The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is Coming Back

[forrestkc]

Let's see what it says here:

Article 19

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.

Article 20

1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.

2. States Parties shall in accordance with their national laws ensure alternative care for such a child.

3. Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children. When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child's upbringing and to the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.

These terms, mental violence, injury and maltreatment in Article 19 is wide open to interpretation. When in conjunction with Article 20, "in whose own best interests", could also be wide open, given to the fact that the courts so listen to the testimony of a child they deem old enough to understand. That could be anyone old enough to give details without further harm to the well being of a child, as in not making a child repeat a sexual abuse in detail.

So, who defines these details in this article? I believe it is the officials who are called to investigate. This would allow a child to render a false statement in order to be removed from a family just because they are unhappy. I have seen this done by my own relatives. The child did not want a crefew ro any responsibilities, so created a lie in order to be removed and babied. The father, a lone parent, was dragged through the mud, only to be excused after the son admitted it was a lie. The courts then placed the child in a school for boys, not a juvenile hall.

What is the alternative though? A system where a child must prove beyond a shadow of any doubt at all that they are being abused before the system takes them seriously? A system where each form of abuse must be clearly stated in the legal statutes, and if its not exactly as the law stipulates it in verbatim, then its not considered abuse?

Look, there are no easy answers here. However, as a parent, if I have a kid that as a teen is accusing me or my wife of abuse simply for them to get out of the home, then I think its safe to say that I would have failed some how as a parent.

Just the same, again, no one is out to take your kids from you simply because you make them go to church, spank them, or make them do chores. That is not a case that is presented before the courts. A case for actual abuse (true or not), has to be made. So when someone says that someone lost custody simply because they made their kids do chores, they are mistaken. Maybe thats what prompted the delinquent to lie and thus get the parents charged with actual abuse, but the state is not out there taking kids from parents because they made them do chores or gave them a spanking.

[OneLight]

You guys act as though there is this big evil fascist, socialist, tyrannical government out there constantly scheming up ways to persecute you.

For years I have seen the courts take away the rights of parents in one form or another. To make a statement as you did makes me feel because I see this happening, I must think that they are "this big evil fascist, socialist, tyrannical government out there constantly scheming up ways to persecute", which is not what I see at all. I do, however, see them tying our hands is so many ways that it creates fear in parents to do any form of discipline.

I am not sure why you feel that the schools have the right to spank. In NH, if you even grab a kids arm, you will be reprimanded, if not fired, and the parents could sue. I have been the subject of having the police called more then once for physically stopping one of my kids under 18 for leaving the house. They get upset and call, stating that I have abused them and they are afraid of me, all because I would not let them go to a party.

"Real life" and the "law" are two different subjects. Trying to weigh one against the other is like apples to oranges.

[forrestkc]

You guys act as though there is this big evil fascist, socialist, tyrannical government out there constantly scheming up ways to persecute you.

For years I have seen the courts take away the rights of parents in one form or another. To make a statement as you did makes me feel because I see this happening, I must think that they are "this big evil fascist, socialist, tyrannical government out there constantly scheming up ways to persecute", which is not what I see at all. I do, however, see them tying our hands is so many ways that it creates fear in parents to do any form of discipline.

I am not sure why you feel that the schools have the right to spank. In NH, if you even grab a kids arm, you will be reprimanded, if not fired, and the parents could sue. I have been the subject of having the police called more then once for physically stopping one of my kids under 18 for leaving the house. They get upset and call, stating that I have abused them and they are afraid of me, all because I would not let them go to a party.

"Real life" and the "law" are two different subjects. Trying to weigh one against the other is like apples to oranges.

I don't know what its like up in NH as I have never lived there. However, in many states they can still paddle kids. You can still do so in Arkansas for example, and Texas. The parents just sign a form giving the school permission to do so.

I honestly can't say that I have ever felt my rights as a parent violated by the state. The only argument I could see someone making on that would be compulsory education, and vaccinations. I have not lived everywhere of course, so I don't know if its any different up there, but here we have spanked our kids and like I say, was allowed to adopt just the same.

[OneLight]

That is the point I was trying to make, Forrest. Not everywhere are things done the same as where you are familiar with. Because of this, no one can really speak one way or another as an end all arguement. Take home schooling. While it is still legal in NH, it is not in California. A simple comparison, but one still the same.

[forrestkc]

No, you are the one assigning that value to us, and it is simply a diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from the real issue. No one is saying there is some big conspiracy, you are saying that the system works one way, in theory, and we are saying that in certain instances, it works in a totally opposite way, and we have cited eye witness evidence. Two of us now, not just one. Diversionary tactics don't work with me either.

1. Yes a teen can lie about abuse and possibly get removed from their home.

2. The motivation for them lying may simply be they were disciplined, made to do chores, and so on. However, you can't go before a family court and state I was was abused because I had to wash the dishes or I was abused because I got a spanking. You would have to make a credible case (whether it was ultimatly true or not) that you were actually abused.

That is what i am saying that you are obviously mistaken about.

You say it's ridiculous, but you base that assertion on nothing but your own beliefs and intellect. I say it has happened, in my personal experience, more than once, so once more, you are calling me a liar. You are calling the caseworkers liars. You keep bleating that a case for actual abuse has to be made. No, it does not. All it takes is a hot line phone call to have children removed from a home. You are being dis-honest, and you are still unable to admit you are wrong on this issue. You are, in fact wrong, and evidence that you are wrong has been presented, but you simply dismiss it because you say it "can't" happen. It did happen, so you are now calling at least 4 people liars.

Of course a report of abuse can result in kids being temporarily removed from a home. That's not perfect, but its how it should be. For example, if you believe that a child is in serious danger, then you should be able to report that, and the authorities should be able to temporarily remove the child from the home. However, that does not mean that the courts will then revoke custody based on no evidence at all of any laws being broken.

Your own personal experience in your own court is not germane to anyone else's experience even within the same court, or county, or state. Your statement is supposed to make us believe that if it did not happen to you, than it does not happen at all, that it can't happen at all. That is bogus, and it decreases your credibility even further when you resort to such a weak, and non-applicable argument. The fact is, you are trying to write off actual evidence of what you say can't happen with a really lame argument, and as you can see, it isn't working.

How many cases were you involved in while you were a CASA worker? How much time, on average, did you spend with the child and/or the case worker?

I did it for a year or so. Its a volunteer position and thus you do it primarily on evenings and weekends. I referenced Missouri child abuse law earlier. The court order has to reference the same law. No where in the law is there anything that states you can be removed for being made to do chores. If that kid got themselves removed from the home, then they lied about abuse in court.

This whole **** started with this fearmongering in this thread and another one about how you can have your kids taken from you if you spank them, take them to church, or make them do chores. That is absurd garbage. Your kids might be able to lie about abuse and thus get wrongfully taken from you, but no state will take your kids from you for those reasons. You have this habit of attacking the integrity of those you disagree with.

[Ovedya]

Closed for review. Please don't PM me about this, I am not on anyone's side.