Parents' rights movement

Last updated

The parents' rights movement is a civil rights movement whose members are primarily interested in issues affecting fathers, mothers and children related to family law, including child custody.

Contents

Rights
HumanRightsLogo.svg
Theoretical distinctions
Human rights
Rights by beneficiary
Other groups of rights

Child custody

Some parents' rights advocates claim that many parents' parental rights are unnecessarily terminated, and that children are separated from fathers and mothers and adopted through the actions of family courts and government social service agencies seeking to meet their own targets, rather than looking at the merits of each case. [1]

United Kingdom

Fostering and adoption

In June 2007, UK parents' rights advocates criticized the local court[ where? ], claiming that it was treating children as adoptable commodities, that decisions were made on lack of evidence and perjury, and that courtroom secrecy was harming families and children. [2] In July 2017, a judge ruled that Gloucestershire County Council had removed a baby from its vulnerable mother unlawfully. [3]

Medical treatment

The issue of parents' rights has also arisen in connection with disagreements over medical treatment. Two recent high-profile cases in the UK are the Charlie Gard case in 2017 and the Ashya King case in 2014. In both cases there was disagreement between parents and doctors about the best course of treatment and the cases were taken to court. This has led to an impassioned debate about who should have the final say – parents or doctors. [4]

United States

Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Parental Rights Amendment was proposed by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) on March 31, 2009, and numbered H.J.Res.42. On April 27, 2009, it was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. It garnered 141 cosponsors. [5]

In the Senate, an identical bill (which was numbered S.J.Res.13) was introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) on March 3, 2009, but had no additional sponsors. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

On May 14, 2009, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) proposed the Parental Rights Amendment with an additional section clarifying that "This article shall take effect after the date of ratification." It was numbered S.J.Res.16; it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It received six cosponsors. [6]

A global children's-rights treaty, ratified by every U.N. member except the United States and Somalia, has so alarmed its American critics that some are now pushing to add a parental-rights amendment to the Constitution as a buffer against it. Republican U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra has proposed an amendment to the Constitution safeguarding parental rights as a buffer against the potential U.S. ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Opponents of the treaty contend it would enable government officials and a Geneva-based U.N. committee of experts to interfere with parental authority. [7]

Rep. Hoekstra said he and his allies have been concerned by some recent court rulings that they view as erosions of parental rights, but the U.N. treaty is their main concern.

His amendment opens by declaring: "The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right." It says the U.S. government and the states cannot infringe on that right without clear justification and concludes: "No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article."

Ratification of an international treaty requires two-thirds support in the Senate, which would - in the chamber's current makeup - require more than a half-dozen Republicans to join majority Democrats. [8]

To date, the Bill has not made it to the floor of the House or Senate for a vote and has been reintroduced in every session since it was originally introduced.

On January 30, 2019, Bill H.J.Res.36, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights", [9] was introduced to the House by Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN). A new constitutional amendment proposal would establish parental rights in the U.S. Constitution — along with the existing rights to freedom of speech, religion, press, and the rest. [10]

Specifically, it would enshrine "the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children." The education component would enshrine the right to choose a private schools, religious school, or homeschooling. [9]

It also clarifies that the amendment would not "apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.'' In other words, this presumably means the rights of a parent would not extend to the right to abort a pregnancy. [9]

On September 22, 2020, the Family Preservation Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization advocating for both children's and parental rights, created a petition on the "We the People" website at petitions.whitehouse.gov to gather signatures to urge Congress to act on H.J.Res.36 which was before congress during the current (2019-2020) session. [11]

Supporters argue the bill explicitly gives America's 173 million [12] parents more rights and freedoms apart from government control.

Opposition

Opponents counter that the amendment could have unintended consequences, from the medical to the legal.

"No U.N. treaty will ever usurp the national sovereignty of this country," said Meg Gardinier, chair of a national coalition backing the treaty. "Ratification would boost our credibility globally." [13]

"The amendment was dangerous, because children would be left in abusive homes and teenagers would be prevented from obtaining information and services that would help them avoid pregnancy, STDs and abortion," Patricia Donovan of the Guttmacher Institute wrote in a summary of a similar state-level constitutional amendment that failed in Colorado. [14]

"Although attractive on paper," Donovan continued, "in practice it would turn public schools into ideological battlegrounds for parents with opposing values and make adoptions more difficult because adoptive placements could be challenged in court. And it was so vague that it would result in a flood of litigation initiated by angry parents, at taxpayers' expense, against anyone working with children, including teachers, librarians, social workers and counselors." [14]

Massachusetts

Parental rights activists state that employees of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) take children away from their parents without cause. [15] They add that these employees, who they assert have improperly received immunity from the Massachusetts Supreme Court, [16] threaten mothers with the loss of their children to coerce them into divorcing their husbands [17] and attending support groups. [18] They state that these support groups serve the dual purpose of allowing the associates of the DSS employees to receive additional government funding for running the support groups, and allowing the DSS employees to gain information used to take children away from their parents. [18] Parental rights advocates state that abuse of power has occurred [15] and that vested interest has played a role. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United States</span> Supreme law of the United States

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, on March 4, 1789. Originally including seven articles, the Constitution delineates the national frame and constrains the powers of the federal government. The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, in which the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress ; the executive, consisting of the president and subordinate officers ; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Article IV, Article V, and Article VI embody concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article VII establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 states to ratify it. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest and longest-standing written and codified national constitution in force in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment regarding right to a jury trial

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights and civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) regarding race-based college admissions. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Convention on the Rights of the Child</span> International treaty about the rights of children

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international human rights treaty which sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. The convention defines a child as any human being under the age of eighteen, unless the age of majority is attained earlier under national legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Rights Amendment</span> Proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would, if added, explicitly prohibit sex discrimination. It was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and introduced in Congress in December 1923 as a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose of the ERA is to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. Proponents assert it would end legal distinctions between men and women in matters of divorce, property, employment, and other matters. Opponents originally argued it would remove protections that women needed. In the 21st century opponents argue it is no longer needed and some fear it would protect abortion and transgender rights.

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex (gay) or other unmarried homosexual couples.

The Flag Desecration Amendment is a proposed addition to the Constitution of the United States that would allow the U.S. Congress to prohibit by statute and provide punishment for the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States. The concept of flag desecration continues to provoke a heated debate over protecting a national symbol, preserving free speech, and upholding the liberty said to be represented by that national symbol. While the proposal has been passed by the two-thirds majority required in the House of Representatives several times, it has not passed the Senate by the same super-majority and has often not come to a vote in the Senate despite its introduction several times.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">José E. Serrano</span> American politician (born 1943)

José Enrique Serrano is an American politician who was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1990 until his retirement in 2021. Serrano, a Democrat from New York, represented a district that is one of the smallest in the country geographically, consisting of a few square miles of the heavily populated South Bronx in New York City. His district was also one of the most densely populated and one of the few majority Hispanic districts in the country. The district was numbered the 18th from 1990 to 1993 and the 16th from 1993 to 2013, and the 15th district from 2013 to 2021. He was the longest-serving Hispanic-American in the House. He did not run for re-election in 2020 due to a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, and Ritchie Torres was elected to succeed him.

In the United States, the Victims' Rights Amendment is a provision which has been included in some states' constitutions, proposed for other states, and additionally has been proposed for inclusion in the United States Constitution. Its provisions vary from state to state but are usually somewhat similar. There are likewise competing versions of the proposed federal amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">District of Columbia federal voting rights</span> Suffrage and representation of the United States capital

Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from the rights of citizens in the 50 U.S. states. The United States Constitution grants each state voting representation in both houses of the United States Congress. It defines the federal district as being outside of any state, and does not grant it any voting representation in Congress. The Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Bill of Rights</span> First ten amendments to the US Constitution

The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and Magna Carta (1215).

The fathers' rights movement in the United States is a group that provides fathers with education, support and advocacy on family law issues of child custody, access, child support, domestic violence and child abuse. Members protest what they see as evidence of gender bias against fathers in the branches and departments of various governments, including the family courts.

Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments are assertions that the imposition of the U.S. federal income tax is illegal because the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration", was never properly ratified, or that the amendment provides no power to tax income. Proper ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by tax protesters who argue that the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress, or that Ohio was not a State during ratification, despite its admission to the Union on March 1, 1803, more than a century prior. Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.

The United States has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); however, it remains the only United Nations member state to have not ratified it after Somalia ratified it in 2015.

The School Prayer Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution intended by its proponents to protect the right of the students if they wish, to voluntarily pray in schools, although opponents argue it allows for government-sponsored prayer.

The Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution is a proposed change to the United States Constitution. The amendment's advocates say that it will allow parents' rights to direct the upbringing of their children, protected from federal interference, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Amendment was first proposed during the 110th Congress as House Joint Resolution 97 in July 2008, but no action was taken during that Congress. The Amendment has been described as a "wedge issue" and part of the culture wars.

The Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Act 2012 amended the Constitution of Ireland by inserting clauses relating to children's rights and the right and duty of the state to take child protection measures. It was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) on 10 October 2012, and approved at a referendum on 10 November 2012, by 58% of voters on a turnout of 33.5%. Its enactment was delayed by a High Court case challenging the conduct of the referendum. The High Court's rejection of the challenge was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24 April 2015. It was signed into law by the President on 28 April 2015.

A campaign finance reform amendment refers to any proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to authorize greater restrictions on spending related to political speech, and to overturn Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed such laws under the First Amendment. Several amendments have been filed since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Occupy movement.

References

  1. ↑ "Unwarranted Adoptions". BBC. 2004-09-28. Retrieved 2007-06-05.
  2. ↑ "Parents' Rights Advocates Criticize Local Court". BBC. Retrieved 2007-06-06.
  3. ↑ "Baby removed from vulnerable mother 'unlawfully'". BBC News. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
  4. ↑ Triggle, Nick. "Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything?". BBC news. BBC. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
  5. ↑ Hoekstra, Peter (2009-04-27). "H.J.Res.42 - 111th Congress (2009-2010): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2020-11-18.
  6. ↑ DeMint, Jim (2009-05-14). "S.J.Res.16 - 111th Congress (2009-2010): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to parental rights". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2020-11-18.
  7. ↑ Crary, David (2009-04-30). "Kids'-rights pact finds critics in Congress". SFGATE. Retrieved 2020-11-18.
  8. ↑ Crary, David (2009-04-30). "Kids'-rights pact finds critics in Congress". SFGATE. Retrieved 2020-11-18.
  9. 1 2 3 Banks, Jim (2019-01-30). "H.J.Res.36 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2020-11-18.
  10. ↑ "Summary of H.J.Res. 36: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights". GovTrack.us. Retrieved 2020-11-18.
  11. ↑ "Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution", Wikipedia, 2020-11-15, retrieved 2020-11-18
  12. ↑ Hoffower, Hillary. "Forget braces and babysitters: American parents say their children are most expensive when they're all grown up". Business Insider. Retrieved 2021-04-20.
  13. ↑ "Pact for children's rights opposed". archive.azcentral.com. Retrieved 2020-11-18.
  14. 1 2 "The Colorado Parental Rights Amendment: How and Why It Failed". Guttmacher Institute. 2005-06-16. Retrieved 2020-11-18.
  15. 1 2 Hession, Gregory (2003-01-06). "DSS Dirty Tricks Series". MassOutrage.Com. Archived from the original on 2007-04-12. Retrieved 2007-04-27.
  16. ↑ Baskerville, Stephen (2004-06-06). "MASSACHUSETTS' FAMILY 'JUSTICE'". NewsWithViews.com. Retrieved 2007-05-07.
  17. ↑ Baskerville, Stephen (Summer 2003). "Divorce as Revolution". The Fatherhood Coalition, also Salisbury Review vol. 21 no. 4. Archived from the original on 2007-04-03. Retrieved 2007-03-22.
  18. 1 2 3 Moore, Nev (2003-07-29). "Inside A 'Batterers Program' for 'Abused' Women". The Fatherhood Coalition. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-04-17.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.