Sunday, November 19, 2006

when the state elevates the rights of kids over the responsibilities of parents

Forget the Civil Union Act, or Sue Bradford's smacking bill; one of the most destrictive pieces of social legislation is the Care of Children Act. I knew this at the time the bill was drafted and that is why I made a submission to the select committee. Some of my points were considered in the change to the bill. You would have thought that moral, religious and Christian Right groups would have been jumping up and down with anger in response to this legislation.

Not so.

In my submission I said that "the provisions of this bill are elevating the rights of the child above the responsibilities of the parents" and that the state has more say over the welfare of a child than parents do. Now we see the results where a child can divorce her parents who still have to support her without having a say in how she is brought up. I actually think that this piece of legislation breaches Article 5 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, as the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents are being minimised in favour of the rights of kids.

Here's what happened: A 16-year-old kid wants to "divorce" her parents because she doesnt like the way she is being brought up. Tells her mum to go to hell. It goes to the Family Court, instead. She ends up living with her sister who has been awarded "day to day care" of the teenager by the state. Her mother, who is a sole parent, loses any family assistance she may have been entitled to - but on top of that, the state has taken away her child from her and told her to pay child support.

Furthermore, any decision involving the child is made by the court, not the child's mother, so the state has told the mother that her responsibilities and rights mean nothing. The mother can question the Family Courts decision to over ride her wishes but if she does so she is wasting her time as that mother does not have the right to be told of the rationale behind any decision involving her daughter.

That sucks.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Again what do you expect from Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Steve Maharey and Phil Goff?
Parents rights and responsibilities!
These are people who don't respect the law except where they can use it for their political and social agenda.
Otherwise they rewrite it for their own ends even undoing illegal acts they do themselves.
And Winston baubles Peters and Peter Sensible dunne and their lot just rubber stamp it.
Based on their worldview the Judeo Christian ethic and societal relationships say clearly the state knows best and children are equal to adults.
As Mr Maharey said 3 yrs ago, he could find no studies in the world that said mum,dad fam,ilies were better than other forms of family.
Welcome home New Zealand....
you voted for them, you stupid people.