Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 6-10: The Child’s Right to Know and Be Cared for by Their Parents

Here we are again, for another look at the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)! For readers who may be new to this feature, the CRC has been ratified (or is in the process of being ratified) by every nation in the world accept for the U.S. The U.S. has not signed it in part because of general anti-UN sentiment, but also in part because of opposition from organizations like the Home School Legal Defense Association (founded by Christian homeschool leader Michael Farris), which promote parental rights to the exclusion of children’s rights.

Today we look at articles 6-10, which I found extremely interesting. You can see other installments in this series here.

Article 6

1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.

2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Remember that the CRC was drafted for signing by all of the countries in the world, including developing countries. I would assume that “to the maximum extent possible” recognizes that some countries may not have the resources to do everything they might otherwise be able to do to protect children’s health and promote their survival and development. But, this article also suggests that countries like the U.S., which have the resources and ability to cover things like children’s healthcare, should do so, taking efforts to reduce infant and child mortality.

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

And there it is again—children have the right to know and be cared for by their parents. I mentioned in an earlier discussion that I’m tired of organizations like HSLDA framing their opposition to child protective services removals in terms of parental rights and completely failing to recognize that unwarranted removals are actually a violation of children’s rights. The problem is these groups’ framing of children as parental property, rather than as independent entities with their own rights. More on this in a moment.

Article 8

1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.

I find it fascinating that the CRC positions children’s name and family relations as part of their identity. And notice, again, the idea that states should not conduct “unlawful interference” in a child’s family relations. Just what is meant by that? We see more in the next article.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.

Here we see why a state might lawfully interfere in a child’s family relations—if there is abuse or neglect, or when parents are separated and it must be determined which parent the child should live with. Here, again, we see the “best interests of the child” language, but while Farris treats this phrase as thought it implies government ownership of a child and government right to micromanage how parents raise their children, it’s fairly clear from the context that the “best interests of the child” refers to protecting children from abuse or neglect.

In other words, if there is no abuse or neglect, the CRC is very clear that it is in the child’s best interests to be raised by their parents. In fact, the CRC states that the child has the right “to know and be cared for by his or her parents”—except in cases where abuse or neglect means that such a separation is in children’s best interests.

2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.

4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.

In my reading, this has to do with making sure proper judicial procedures are followed and that the child’s rights are not violated.

Article 10

1. In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.

2. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents. Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, States Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country, including their own, and to enter their own country. The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention.

And this part is much less interesting. 😛

By way of conclusion, though, the framing issues in this week’s section are fascinating. The CRC argues that children have a right to be raised by their parents, barring extenuating circumstances like abuse or neglect. Farris et al. frame this right as belonging primarily to parents—i.e., that a frivolous removal of a child by child protective services is a violation of the parent’s fundamental right to raise their child. In other words, both the writers of the CRC and Farris believe removing children from their parents without reason is a violation of someone’s rights—but while the CRC sees it as a violation of children’s rights, Farris sees it as a violation of parents’ rights.

Of course, Farris has very strange ideas about what abuse and neglect entail, seems to routinely assume that parents are innocent of abuse or neglect allegations, and appears to view social workers as universally inept or vindictive, so there’s other stuff going on here too. He would probably argue that under the CRC, definitions of abuse and neglect would be so expansive as to give the government total control over parents’ childrearing decisions.

But honestly, after growing up hearing Farris’s claims that the CRC is anti-family and hands children over to the government to be raised, actually reading the CRC is making me feel very lied to—by Farris, by HSLDA, and by the Christian homeschooling community writ large.