UNCRC, A Deeper Look - Article 9: Your Child’s Right to a Family, Until the State Decides Otherwise

In our last discussion we took a closer look at the “best interests” principle contained in the UNCRC (United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child). We found that under the UNCRC, the government is given the power to step in and decide what is in the best interests of the child in every aspect of family life, even when the parents are loving, responsible parents. Today, as we look at the worst aspects of Article 9, you’ll see that once again the government is given unlimited power over your child and your family life.

The first section of Article 9 states:

States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence (emphasis added).

This article is left wide open for interpretation. A competent authority means government authorities. To have your family torn apart, even when your child is begging to stay with you, is any person’s worst nightmare. Of course, this is all done in the “best interests” of the child, but as we discussed last week, loving parents are the best people to decide what is in their child’s best interest. A judge or “competent authority” did not carry your child in their womb. They did not experience the euphoria that came when you first held your child in your arms and counted the dimpled fingers and toes. They don’t look at your child’s face and see their own features looking back. They weren’t there when you were up in the middle of the night with a sick child, or when you held your sobbing child down for shots in the doctor’s office because you knew it was in his best interest to get his shots. No government authority or judge is going to have your child’s best interests at heart the way that you do. Every parent knows that. The argument that we need this treaty to protect children in this nation is ridiculous. We do have laws in the United States to protect abused or victimized children.

In the U.S. there are procedures in place to recognize and report victims of child abuse. This is not a treaty aimed at victimized children. This is a treaty aimed at allowing the government to dictate what you can and cannot do in your home. If they decide that spanking is wrong, you could lose your child for violating that—even if your child wants to remain with you. If they decide that your religion is wrong, they can step in and remove your child. If they decide that you aren’t teaching your child the things that the State deems important, they can step in and remove your child. Do you see the dangers posed by the open wording of this document? Whatever the state decides is in the best interest of your child is what you must adhere to. If this is ratified, they can take this any direction they choose. That is dangerous ground for the family.

Section 3:

States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests (emphasis added).

Again, this sounds good initially and then we have “except if.” I’m not comfortable with “except if” when the government is making the decision. Remember, this doesn’t necessarily have to do with cases of abused children, this has to do with what the government deems is in the child’s best interests.

I have a friend who had her own brush with government authorities after the birth of her daughter. One night she woke up to find her 6 week old infant vomiting with a high fever. They rushed her to the ER where doctors ran a number of tests and found some swelling in her brain. My friend and her husband were told that their daughter exhibited signs of shaken baby syndrome. Their daughter and their son were removed from their custody, and after more than a year of court battles and medical tests their children were finally returned to them. It turned out that the baby had a rare nerve condition that caused the swelling in her brain. In the meantime, mom and baby lost that first year of bonding time and the breastfeeding relationship was ruined.

My friend and her husband were criminalized despite the fact that their son was flourishing. She was a mom who stayed home and cared for her kids while her husband was in medical school. They were hardly the type of people you would suspect of shaking their baby—but that didn’t matter to the authorities. The worst part for my friend was that she knew her baby wasn’t shaken and so she knew there was an underlying health problem causing her daughter’s swelling, and initially, the doctors would look no further than assuming the baby had been shaken. Sadly, there are far too many stories of children with health issues who are mistakenly removed from their parents’ custody. It is a nightmare for those who have endured it. So what happens when the grounds for removing a child from its home are left up to the government’s interpretation of “best interests” of the child?

The English philosopher John Locke, who greatly influenced our founding fathers with his philosophies said:

The subjection of a minor places in the father a temporary government which terminates with the minority of the child….The nourishment and education of their children [during their minority] is a charge so incumbent on parents for their children’s good, that nothing can absolve them from taking care of it. ("Second Essay Concerning Civil Government" 39)

Note that Locke claims the father of the child is a temporary government, not that the government is a temporary father. This treaty turns everything that our founding fathers believed about how our country should be run on its head. Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, a lifelong scholar of our founding fathers and the principles of our constitution, wrote:

It will be appreciated that the strength and stability of the family is of such vital importance to the culture that any action by the government to debilitate or cause dislocation in the normal trilateral structure of the family becomes, not merely a threat to the family involved, but a menace to the very foundations of society itself. (Skousen, 288)

The UNCRC violates our rights as parents by putting the government in control. Our founding fathers were well aware of what happens when the government masters the people rather than the people mastering the government. They did all they could to ensure that the constitution would protect our rights. In their view, parenting was an unalienable right that didn’t need to be spelled out in the constitution. The U.N. does not recognize these unalienable rights, which is why there is a movement to amend the constitution to spell out the right of parents to run their families. Even though the founding fathers thought that parenting was a right that didn’t need to be spelled out, the time has come to protect this right by amending our constitution. If you haven’t visited the Parental Rights movement’s website, be sure to visit and sign the petition today. And please tell your friends of the threat of the UNCRC. This treaty wasn’t ratified in the 1990’s because the people of this country stood against it. We must stand against it again.