How does the government fit in? A political view.

In a recent survey conducted by a group of students from Walden University, several parents participating in the survey cited the government as the problem involving parental responsibility. The problem one stated was a parent could not discipline a child without fear of Child Protective Services. Smart children, it is concluded, used CPS as a threat against Disciplinary actions. However, is the government really the cause of our deteriorating society? In my research, I have uncovered government involvement that is meant to encourage parental involvement and protect the rights of the child.

Should parents be held responsible for the actions of their children? The law says yes. All but two states, New Hampshire and New York, hold parents legally responsible for the actions of their underage children. These responsibilities can include, forced parental involvement in the court proceedings process as well as financial liability. While the amount of responsibility varies by state, it shows that the rights of the child to be cared for and educated in responsible social and ethical behavior is one thing our government is trying to enforce (Parental responsibility laws, OJDP).

Should parents be forced to be parents? How much free parenting style can be allowed at the cost of societal safety and ethics? In 1990 the United Nations General Assembly received the minimum requirement of twenty nations to adopt a policy called the Convention on the Rights of the Child or (CRC). However, due to strong debate in the United States concerning parental rights, it was never adopted by the U.S. In fact, The Bush Administration was strongly against it for those reasons.

However, the Obama Administration is bringing the CRC back into debate. Why? Because the main concern of the CRC is to “ensure that all children receive special rights, including the right to a name and nationality; access to health care, education, and parental care; and protection from exploitation, abuse, and neglect”.

So why are we debating? Members of congress who are opposed to the CRC oppose it on the grounds that “ratification would make the treaty the "supreme law of the land," overriding existing family law, which is usually considered to be the province of state or local governments”. Furthermore, they argue that it will take away “the power parents have to raise their children as they see fit -- whether in regard to religious instruction, education, or the use of corporal punishment.” The Obama administration however, emphasizes that the ratification of the CRC gives children the right to “parental care” which emphasizes the need to make parents responsible for rearing their children in manner that results in socially responsible and healthy mature individual. (Children’s Rights International Debates, 2009).

Written by LaNita Norman