Safe Haven Law

Unwind presents a controversial topic in their dystopian society-storking. In the simplest terms storking allows the mother of a child to leave it on a porch in hopes of that family providing it with a better life. While, Safe Haven Laws have the same aspect yet the child is left at a safe institute, such as a police station.

Often in these child rights movements tend to have children representative but are ran but “Despite good intentions and a deep commitment to children’s agency and authority, adults and children in this movement continue to replicate deeply structured patterns of behavior that give adults greater power (Taft, 2014, p. 460). There continues to be an unequal distribution of power between adults and children and it results in the child’s needs to be neglected. Focusing only on protection and provision does not allow us to grip an understanding of what children value as we speak on their behalf versus of listening to their wishes and present them with action opportunities

Ordinarily I hold these truths to be transparent, that all people are smart enough to make their own decisions and they were given this choice by the creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To make this happen, Parents, have to let their children make their own settlement, If parents continue this mistreatment of their power as a

But children are a special case they cannot always stand up for themselves. They therefore need a special set of rights which take in to consideration their vulnerability and which ensures the adults that surround them take responsibly for their welfare, protection and development.

When the children are incapable, nurses have moral responsibility to assist parents in decision making in the children's best interest. "Substituting an adult judgement of what is in a child’s best interest is not necessarily equivalent with the child’s best interest (Coyne and Harder, 2011)." Acting in a child’s best interest requires parents and health professionals to take children's view seriously and give priority consideration to the impact of their decisions on children (Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children (CCRC). The adults have responsibilities towards their children to enable them in making decision but they do not have rights to make decision for their children (Lowden, 2002). Children should not be viewed as property. The first step in protecting the rights of children as outlined in the CRC is to view them as citizens (Van Daalen-Smith, 2010). When parents claim that the child belongs to them, they are establishing an ownership notion. Children should be respected as active contributor not as passive recipient of the health care (Maconochie and McNeill, 2010). Therefore, parental role in decision making for their children should be complementary not

The integral part of this act is to maintain the child is at the forefront of decisions; the best option in relation to the child’s welfare will be taken into account when deciding the best course of action for the child/young person’s upbringing – creating a partnership between parents and multi-agencies.

Unless the child is at risk of harm, a child should not be taken from their family without family’s agreement

Should adopting a child be free? As a first response, many people would answer “Yes, adoption should be free,” arguing that there should not be a price tag on children, or that adoption is unreasonably expensive. Others may argue that “No, it should not be free,” because it may unknowingly put the adoptees at risk for danger, while the children are easily accessible. Adoptions were created to give children, whose biological parents could not care for them, a new and affectionate home, and for couples who wanted children, but could not have them biologically because of health reasons. Today, many people adopt children to add on to their family. With adoption being free, many “unfit” people would qualify to be

The main legislation in our county that supports the rights of children is Children Act 1989. According to Penny Tassoni, ‘this act is a result of the UK government adopting the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child, new legislation was required. The 1989 Children Act also made it clear that children’s and young people’s views had to be taken into consideration when decisions about their future were being made.’ The key elements to this legislation are:

It includes children’s rights to protection from abuse, their right to express their views and be listened to and the right to care and services for disabled children or children living away from home.

The Safe Haven Laws for newborns is an alternative to leaving infants in unsafe places. Not all women who get pregnant are ready to raise a child and sometimes they see no options except to abandon the baby. Safe havens provide a new option; it allows a birth parent to leave a newborn infant (less than 72 hours old) with a medical worker in a hospital, a medical worker at a fire department or other emergency service organization, or peace officer at a law enforcement agency. If the infant is left with a person at one of these places, and has not been abused, the parent will face no legal consequences for making this choice. When a parent cannot care for an

When a couple or individual decides to adopt a child, they know they are going to take on the responsibility of taking care of someone else’s child. Due to the biological parent(s) who can’t take care of that child anymore, because of either drug abuse, alcohol abuse, abuse to the child or if the parent(s) had died and there is no other care for the child. So that’s why this gives other couples who cannot have kids, the opportunity to promise themselves to be a great parent to a child in need. Though there are some bad things about adoption as well. Like adopting a child from another country of another race, because once that child is adopted into an American family, he or she will be cut off from their culture and never know about their

The right to have children is understood in very different ways and people’s ethics and values are put to the test each and everyday when they find out they not only must take care of themselves but the lives of another human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted this statement regarding the right to bear children “men and women of full age, without any limitations to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family”[1]. This concept has been viewed in multiple ways and according to ethical theorists; they agree that no rights are absolute. However, it is said that for women at least, there is a fundamental privilege to have children. The right to

The second account of a changing stance toward children’s rights was evolution alongside women’s rights. Before this time, women and children were seen as unimportant under the law, whereas a father was given almost total control over all matters regarding his wife and children. If a father was violent or neglectful, society simply turned their shoulder to it. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, laws pertaining to the family system began to change. A new law recognized the equal rights of fathers and mothers with the mother’s rights reigning over the fathers in regards to the children. Also, the legal system began viewing children as important to the future of society, therefore “appropriate objects of the court’s

It was only three days after being born that I was flown to my new family in Illinois. If I had not been for a one woman’s unselfish decision, I would not be writing the words on this page right now. Abortion is an ethically wrong decision and option for a parent. It is illegal to take the life of another human being; by choosing to have an abortion, legally a parent is not willingly killing a human life. However, this choice is still seen as a murder to most people. Women should be forced to place their children up for adoption instead of a choice have an abortion.