Ncmom, As can be seen below the UNCRC was signed in 1989 and the U.S. did not participate. It seems to me that if we continue to use child labor abroad that we would not dare sign this. And, I have not looked up the countries who did sign but would guess that some of those are the ones who allow child labor. “UNCRC - United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations Convention signed in 1989)" "The UNCRC is a list of 54 promises made by governments from almost all countries (except USA and Somalia ) in the UN to children and young people, including the right to education, equal treatment and the right to an opinion. All governments who have signed the UNCRC are supposed to work to make it part of their law.” In my opinion, this is the last thing to worry about being signed by the U.S. Grace
Didn't President Clinton sign the UNCRC treaty but the GOP majority Congress wouldn't approve it? Is that your concern ncmom that if Hillary is elected with a Democratic majority that she will try to get it through? Just asking.
Please see link below for a case in North Carolina where parental rights were given back in accordance to North Carolina law. These laws are state by state. In my opinion, some people should not be parents and when a human gets to an age of understanding one should be able to ask the Court to remove them from the home (incest, intrusive parents carrying things way too far, violence, etc.). Maybe those parents should appeal as was done in the N.C. case and in other states. http://www.romingerlegal.com/northcarolina/HTML/030629-1.htm Grace
Yes, he did. That was not in the original Posting and if she meant it that way I hope she will clear it up. In seeing the first and then second part of her Post it seemed like an overall concern and not a political one to me but I could be wrong. I saw nothing political in any of it. Grace
And what do you consider to be "an age of understanding"? What do you consider "intrusive parents carrying thing way too far?
Knowing that not everyone is having sex with their father or mother would be one thing that comes to mind. Obsession without sex is one. How about you Mag...do you believe a child has any rights and if so what and why? Grace
My children took their natural father to court just last year to revoke parental visitation rights. They won!! At age 12 & 9!!! This was in Johnston County. It is the right of children from 2/07 until forever if they choose to see him or not & never to have to stay over another night as long as they live. They still keep his last name & he still has to pay child support & medical. At age 16 the children can change their last name. Depends on the case on the circumstances & the actual revocation of the rights. Until you or in a stiuation like some of these kids-like mine don't knock it. This took 7 years & it was worth every penny to have my children happy. In this case the only "parental right" he has is paying support & insurance". He has no other right to my children. The age of understanding per court is 13 unless the judge feels in speaking with them their maturity level then the court could deem any age over 10
Wow some of those stories are scary! ONE MOTHER'S STRUGGLE TO GAIN TRUST CONNECTICUT—As a proud new mother, Diana Owen's joy at her daughter's birth soon turned to deep concern for the baby's health. At only a few months old, tiny Bryanna-Rose seemed prone to violent vomiting episodes, at times struggling for breath while her lips turned a bluish color. When she first began to observe her daughter's frequent incidents of projectile vomiting, the panicked mother rushed her baby girl to the hospital. For Diana, that day marked the beginning of many sleepless nights at Hasbro Children's Hospital in Providence while her baby daughter underwent numerous tests to determine her condition. While doctors grappled for an explanation for Bryanna-Rose's sporadic yet violent symptoms, Diana waited—having no idea that something more sinister was afoot: a growing suspicion of Diana's reliability when it came to her claims about her daughter's health. When hospital personnel informed the anxious mother that they were taking her daughter into "protective custody," she was shocked. But gradually the cold realization began to dawn on her: the medical personnel at the hospital were accusing her of Munchausen by Proxy, a mental disorder wherein a parent or primary caregiver actually induces or fabricates a child’s illness as a ploy for attention from doctors. Turning a deaf ear to Diana’s cries, officials handed little Bryanna-Rose over to the Department of Social Services (DSS) and eventually a new foster mother. The new foster mother was floored, however, when Bryanna-Rose began violently vomiting. "It's not the mother!" she told DSS, "This baby does have projectile vomiting!" Even with the foster mother's validation, Diana’s battle to gain trust continued to drag on. The day officials took her daughter, Diana could not have guessed that eleven months would go by before she was permitted to visit with her alone—and only after months of psychological evaluation and intrusive questioning by social workers. Today, while Diana is delighted to have her daughter back, she feels bruised by the experience—particularly by the eleven months of separation from her daughter. "It is myself and my family that will face the consequences of this nightmare," she says. SOURCE: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/04/a_mothers_battled_to_be_believed
You're obviously addressing incestuous situations, Grace. And I believe that typically, if a child gives any indication whatsoever to a teacher, neighbor, friend's mother, pastor, other family member, doctor, etc....that their parents are sexually abusing them, authorities usually act pretty quickly. However, I do not believe that a mother should be harassed and have her child taken away if she spanks his butt for acting up in the grocery store. I do not believe that a parent should go through this because some busy-body hippie sees mom giving him a scoldinig in the parking lot of the store because he got smart-mouthed or disobeyed. And I believe that if a parent grounds the child for 1 month or 2 months or however long, it is the parent's business....not anyone else's.
Where do you draw the line and how do you ensure the parents ARE looking out for the best intersts of the children? There are just as many anecdotal instances of parents who have been found to be abusing children after someone finally investigated. After all Susan Smith had the parental right to take her children for a drive, did she not?
You asked me two questions and I answered them with the first thing that came to mind, which did not take long. It seemed in your questions that you could find no instance where a child should be liberated from their parents. The laws are based on each state. I will tell you that my 16 year old has been spanked in public and no one turned me in nor did anyone say anything. She was spanked when she was younger as a last resort. Depending on the grounding and the reason for it would have to be on an individual basis. I have grounded mine on many occasions and no one has taken her from me. Don't yell "Fire" where their is none. My child has always been accident prone. One time I took her to the doctor and stated to the doctor that I was sure she noticed the bruises and cuts but wanted her to understand that none were caused by an adult. She laughed and stated that it is the child who comes in with no bruises or cuts that she worries about because the parent needs them healed before bringing a child to a doctor. No "Fire" around these parts. Grace
That's a good question, and one that can't be answered easily, because a parent has the right to parent their child however strictly they wish as long as the child is not suffering dangerous harm such as broken bones or repeated serious brusies to areas of the face, chest and limbs. A sore butt from a whipping given an hour ago, is not dangerous harm. A one-time bruise from a fall is not dangerous harm. Spanking is not dangerous to a child...sometimes it's the only thing that will work. There are two grandchildren in our family that were born days apart. Once we were at Daddy's, and both kids went running to the end of the large front yard, towards the main road -which is full of fast-moving traffic. Needless to say, both moms went flying after them, yelling for them to stop, as they ran. When the two moms got to the kids, an interesting thing happened. My sister grabbed her son and scolded him loudly and harshly right there on the spot, and spanked his butt good for not stopping when she told him to. My step-sister picked up her son and hugged him and cried to him about how scared she was that he was going to get hit by a car and cood to him "please, honey, don't ever do that again." Next time we were all in the yard at Daddy's, guess whose kid went running straight for the road again...and which one stayed put yelling at the other kid to "Stop...you're gonna get a spankin!"
Possibly, in some states, but the question is whether they should have such a right. The line between a whipping and a beating may be very fine and assumes everyone knows and understands the difference, which we know is incorrect. When children are too young to understand reasoning, such an action is sometimes better and sometimes not. You are claiming as a "right" it must always be better and others are saying that is is not and thus should not be a "right". The emotional and oe psychological impacts can be just as devastating to a child and society in the long run, yet no broken bones nor bruises can be determined. I find it a bit odd that some of the people who speak the loudest about the "rights" of parents are also those who speak the loudest about parents not taking the responsibility they should toward children. It strikes me as being told we SHOULD have a utopia and we should act as if we do regardless fo the reality or practicality. Is there a single perfect solution? Yes, stop having children, but past that there is none. We must do the best we can with what we have and that includes considering some children are better at reality than some parents and the laws must have that flexibility, which blanket parent rights ignore.
True, however, we cannot sacrifice the right to parental choices for those who know how to parent...in an effort to take them away from those who don't. We cannot possibly prevent each and every incident of child abuse, thus we must be viligent...but not over-zealous. What we need are better defined guidelines that should be followed before CPS gets involved. Guidelines that are not based on some pacifist idea of protecting a child's self-esteem over all discipline. Guidelines that are based on reason and historical evidence that shows that years ago, when parents were allowed to discipline their children strictly, most folks turned out okay. Its the kids who were raised in families that follow the "new age" crap regarding discipline, that are having a real hard time in the real world. We also need better trained CPS personnel that know how to read body language when interviewing - confidentially - parents against whom a claim has been made. Personnel that don't have an agenda other than reasonable protection for children. Agreed, however counter to that is that the emotional and psychological impact on a child raised without discipline can be just as bad. Children who are not disciplined, and aren't taught what they need to learn to exist in the real world, will not succeed in that world. Why? Parents not only have the right to discipline their children, they also have full and total obligation to do it properly.
The issue lies in how the government views our rights as parents. Should your right be labeled as a "fundamental" right where the government bears the burden of proof to interfere with your rights as a parent? OR is parenting a "non-fundenmental" right where parents bear the proof to show the governement has wrongly intervened? More about this issue http://www.hslda.org/docs/hshb/80/hshbwk3.asp
