Parents' Rights Vs Children's Needs

[Ladybeetle]

Originally Posted by Giggles

Azazel's post http://stepfamilyzone.com.au/forums/showthread.php?t=7962 about and article on The Punch (http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/child-protection-trumps-rights-of-divorced-parents/desc/) had a line in it that I found interesting and worthy of discussion.

Lawyers back this up: Around 62 percent of them believe the laws favour parents’ rights over children’s needs.

Do you think that parents' rights should outweigh children's needs (unless in cases of proven abuse/violence)? I feel that parent's should have rights to their children unless we are somehow not living in a free society.

I can see that children's needs are important but I believe that parent's rights to a child they brought into the world should be also. As long as their child's basic needs are being met and they are not coming to any harm I believe that parent's rights should be paramount to the decisions of custody.

Back to your original question, Giggles.

I do not think that parents' rights should outweigh children's needs.


When you speak of parents' rights, I take it you have been influenced by a situation where a parent has been denied contact?

I think that violates both the parent's rights and the child's needs.

I agree with you that parents should have rights in relation to children they have brought into the world, but coming from a different history to yours, I would prefer to see different language used.

The problem I see is that rights can be exercised or not, and in the language of 'rights' that is a valid choice. The parent may choose not to exercise their rights, but is not to be stopped if they do want to exercise those rights.

JMO, but I prefer to think in terms of responsibilities rather than rights.

The thinking is this - the child has needs, the parents have responsibilities.

That means that a parent cannot be prevented from seeing the child and participating in his/her life, because the child needs that and the parent has a responsibility to meet the need.

The rights you want the parent to have can be achieved that way, but it also makes it clear that opting out of a child's life is failure to meet a responsibility and leaves the child with unmet needs.

It is all just semantics I know, but referring to responsibilities rather than rights makes it clear that opting out is not just a choice not to exercise ones 'rights' - it is also a failure to meet one's responsibilities.

Making sense?

[synergi73]

Nice work Ladybeetle! This thread has been bugging me because I cannot imagine a parents rights outweighing a childs needs.

[knottygirl]

i think the reality is that if there is actual abuse going on, then the childrens right to be safe is above all else. For that to not happen in this case says to me that there is no proof of abuse at all.

a friends daughter was at her dads when the police raided his house for drugs. He dragged 6 yo girl out the back door in pj's in the middle of the night to make a run for it. Didnt get far. The police then arrested him and left the girl there with other adults (friends of fathers whom she didnt know). She was so tramatised by the whole thing that she ended up in counselling, and my friend was told by police, social workers, everyone, to not send her over anymore while applying to court to stop his access. She was never threatened with losing her daughter. the fact was he proved to be an unfit parent and she wasnt going to be punished for it. the police got into trouble for leaving her there with strangers and not calling her mother too.