Parents
Deserve The Right To Raise Their Children
By Bob McCoskrie – National
Director Family First NZ
|
|
A
clinical psychologist in private practice in Washington DC recently opined in The Washington Post about the lost art
of instilling respect in children. The concept of “all my mother had to do was
shoot me a look” has been replaced by
a “feeble nod of parental acquiescence and an earnest acknowledgement of how
hard it is to be a kid these days.” She reflects from observing children and
parents interacting in her office that not only are kids unafraid of their
parents, parents are afraid of their kids.
We’re
not talking about the fear of “the bash”, verbal abuse or unwanted sexual
attention which as a community we should be taking all steps to eliminate. It’s
the healthy fear which leads to respect – a respect for the authority of parents,
teachers, and the police.
Politicians,
with the support of the UN, Children’s Commissioner and Youth Law Project to
name a few, have sought to increase children’s rights without considering the
vital role of parents.
For
example Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says that
every child should have the right to ‘‘information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or
through any other media of the child’s choice’’. Does a child have a right to
access internet pornography, or does the parent have the right to restrict this
access?
Articles
15 and 16 of the Convention argue the right of a child to associate with
others, the right to protection from interference, and the right to privacy.
Yet what happens when children want to start dating, stay out late, engage in
sexual activity, or view objectionable video games or movies at home? Whose
right is more right?
Other
recent examples include a teenager who attempted to ‘divorce’ her parent
because she didn’t like the family rules. She used the ironically named Care of Children Act 2004 which effectively moved authority
away from parents towards the State – a parent now only has ‘day to day care’,
no longer ‘custody’, and the Act reinforces the concept of children’s ‘rights’;
recognising children as independent entities rather than members of their
families.
Young girls (some
well under the age of sexual consent) are being sneaked off by
schools to get contraceptives or an abortion without any parental knowledge.
This is happening far too often with the sanction of school counselors and
Family Planning Association and endorsed by a majority of MP’s when voted on in
2004.
And the
anti-smacking law sends a clear message to parents that they are no longer
primary guardians of their children. The State and its agencies know better how
to raise your children and parents who responsibly correct their children will
be liable to prosecution and CYF intervention. Meanwhile, child abuse rates are
unchanged and the real causes unchallenged.
Ironically,
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also acknowledges the important
role of parents in raising a child with appropriate direction, guidance, and
correction. It recognises the right, and duty, of parents to provide direction
and guidance in a
manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. Yet the recent Care of Children Act says that age and
maturity should not be factors when considering the views of a child.
Any
parent knows that the capacity of a child is very different to the capacity of
an adult. That is why we have laws protecting children from sexual involvement
and exploitation, driving vehicles, voting, drinking alcohol, watching violent
and sexually explicit movies. That’s why we say “no pudding until you eat your
peas”, and “get to bed now!” That’s why we train and correct children in a way
that is different to how we deal with adults.
This
issue is what is called cognitive dissonance – the holding of two contradictory
ideas in one’s mind simultaneously.
On
one hand, a parent is responsible for the actions of their child in the
community and school, but at the same time their role is being undermined by
growing pressure on mothers to work and enroll their child in daycare,
criminalising effective methods of parental correction, providing the
Independent Youth Benefit, provision of contraception and abortion without the
consent or even knowledge of the parents, and the recent example of a school
dobbing in a parent to CYF for giving their child a light smack.
Dr
Michael Reid in his book “From Innocents
to Agents – Children and Children’s Rights in New Zealand” says that
children are no longer being seen as innocent and vulnerable, but as full human
beings needing support to assert rights to autonomy and independence. The UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child is part of a wider attempt to undermine
“what some saw as oppressive parental rights to control children.”
The
huge irony is that the more the state undermines the authority of parents, the
less responsibility parents will take for their children. If the government
wants parents to be responsible parents, they must firstly respect their
authority.
A
child’s rights should never be at the expense of the parental right to nurture,
protect and set boundaries in a family setting. Rights of children have been
shifted from simply (and rightly) protecting vulnerable children to granting
them rights that are destructive to them, to good parenting practice, and to
the welfare of the whole family in which they are being raised.
Children will have plenty of rights, and
responsibilities, to worry about when they become adults.
Family First
Children's Needs,
not Rights, should be the Focus
By Bob McCoskrie
Bob Mc Coskrie's interview with Ruby
Harrold-Claesson
NZ One, July 2006
Rhema
Broadcasting Radio Interview June 14, 2005 with Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Back to Articles
Back to Main