The following was originally published by the author on Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, on the Examiner, in a follow-up to the piece posted Wednesday, April 29th, 2009, The United States and The Rights of the Child, the debate on the United States has heated-up once again. US opponents of the UN Convention on the Rights of The Child are now arguing that a new constitutional amendment acknowledging the rights of parents is crucially needed in the Convention in-order to prevent Geneva from interfering with how parents raise their children. The treaty, which has both large support and a large number of opponents in the US, has been the point of debate and contention for some twenty years, as the US is the only non-signatory state, besides Somalia.
The establish of a new administration under Obama, has brought the treaty back into the spotlight, many believing that under the current administration ratification could have a better chance, however the administration has made no official statement addressing the Convention. Currently conservative groups in the US, who claim to represent parents, have voiced fears that the Convention, which addresses various protections for children around the globe, including special emphasis on child soldiers, children and the death penalty, and children who are victims of abuse, would put harsh limits on parental autonomy. Much of the new debate over the Convention has been sirred by Republican U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, after the Congressman proposed an amendment to the US Constitution safeguarding parental rights, which would act as a buffer against the potential ratification of the Convention by the US. Supporters for the Convention’s ratification by the US include Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chairs a Foreign Relations subcommittee handling human rights issues, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Supporters of the Convention argue these fears are unbiased and over exaggerated;
“The reality is that no country that is a party to the convention has seen parental rights encroached,” said Jonathan Todres, a law professor at Georgia State University. Todres also noted that while U.N.’s expert committee monitoring the treaty can make recommendations to governments that have ratified the pact, there are no enforcement mechanisms or penalties. The treaty “has the potential to be a great tool for parents,” Todres said. “It’s something the parents could use to say, ‘My child has the right to freedom of religion and the state cannot encroach on that. My child has education rights, health care rights, and the state cannot ignore that.’” (AP)
Ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should not be overshadowed by fears of the rights adults, for protection of children’s rights must be one of the front running policies of any true democratic nation, as the protection of both adults and children must be viewed as a priority. The signing of the Convention is does not open the door for a violation on parental rights, but merely safeguards the rights for which parents strive to protect.
1 Comments So Far»
I am Ukrainian citizen, who married US citizen and had a child. I had a big divorce action in the State of NY. In 2007 I brought to the court the case of first impression on immigrant rights issue. Today, I presented to the court the new conception related to the Children Rights Convention. My child has a dual citizenship of two countries. Since 2007 Ukraine become a member of Hague Convention. Back 2005 the Court made a restriction on the travel of my child outside of US. Despite the fact Hague Convention provides the legal mechanism to prevent the abduction of the children, today court still was unreasonably reluctant to lift the restriction. During the trial I submitted the evidence that my child is a citizen of Ukraine and a citizen of US along with the full text of the Child Right Convention. My argument was that Convention establishes the child’s right to be exposed to both homeland. Such exposure would form child’s unique cultural identity. Court rejected this conception, because Convention was not ratified. Obviously US constitution and state law does not provide the protection of children with dual citizenship. The child’s restriction to be exposed to the country of his own origins does not promote the democratic values. In a light of the thousands cases of the children with dual citizenship, the need for convention exist to eliminate the cultural discrimination of such children and effectively address favoritism of the judges, that hiding behind judicial discretion.
1 Pingback & Trackback
Leave Comments Below»