Parental Rights versus UNCRC

Richard – How is an 18-member commission based in Switzerland working for an international organization in a better position than the parents to determine the best interests of the child?

Certainly the stated goals of this international law appear to be laudatory. And anyone who abuses children should be held accountable. However, here are a few problems with this convention as those who created the Parental Rights web site, Beetle Blogger, and others have already written about:

1 – State Intervention – “If this treaty is made binding upon our country, the government would have the power to intervene in any child’s life to advance its definition of ‘the best interests of the child’” (UNCRC–Death Knell for Parental Rights).

2 – Due Process – “Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in ‘the best interest of the child’ (Ibid.).

3 – Legal Status of Parents – In essence, “the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents—when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause” (Ibid.).

4 – Government Control of the Family – As Great Britain’s homeschooling families learned earlier this year, ratifying the CNCRC has enormous consequences. As Beetle Blogger noted:

. . . government ministers disclosed plans to control and monitor homeschooling families by requiring them to register with local authorities, present learning plans, and undergo regular inspections. Part of these procedures would allow government officials to interrogate children without a parent present, permitting local authorities to intervene in family affairs in an unprecedented way. . . . Outwardly masquerading as a document promoting human rights for children, the CRC actually circumvents parental rights by imbuing governments with the ultimate authority to determine “the best interests of the child.” In Great Britain’s case, the document justifying this type of intrusion into the affairs of British homeschooling families is referred to as the Badman Report, which was submitted to the British parliament earlier this month and now awaits legislative action. (UNCRC – Uncle Sam in the Nursery?)

5 – National Sovereignty – The CRC would override existing U.S. law. For example, “the CRC is a treaty which creates binding rules of law that once ratified, becomes compulsory for American families, courts, and policy-makers. In accordance with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, (also known as the Supremacy Clause), when ratified as a treaty the CRC it automatically overrides virtually all American laws affecting children and families. This would include its ability to override even our own Constitution” (Ibid.).

6 – Centralize Government Power – An 18-member committee in Geneva is far removed from the state and local authorities who currently interdict in these affairs. Additionally, “the federal government would now receive power to directly legislate on all subjects (namely families and children) necessary to comply with the treaty. This would create the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history” (Ibid.).

In essence, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child appears to be founded in the philosophy of statism which holds that the individual is subservient to the state (see Hegelian Dialectic) and is far removed from the individualist philosophies upon which the U.S. is founded.

Concerned citizens can call the White House comments line at 202.456.1111 or leave a message at Contact the White House.