Children have an absolute right to see their parents. Once upon a time, it was the other way round. Parents had the rights. However, this has changed and now, International law recognises the child as an individual and accords absolute rights to the child as an individual and as a person. I am in full accord with this.
Parents no longer have rights over the child. Rather, they have a responsibility to the child. Is this refutable? Children are not possessions of the parents. A child’s parents have a legal obligation to their children to ensure the child is nourished, clothed, sheltered, educated, informed, protected, and so on.
The only thing that children need now is someone to champion their needs given that children need guidance from the outset. Indeed, it would be a sensible course if children were informed of there legal rights at an appropriate age in a public environment with their legal guardians in attendance.
In spite of this, parents presume rights over their children. This is why I believe that children need to be informed by statute.
Rights
Rights
In Canada, the family courts consider it in the best interest of the child to spend as much time with both parents as possible. To get a ruling limiting access to a child the custodial parent has to prove that the other parent is either dangerous or abusive in some way. The children are assigned a separate lawyer in any dispute who interviews the children impartially then represents them in the case. The older the child is, the more weighty their opinions are. Children can be manipulated quite easily and are often scared of saying anything to make one or both of their parents angry with them.
As far as children being taught their rights go... it has long been a focus of society to teach children their rights so that they can't be abused as easily or in silence. Unfortunately, the maturity level of many teens has been such that they used that awareness for revenge or personal gain. (Like making false accusations against teachers they don't like) I have a few examples in mind but am trying to generalize because there are so many ways Dr Spock has gone wrong. Ultimately, until a kid has to make it on their own to some level, they just have no idea what happens in the real world. They shouldn't be dragged down into the details of fights between parents, yet without those details they aren't informed well enough to make the kinds of decisions you are implying. eg) If a mother is a prostitute, is that something you want the child told when they are young? If they aren't, how could they decide whether or not to live with mommy or daddy? If they are told, do they understand what that means and how would that knowledge affect their sense of self worth? There are many scenarios that could be outlined in which things go wrong.
I talk to my daughter as if she's my equal, I always have, and I've always asked her to tell me her feelings on decisions that will affect her. But I've made it quite clear that I'm not asking her to make the decision, I just want her to know that her feelings are important to me and I'll consider them. Now that she's 15, she's getting more opportunity to make her own decisions but I still wouldn't consider it fair to give her full responsibility.
imo, Children have the right to blame their parents for mistakes. Putting that power in their hands puts the blame on them if things don't work out the way they wanted. We're the adults. We had a chance to grow into being an adult. They deserve the same option.
As far as children being taught their rights go... it has long been a focus of society to teach children their rights so that they can't be abused as easily or in silence. Unfortunately, the maturity level of many teens has been such that they used that awareness for revenge or personal gain. (Like making false accusations against teachers they don't like) I have a few examples in mind but am trying to generalize because there are so many ways Dr Spock has gone wrong. Ultimately, until a kid has to make it on their own to some level, they just have no idea what happens in the real world. They shouldn't be dragged down into the details of fights between parents, yet without those details they aren't informed well enough to make the kinds of decisions you are implying. eg) If a mother is a prostitute, is that something you want the child told when they are young? If they aren't, how could they decide whether or not to live with mommy or daddy? If they are told, do they understand what that means and how would that knowledge affect their sense of self worth? There are many scenarios that could be outlined in which things go wrong.
I talk to my daughter as if she's my equal, I always have, and I've always asked her to tell me her feelings on decisions that will affect her. But I've made it quite clear that I'm not asking her to make the decision, I just want her to know that her feelings are important to me and I'll consider them. Now that she's 15, she's getting more opportunity to make her own decisions but I still wouldn't consider it fair to give her full responsibility.
imo, Children have the right to blame their parents for mistakes. Putting that power in their hands puts the blame on them if things don't work out the way they wanted. We're the adults. We had a chance to grow into being an adult. They deserve the same option.
Rights
Additionally, I don't believe courts make anyone's life better except the lawyers'. The best thing for a child is a compassionate and emotionally intelligent parent. Even if they only have one of them it's better than none and it's better than getting a day in court.
Rights
Having seen a child be a deliberately naughty and disruptive as possible (wrecking the school nativity play of all things) then turn round to the teachers and say you can't stop me, I know my rights - I think they also need to be taught their responsibilities.
You cannot give a child cart blanche, you must retain some level of control and have options to punish unacceptable behaviour (not necessarily physical) but all avenues appear to have been closed and an unruly child has the right to be so until the day the courts place him into a Young Offenders Institution.
You cannot give a child cart blanche, you must retain some level of control and have options to punish unacceptable behaviour (not necessarily physical) but all avenues appear to have been closed and an unruly child has the right to be so until the day the courts place him into a Young Offenders Institution.
Rights
Bryn Mawr;1343148 wrote: Having seen a child be a deliberately naughty and disruptive as possible (wrecking the school nativity play of all things) then turn round to the teachers and say you can't stop me, I know my rights - I think they also need to be taught their responsibilities.
You cannot give a child cart blanche, you must retain some level of control and have options to punish unacceptable behaviour (not necessarily physical) but all avenues appear to have been closed and an unruly child has the right to be so until the day the courts place him into a Young Offenders Institution.
Perfect example. :yh_clap
You cannot give a child cart blanche, you must retain some level of control and have options to punish unacceptable behaviour (not necessarily physical) but all avenues appear to have been closed and an unruly child has the right to be so until the day the courts place him into a Young Offenders Institution.
Perfect example. :yh_clap
Rights
Hm. I personally think that I retain ownership over my DNA until it reaches the age of adulthood at 18. I was not a 'timeout' sort of Mom. However, as I am a reasonable and loving sort, I always gave them (2 boys) a chance to argue their point. This taught them not only discipline, but adults are not fools, and respect for the consequences of their decisions and actions, and lying is absolute cowardice. I am very proud of my adult progeny today, and darn thankful that i get to just enjoy my grandkids. Not resposible for making them into decent people! 
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
Rights
In the UK, children do have to be able to demonstrate to the court that they understand the process as well as the implications of their actions.
Rights
OpenMind;1343444 wrote: In the UK, children do have to be able to demonstrate to the court that they understand the process as well as the implications of their actions.
It should never get to the courts - the courts should be a solution of last resort.
Children *must* be taught the limits of acceptable behaviour and social responsibility both by their parents and by the school. Telling children that no action can be taken against them in response to bad behaviour is almost guaranteed to defeat all attempts at that teaching.
All too often the parents are not in a position to do it (and yes, I accept that many families do manage to do so but the proportion of families that do not is high and rising) so the onus falls on the schools. Almost all of the possible disiplinary processes that the schools had to enforce good behaviour have been removed and the schools are finding it harder and harder to rise to the occasion.
It should never get to the courts - the courts should be a solution of last resort.
Children *must* be taught the limits of acceptable behaviour and social responsibility both by their parents and by the school. Telling children that no action can be taken against them in response to bad behaviour is almost guaranteed to defeat all attempts at that teaching.
All too often the parents are not in a position to do it (and yes, I accept that many families do manage to do so but the proportion of families that do not is high and rising) so the onus falls on the schools. Almost all of the possible disiplinary processes that the schools had to enforce good behaviour have been removed and the schools are finding it harder and harder to rise to the occasion.
Rights
Bryn Mawr;1343450 wrote: It should never get to the courts - the courts should be a solution of last resort.
Children *must* be taught the limits of acceptable behaviour and social responsibility both by their parents and by the school. Telling children that no action can be taken against them in response to bad behaviour is almost guaranteed to defeat all attempts at that teaching.
All too often the parents are not in a position to do it (and yes, I accept that many families do manage to do so but the proportion of families that do not is high and rising) so the onus falls on the schools. Almost all of the possible disiplinary processes that the schools had to enforce good behaviour have been removed and the schools are finding it harder and harder to rise to the occasion.
There appears to be a misunderstanding of issues here. I was not discussing the bad behaviour of children. The thread is about the legal rights of children as provided by UK, European and International Laws. There have been changes to the laws that used to apply when I was a child. The term 'custody', for instance, is replaced with responsibility. The essential difference of the law now is that the child is recognised as an individual with their own ndividual rights and less as the property of an adult or institution.
Children *must* be taught the limits of acceptable behaviour and social responsibility both by their parents and by the school. Telling children that no action can be taken against them in response to bad behaviour is almost guaranteed to defeat all attempts at that teaching.
All too often the parents are not in a position to do it (and yes, I accept that many families do manage to do so but the proportion of families that do not is high and rising) so the onus falls on the schools. Almost all of the possible disiplinary processes that the schools had to enforce good behaviour have been removed and the schools are finding it harder and harder to rise to the occasion.
There appears to be a misunderstanding of issues here. I was not discussing the bad behaviour of children. The thread is about the legal rights of children as provided by UK, European and International Laws. There have been changes to the laws that used to apply when I was a child. The term 'custody', for instance, is replaced with responsibility. The essential difference of the law now is that the child is recognised as an individual with their own ndividual rights and less as the property of an adult or institution.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Rights
koan;1343136 wrote: Children can be manipulated quite easily and are often scared of saying anything to make one or both of their parents angry with them.
And for that same reason, if asked who they'd rather live with, some children might choose the more volatile parent, thinking the rejected parent would understand better. Hardly the best outcome.
And for that same reason, if asked who they'd rather live with, some children might choose the more volatile parent, thinking the rejected parent would understand better. Hardly the best outcome.
Rights
Accountable;1343700 wrote: And for that same reason, if asked who they'd rather live with, some children might choose the more volatile parent, thinking the rejected parent would understand better. Hardly the best outcome.
This is a major problem at the moment. Courts here provide counsellors to help and advise children but there's a big learning curve to get through yet.
This is a major problem at the moment. Courts here provide counsellors to help and advise children but there's a big learning curve to get through yet.