The vital child-parent relationship is deeply valued in millions of homes across the nation. Yet most American families have no idea of the extent to which this precious relationship is now jeopardized by the threat of international treaty law.
Today the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is approaching a possible ratification by the United States Senate. This treaty, as harmless as it may appear, is capable of attacking the very core of the child-parent relationship, removing parents from their central role in the growth and development of a child, and replacing them with the long arm of government supervision within the home.

WHAT IS THE UNCRC?
The UNCRC is an international treaty focused on promoting the rights of children and seeking to give children priority in the implementation of governmental measures. The Convention claims to offer a road map that will guide government officials in the improvement of laws and policies, by defining which rights the government should give to children.

A VEILED THREAT
Since its introduction in 1989, the Convention has been ratified by every nation in the world except for the United States and Somalia. The CRC was signed by President Clinton in 1995, but early opposition in the Senate persuaded Clinton not to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

The Senators who opposed the CRC in 1995 believed that the Convention marked a significant departure from the American concept of the relationship between state and child, and was incompatible with the right of parents to raise their children.

These concerns stem from the CRC's repeated emphasis on two principles that should guide all decisions affecting children: consideration of the "best interests of the child" and the child’s "evolving capacities." These two principles are the "umbrella principles underlining the exercise of all the rights in the Convention."

The following sections explain why these two principles will, if implemented, jeopardize the vital role of parents within the American family.

WHAT IS REALLY "BEST FOR THE CHILD"?
The "Best Interests of the Child"

Article 3 of the CRC states that "in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." Thus, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child's best interest as the primary concern.

The problem for families occurs when this principle surfaces as a guiding principle for parents. Article 18(1) of the CRC states that "Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern."

A DEPARTURE FROM AMERICAN LAW
But the Convention's emphasis on the "best interests" principle is a sharp break from American law. In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the 'best interests of the child' is not the legal standard that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody."

In the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck down a grandparent visitation statute because decisions about the child were made "solely on the judge's determination of the child's best interests," without regard to the wishes of the parent.

The Court's decisions in Reno and Troxel reflect a fundamental tenet of American family law, which recognizes that parents typically act in the best interests of their children. Indeed, "United States case law is replete with examples of parents fighting for the best interests of their children," ranging from a child’s right to an education to the right of personal injury compensation.

Thus, except in cases where a parent has been proven to be "unfit," American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent's decision.

The Convention, in contrast, supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.

A NEW LEVEL OF INTRUSION
According to Geraldine van Bueren, an international scholar who assisted in the drafting of the CRC, the language of "best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child's or the parents', providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child."[1]

Instead of placing the burden of proof on the government to prove that a parent is unfit, the Convention places the burden of proof on those who claim that other interests are more important than the state's characterization of the "best interest" of the child.

SILENCING A PARENT'S VOICE
The Child's "Evolving Capacities"

The Convention also explains that the decisions of judges and parents alike should take into account the child's "evolving capacities." The Convention recognizes that the ability of the child to exercise his or her individual rights is often dependent on the child's capacity in light of his or her age and maturity – in other words, sixteen-year olds should be viewed differently in the eyes of the law than four-year olds.

This principle is based on the idea that as children mature, their capacity for decision-making and participation in adult activity grows, but capacity and maturity vary drastically from individual to individual, and the Convention does not offer any standard for how the "evolving capacities" of the child should be measured. Because the Convention requires that courts hear the voices and opinions of children in all matters affecting them, judges will have no choice but to create their own standards in order to give the child's "evolving capacities" the respect mandated by the Convention.

Thus, the Convention's command to respect the "evolving capacities" of the child rejects the time-proven concept that parents are the most effective advocates of the child's interests and best understand the maturity and abilities of their children. With one swift move, the treaty cuts parents out of the equation.

Yet in Troxel, the U.S. Supreme Court thoroughly rejected the notion that government officers were more qualified than parents in determining the needs of their children. As Justice Souter noted in Troxel, the choices of parents cannot be overridden "merely because the judge might think himself more enlightened than the child's parent."

THE APPROACHING STORM
This danger to the American family may not seem imminent—but it is. Even if the UNCRC is not ratified, the dangers it contains could soon become reality for millions of parents.

Under the traditional principles of international law, a treaty may only obligate a nation which has ratified its provisions. But today a growing coalition of international jurists and legal scholars are challenging the necessity of ratification before implementation, citing a complex legal doctrine known as customary international law.

In contrast to international treaties, where a specific document is drafted, signed, and ratified, customary international law is an unwritten law, "comprised of the customs and usages among nations of the world."

Through customary international law many of the key provisions of the UNCRC could easily be applied to insert the long arm of government intrusion into millions of American families—simply because this treaty is being ratified by governments around the world.

AN ASSAULT ON THE FAMILY
The two core principles of the CRC – the "best interests of the child" and the child's "evolving capacities" –pose a significant danger to the American family by fundamentally changing the role of the government in the lives of our children. All decisions affecting the child—even those made by the child's parents—are now suspect and can be overruled if they do not satisfy these two principles.

Such a standard runs completely contrary to the Supreme Court's declaration in Troxel that the Constitution protects "the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children," and sets the stage for state disruption of intact families.

The only way to ensure the preservation of the child-parent relationship is through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting parental rights. The time to secure the protection and preservation of the American family is now. Don’t wait until it's too late. Sign the petition for the Parental Rights Amendment today.

From www.parentalrights.org

Even our rights to raise our children how we want are at stake! This is outrageous!