I've seen a lot of questions since being on Minti about parental rights, and grandparents trying to ursurp control over their grandchildren, and who has the right to discipline the child, who has the right to do this and that... and this is a regular re-appearing issue. I keep coming
back with the same sort of answers. Just for a little while, let's forget about the rights of the father, the mother, the grandparents, the aunts and uncles and everybody else. I'm going to talk about the rights of the child.
The first sentence of the United Nations' Declaration of the Rights of the Child, Principle 9, states:
"The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation."
(© Copyright 1997 - 2002 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva, Switzerland)
The second paragraph of this Principal goes on to talk about protection of children regarding employment, but the first paragraph just talks about the child in general, not specifying any conditions. As such, it covers all circumstances.
So, this means that under the international policy of human rights, to which many countries must abide, all children are to be protected from neglect, cruelty, and exploitation - or in other words, they must be protected from all forms of abuse.
Now, lets say that you have sufficient evidence to show that the other parent of your child is an abusive person. Some might argue that just because s/he abused you it doesn't mean s/he will abuse the child. This is never the case. Many children have grown up in situations where one parent was abusive towards the other, but not directly at the children. What many people have trouble seeing is that the abuse of the other parent is traumatic for the children, and as such, it constitutes emotional and psychological abuse of the child - although it causes no bruises, it is still abuse and it is still illegal.
Even when the parents are seperated, the children still see the signs of abuse as they are always present every time the parents get within line of sight of each other. The abuser may feel the urge to lash out, and the victim becomes intimidated and scared. The children sense this. There is also the problem of the parents, especially when there is such bitterness between them as is caused by abuse, 'brainwashing' the children against each other and using them as pawns in a tug-of-war game of revenge - this is exploitative, and as such, it is abusive and thus, it is illegal.
If neither parent has sufficient evidence to at least warrant an investigation about whether the other parent is abusive in any way towards the children, then forget about who has the right to see the child. The child has the right to know, see, and spend time with both parents.
There is no decree to state how often they can see their parents or how much time they are to spend with them, unless of course the court has made a ruling stating otherwise in an individual case. There is certainly no decree about having time alone with their parents - again, individual case court orders excepted. Courts are quite happy to hand out orders regarding fully supervised visits, especially in cases where any form or suspicion of abuse, neglect, illegal drug use or alcohol addiction, criminal activity, or even just a very lengthy separation time between the parent and child are, or have been, an issue. Any parent that will fight against a court's order of supervised visits is more concerned about themselves than the child, and their motives for wanting to see the child are questionable.
Every child has the right to have a name. This would seem kind of obvious, but there is no decree as to what name they are entitled to. Whether a child is to have the father's surname or the mother's surname is of no consequence. There is no law that even states that a child has to have either surname, and as such could theoretically be given a neutral surname or a surname that combines both parents' surnames.
When it comes to registering a child's name, sorry guys, but you could easily end up having to go to court about this one. To put "mother unknown" on a birth certificate is a situation that is theoretically possible, but it is so unlikely it is almost absurd. The only circumstance I can imagine that being a case is where an unidentified mother passed away during or soon after the birth but the baby survived, and she was a 'Jane Doe' at the time of the birth registration. So girls, if you had any hope of getting away with not paying child support if you don't have custody of your child, you're out of luck. It is possible for fathers to be unknown. If the father does not sign the birth registration form, his name can not be put on the record. Some mothers might be inclined to get nasty if they have an issue with the father and deliberately leave him off the form. Guys, there is a way around this. A court can order a DNA test to prove that you are (or are not) the biological father and then your name can be put on the child's birth certificate. The same goes with if a mother is insisting that a child is yours and you don't believe it is true, you can make the same challenge in court to have an order for a DNA test to prove that you are (or are not) the biological father. If you receive a court order for DNA test you must comply unless you want to end up being charged with contempt of court - which can leave you rotting in a jail cell indefinately until you comply. You are far better off agreeing to it and get it over with.
In many places nowdays, courts are recognising the child's right to know, see, and spend time with grandparents, siblings, former step-parents, and other relatives. However, this depends upon the court and it's decision upon each individual case, and the same thing applies with regards to how often, how long, and whether or not the visitations are supervised as per above. It is possible for relatives, or an adult on behalf of any children (if they are too young to attend court themselves), to apply to a court to gain a court order to see the children in their family.
It is the responsibility of any adult who is responsible for a child at the time (be it a parent, a school teacher, child care worker, or friend or relative that is baby sitting) to discipline the child, when necessary, in an appropriate and approved (by the parent and by the child protection laws) manner. There are no rights regarding discipline, only responsibilites.
Children's rights regarding war are outlined in the Geneva Convention documents, but as that is an exceptional circumstance I won't go into here.
Children have the right to have opportunities to develop in a normal healthy way in all ways. They have to right to suitable nutrition, shelter, health services, and education. They also have the right to have recreation time and play. And lastly, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, Principal 10, tells us that we are to protect our children from discrimination and raise our children with understanding and tolerance, in peace and unity with everyone, and that we should encourage our children to use what they know and what they can do to benefit other people.
(August 2007) (
