust in Him and not the government. The government WILL let you down, God won’t. Here’s your chance to exercise your faith! God bless.
I have homeschooled since kindergarten; saw the handwriting on the wall 10 years ago. I am still amazed at the apathy of parents and total ignorance of what really goes on in public schools. I also attempted to alert parents about the UN Treaty 3 years ago, and the response I commonly received was, “That can’t happen here”. Wake up parents! It is happening, it has been happening, and unless this treaty is stopped, it will be illegal not only to homeschool, but to raise your child at all. The government will do it for you whether you like it or not.
Hello,
Thank you for this great article. I have been working in Tennessee for nearly two years to raise awareness of this critical issue. For more information, go to my blog http://www.parentalrightstn.blogspot.com. If you live in Tennessee, join me in this work. I also highly endorse the documentary mentioned above.
Sincerely,
Eric Potter
Tennessee Director Parental Rights.Org
Not that it necessarily matters to you all, but this column is almost entirely incorrect.
First, the Convention is not anti-parent: the Preamble to the Convention states that “the family [is] the fundamental group of society” and the Convention proper repeatedly emphasises the primary role of parents and the importance of maintaining parental relationships, referring to parents no less than 36 times: see articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18, 24, 27 and 29, among others. For example, article 29 – which concerns the right to education – specifically provides that one of the aims of education is “development of respect for the child’s parents”.
Second, the Convention is not the creation of “powerful leaders, activist judges and the United Nations … quietly working”. Following the same process as almost any other international agreement, the Convention was negotiated in open intergovernmental conferences through the course of the 1980s and opened for signature in November 1989. As the comment notes, it has now been ratified by 193 countries – that is, every country other than the United States and Somalia – and each of these countries independently decided whether to support the Convention in accordance with its own governmental procedures.
Third – and with the exception of capital punishment of children, which states that ratify the Convention must first decide to renounce – ratification of the Convention has nowhere had the extraordinary consequences that this comment describes. As above, the role of parents is central to the Convention: if, as suggested, Dr Farris has claimed “that under the purview of this treaty, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest”, that is a farcical claim supported neither by the text of the Convention nor – more problematically for him – by any such development in any, let alone most or all, of the 193 countries that are party.
Fourth, as a clear matter of United States law, the Convention would remain subordinate to the United States Constitution.
Fifth, the claimed connection between removal of homeschooled children and the Convention is untenable, for at least two reasons: first, however Sweden and/or Germany may act towards particular instances of homeschooling, that is a matter of national policy and practice, not the Convention; and second, the claimed relevance of applications for refugee status by homeschooling families now in New Zealand (and also in Canada) rather overlooks the fact that both those countries are longstanding parties to the Convention.
Sixth, there is – of course – no connection between the Convention, concluded late in 1989, and whatever may have happened in the unnamed Washington case sometime in the 1980s.
Seventh, the Committee on the Rights of the Child is an independent body of experts that advises on the interpretation of the Convention. It has no binding authority.
Eighth, the Convention does not “exchange … parental rights for the collective global good”. As above, it emphasises the primary role of parents in securing their children’s individual wellbeing.
Last, and as for deception and ignorance: perhaps try rewriting this column on the basis of fact, not innuendo, smears and outright lies.
Good evening,
As a American parent working to understand this issue for over two years, I would like to respond to Max’s accusations and dysinformation.
First, this treaty is truly anti-parent despite its word games to the contrary. Despite many token compliments to the primacy of the family, this treaty when read in its entirety undermines the family. Article 3 gives the government rights to intervene in parenting matters at a lower threshold than our current laws permit. Article 12 allows the government to intervene whenever a child requests it. Article 18 simply means that the government gives parents responsibilities for parenting, not rights. No matter how many times that parents are mentioned, these three articles undermine parenting as we know it.
continued below.
part 2 of reply to Max:
Random comments:
Since when is it okay for even open “intergovernmental conferences” to determine what parents should be doing with the children that God gave them? Did we have any input at the UN?
Since when do we care what the rest of the world thinks about our parenting? We do what is right rather than jumping off the bridge as everyone does.
Anyone who investigates the worldview behing this treaty and the writings of its authors and supporters will see that Parental Rights.Org is far closer to the truth than Mr. Max.
If you want more information on the worldview, go to http://www.parentalrightstn.blogspot.com.
Part 3
I challenge the reader of this posting to investigate for themselves. Look at the Parental Rights.Org website and see how they have quoted the treaty, the committee proceedings, and the treaty authors to prove exactly what Max claims is true. Don’t take my word nor Max’s word, not even Michael Farris’ words. Then you will discover the intentional deception that Max is trying to perpetrate.
In response to the “Fourth”:
According to Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert in the 1950s, treaties can change law not EXPLICITLY protected in the Constitution. Given that parental rights are no where explicitly stated (even Justice Antonio Scalia stated so in Troxel v. Granville 2000), the 10th Amendment would not prevent the treaty from be the ultimate authority of parental rights. It doesn’t need to overide the Constitution since the Constitution does not speak to the issue. Read Article 6 of our Constitution and look up Reid v. Covert.
Part 4
In response to the statements regarding homeschooling.
Max is correct that the treaty itself did not cause Germany and Sweden to enact their schooling policies. However, it is the worldview behind those decisions which reflects the intent of the UN CRC. Please read this quote from Parental Rights.Org website.
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.
8. Ministry of Education and Science, 2.
9. Ruby Harrold-Claesson, “When Parents Become Victims,” The Nordic Committee on Human Rights (February 11, 2000) (accessed January 17, 2009)
10. Harrold-Claesson, “When Parents Become Victims”
Part 6
For those who don’t think the treaty can be used against homeschoolers, please do a google search on “Badman report”. A British official named Badman proposed that the government change its approach to homeschooling and initiate regulations based on the UN CRC. Thankfully, this report was rejected. It included the recommendation that government officials should be permitted to enter a homeschooling home and interview the children without parents being present to determine suitability of the schooling environment. How many of you would have liked that “governmental help”?
Part 7:
In regards to the 1980’s Washington case and the UN CRC:
No, these are technically unrelated, BUT, again it is the worldview behind each decision. This erroneous worldview says that judges, social workers, or other government officials are free to interject their opinion of what is best for a child into a family. The treaty and the judge in that case both believe that they are wiser than the parents.
Part 8
In regards to the “binding authority” of the committee proceedings:
Why have a committee if they have no power? That makes no sense. Yes, they provide recommendations without “current” penalties. However, the officials in those nations then use that “recommendation” to force legislation or judges use it as “customary internation law” against parents. You can claim “no binding authority” all you want, but the committee’s reports are used as leverage by others to implement this erroneous worldview
Part 9
Dear Max,
May the readers investigate for themselves and determine who is spreading innuendo, smears, and outright lies. May they see who either misunderstands this issue or see who is intentionally deceiving them. May God open their eyes to the truth.
Thank you for the opportunity to draw out the truth on this issue.
Eric,
Thank you for your exacting details and in-depth understand of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty. Progressive trolls are always out there to dispute fact or tell us we have NOTHING to worry about –just let the tsunami roll over our heads because MOST of us have been sleeping in front of the TV – the conveniently “placed” distraction.
The first indicator that something is amiss should be this:
WHY would we need a United Nations treaty for anything in the first place – period? Huh – Max?
The right of any form of government whether it be local, state, Federal or most of all global as in The United Nations has absolutely no right to interfere with the raising of a child. There is nothing in any constitution within this country that implies that the government can intervene on how a child should be raised. Of course if there is criminal activity in the form of harm or exploitation of the child by the parents, the law does and should step in. Unless the parents operate outside of the law in raising their child there should be no government intervention within the confines of this country, period. Now, throw in a UN Treaty concerning this arena, people who lean in this direction have lost their mind. These people, the progressives/liberals/leftists, whatever you want to call it believe that global authority should trump United States sovereignty are farther off the grid than the ones that at least believe in keeping this kind of thought within the boundaries of this country. Regardless, no entity has the right to tell a citizen how to raise their child. You want to start a revolution? There are many ways but government intervention into the lives of law abiding citizens/parents on child rearing will be a last straw in the present never ending attempts for the left to turn this great nation into a nanny state. There are 300 million registered weapons in the USA…that is only registered weapons. The last bastion of liberty comes down to the freedom of a family unit. Any living entity will savagely defend its territory and family when threatened with any person/government representative that tries to separate/interfere or alter what is a sacred institution. Any person who thinks in this direction would be part of the authorities in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.