A Constitutional Amendment: the Only Way to Protect Parental Rights to Direct the Upbringing and Education of Their Children

Children are given rights through the Convention of the Rights of the Child. In these rights, are rights that only children have. There are over 42 rights assigned to children alone. Among these rights are topics such as survival and development, drug use, free expression, the child’s best interest, and violence. This essay discusses two books, which examine these rights and the ways they are influenced.

According to a study released by the UK government, the focus of the United States and Continental European countries on child protections have a drastic difference. The

These are now considered the right of every child and are all more achievable if you have a positive relationship with both the child and the families’ concerned so that trust can be built up to facilitate positive influences that can be used to guide them into choosing the correct paths and lead them to healthy and prosperous lives and to achieve their full potential.

The chapter ends by examining parent rights in the context of public schools,

Rights that are afforded by the U.S. Constitution would specifically address the rights of the mother in question. Consequently, while there is no direct legislation contained within the document that is considered the rule of the land, statues have been created at the state level that vary from state-to-state in regards to the topic at hand.

The United States’ Senate should ratify the United Nation’s human rights treaty, The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The CRC is the most widely ratified human rights treaty with over 193 states parties ratifying it (unicef.org). The CRC was adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 20th, 1989 and promotes the rights of children worldwide (childrightscampaign.org). The treaty recognizes that children have certain unalienable rights. These rights are to develop physically, mentally, and socially to their fullest potential (ohchr.org). These rights also include the ability to express their opinions freely and to participate in decisions affecting their future (ohchr.org). Ultimately, these rights are to be granted to all

The United Nations conventions on the rights of the child 1989 states that the rights and freedom of all children in a set of 54 articles. All countries that signed up to the treaty including the UK in 1991 are legally bound to implement the legislation. In article 19 provides the right for children to be kept safe from harm and to be protected by all kinds of abuse by those looking after

When you think of a child, you may not immediately think of them as a single entity, but instead as an extension of their parents. This view is one that doesn't seem to disappear until the child has reached their teens and are into their junior high and high school age. This view has to do with the idea of parental consent. Once a child reaches ages in the teens and above, they become more capable to make decisions without the guidance of a parental or another adult figure. Issues arise from this when we talk about the rights of the child because children don’t have a universal set of rights like the right of man, and some rights, such as the right to bear arms, wouldn’t . What are we to do if we want to give children rights that they deserve,

On the other hand, there are some parents that need to be stripped of their rights however children should not be extended to such a great latitude of freedom that parents or other adults instruction is no longer considered warranted. According to Harris-Short and Miles (2011) “The interventionist philosophy expressed the belief that parents knows what is best for their children, it seeks to protect the privacy of the family unit and the fundamental right of a child’s parent to raise their children in accordance with their own beliefs and values, free from state scrutiny and control (p. 522) Menchini (2011) contributed that “children are given only one opportunity to personal development: if this is lost, the consequences could last their entire

In most American cultures children are perceived to be precious aspects of life. They are often referred to as the future of the world. As a result of their inability to care for themselves they are considered to be the responsibility of parents, teachers, and society. These individuals are trusted to care for and protect children. As society changes so does the role of the child as well as the problems children have to face early in life. In America we have discovered that the child’s role in the family has changed. Some may think that children have more rights than the parents who are raising them. However, is this the case for other countries as well?

The debate on marriage and parenting rights for gay and lesbian individuals has been one of the most hotly contested social issues in recent history. While many arguments are cited to prevent gay couples from enjoying equality, these arguments ultimately condense to concerns rooted in homophobia. Opponents of the LGBT community contend that same sex parenting contradicts the natural order of the world, subjects children to unnecessary societal stigma, and that the state has a right to favor heterosexual norms. However, these concerns are either unfounded or unjustly infringe on the rights of gay and lesbian couples. Consequently, there is no reason to prohibit gay or lesbian couples from obtaining custody of children.

Many have theorized over the years with many changes in our society that better parenting is something that we to have more focus on. Through this many have come up with the idea that there should be regulations and licensing of parenting. One of the people who had the strongest arguments for this case was a philosopher Hugh Lafollette. Being said I will focus on his points, rather than the collective points of all who side with him. He has written his thesis “Licensing Parents” where he evaluates why he believes licensing, and regulation should be mandatory before being allowed to parent. He believes any such a thing can cause physical, psychological, and emotional harm, therefore hurting another human being, should be regulated and licensed. In this argumentative piece I will show and explain my objections to Hugh Lafollette and the ideology of licensing parents. I will continue and prove why it possibly violated many natural rights and moral values. I will also demonstrate why his plan and idea cannot possibly work, nor be established. Deconstruct every aspect of his agreements, but also not forgetting to show the effectiveness of some of the aspects that he used.

Through court cases like Eisenstadt v. Baird(1972), the courts have upheld the right to have children and that it is the “‘right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child’” (Murphy 296). As a legal system, the courts have the responsibility to uphold the law while also taking into consideration the welfare of the child. The justice system would not allow for same sex marriage if it believed that there was any correlation between sexual orientation and unfit parenting. Courts in different states have struck down gay marriage, yet they have upheld the idea that child bearing is an important aspect of marriage. Courts have recently begun to acknowledge gay families by permitting second-parent adoptions (Mohr 60). This change in attitude exemplifies a change in status of gay marriages by recognizing the fact that these couples have the same rights to children as heterosexual families. Although bearing children cannot be part of the definition of marriage, it should not be a reason same sex marriage is illegal. This linkage must insinuate that same sex marriage is neither detrimental to the children and is a right that should be privileged.

What does it mean to be a parent, or more specifically, how do we define who is a parent legally? Is it the person who provides the genetic materials that form the child’s make up? Until recently, legal parenthood was, for the most part, synonymous with biological parenthood. (Duncan 1). Marriage had largely gone hand and hand with this assumption, and been blessed by the courts with a presumption of legitimacy regarding the child’s parentage. This longstanding presumption, that the wife’s husband is the father of her child is likely born of a common-sense assumption that the husband is likely to be the biological father, at least insofar as one assumes the integrity of the marital relationship.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, hereafter referred to as ‘CRC’, is the most inclusive legal document devoted to the promotion and protection of children’s rights. Upon ratification, State Parties are supposed to be bound to the CRC through international law. However, as Cynthia Price Cohen (one of the drafters of the CRC) identifies, the CRC ‘does not lay down specific rules with sanctions for noncompliance’. Thus, it is imperative that the CRC have enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure implementation. This essay will discuss how the existing weak enforcement mechanism is hindering the State Parties from reaching the objectives of the CRC.