Wednesday 7 July 2010

Parents' rights, children's rights

I have remarked before on some of the ways that typical home educators in America differ from many of those in this country. I want to look today at this in the light of a fundamental difference in viewpoint, a difference which I find a little disturbing. This is the emphasis place in the USA on the rights of parents, as though these rights were somehow different from and in some ways opposed to the rights of children. I have been thinking about this because of the names on the application to the European Court of Human Rights which is being made in connection with Dominic Johansson. The representatives named are Ruby Harrold-Claesson, Roger Kiska and Michael Farris. All three of these people are strong advocates of parental rights.

Perhaps the main strand in American home education is that of Christians who choose not to send their children to school. They tend to achieve excellent academic results because the main motivation for educating their own children is in fact education. There is another reason that they choose this lifestyle and that is that they often feel that schools are attacking the family and taking away or diminishing the rights of parents. The perception here is that the family should be the basic unit of society and that the state should not be involved except as a last resort. The Bible of course sets out the family as the ideal way for people to live and this means one man and one woman raising their children together. They are answerable to God, but nobody else. I tend to agree with this view in many ways: certainly one of the motivations for educating my own child was religious.

In Europe, the trend is for the emphasis to be on the rights of the child. This means that from the modern European perspective, if a parent wishes to spank a child or take her to church, for example, these things must only happen with the consent of the child. many feel that this is harming the structure of the family, that it means that the state is intruding into the family and getting between the parent and child. This is a big issue for American home educators at the moment, because they are worried about the implications of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. This would, if ratified in the USA, outlaw corporal punishment and allow children to refuse to follow their parents' religion. It is also bound up with the idea of sex education and gun ownership in the USA, both very hot topics.

I was surprised to see that people who are very active in this campaign against implementing the UNCRC on the papers for the European Court of Human Rights. Obviously, one connection is that both they and the Johanssons are Christians. This would give a powerful motive for helping a Christian family who are fighting state interference in their family life. I wonder though if this case is also being used by the American groups as a way of fighting against the idea of the erosion of Parents' rights as they see them? Again, there would be nothing wrong with this as such, but it is something which I would like to know a little more about.

The problem which I have with the American perspective on all this is the same that many have in Europe. Children have rights. They have a right not to be beaten or starved, they have a right not to be sexually abused, they have a right to their own religious beliefs. This is the legal situation in Europe, not some abstract principle. If I were to compel my child to follow my own religion or wished to hit her, then I would be on dubious ground from several points of view. Not the least of these is that I do not believe for a moment that the Bible enjoins me to ride roughshod over my child's rights. In other words, the idea that my daughter's rights could ever have been opposed to mine is absurd, both from a legal and religious point of view. Proverbs 22:6 says, 'raise up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it'. I took this instruction quite literally and felt it my duty to teach my own child. My duty, by the way, not my right. I also believed that as Proverbs 1:7 says, 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'. For that reason, I felt that I had a duty to teach my child about God and to help her to become familiar with the Bible. Again, this was a duty. I did not have a right to impose my own belief upon her or force her to attend church.

It is this distinction between duties and rights that seems to be so very hard for many people to grasp. In the USA home educators are pretty sure of the matter: parents have rights and these take precedence over the supposed rights of the state when it comes to their children. Have a look at a group founded by Michael Farris called parentalrights.org and you will find that even the right of parents to allow their children access to firearms if being firmly defended!

I never supposed for a moment when my daughter was small that I had any rights at all over her. She is a human being; nobody owns another person. I had instead duties which I was required to fulfil. Some of those duties were laid upon me by the state, but other and greater duties had been given to me by the Lord. Among these duties were to teach her right from wrong and try to help her become wise. It was a pretty raw deal really, because all I had was a big bunch of duties and no rights. When she was little, my daughter had many rights but no duties. Things change though as a child grows and she also gradually acquired duties. The idea that parents' 'rights' should have any role at all in the debate on home education is a very strange one and I hope that the Johansson case is not the start of some sort of campaign of this sort. It is because of the implications of this case and due to the fact that people like the Alliance Defense Fund and the HSLDA are becoming involved in the affair that I felt that I had a right to express an opinion about this . I feel pretty strongly about this distinction between rights and duties and if there is going to be any debate about the rival merits of parents' rights and children's rights then I would like to see it take place openly.

44 comments:

  1. "The Bible of course sets out the family as the ideal way for people to live and this means one man and one woman raising their children together. They are answerable to God, but nobody else."

    Not sure it's as simple as that, Simon. As far as the bible is concerned, the church has a significant role in the life of the believer. So does the wider community, including the state. If families were answerable to God alone, national laws would have no bearing on families. This brings us back to the issue of the role 'other people' and the state play in the lives of individuals.

    Also, although I would agree with you that some parents do see their own rights as being the central issue, other parents who talk about parental rights use this term in relation to themselves, not the state, safeguarding their children's rights. This is a different thing entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  2. old Simon says-or wished to hit her, then I would be on dubious ground from several points of view.

    you are allowed in law to give a child a smack Balls himself droped any plans to outlaw a parent giving a child a smack if it is naughty?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If families were answerable to God alone, national laws would have no bearing on families."

    This is precisely how some Christian families view the situation! Obviously really, that if God commands you to do one and a human government says another, then you must obey the Lord. I rather think that this is what Christer Johansson meant yesterday when he commented on here that he cannot serve two masters. Many Christians have felt like this over the years and been sent to prison for not obeying national laws.

    "other parents who talk about parental rights use this term in relation to themselves, not the state, safeguarding their children's rights. This is a different thing entirely."

    This of course is quite true. Soem of those in America though have a different slant on the thing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The perception here is that the family should be the basic unit of society and that the state should not be involved except as a last resort."

    That sounds reasonable - and I'm not religious. Everyone must now be aware of how poor a parent the state is, so parent of last resort sounds sensible.

    "if a parent wishes to spank a child or take her to church, for example, these things must only happen with the consent of the child."

    Rubbish. You'll be saying next that children cannot be forced to go to school and that they are all their with full consent! How many children are allowed to choose to go to the dentist or not? Mine are (and chose to have treatment rather than risk pain or black or missing teeth), but the majority have no freedom of choice.

    "I felt that I had a duty to teach my child about God and to help her to become familiar with the Bible. Again, this was a duty. I did not have a right to impose my own belief upon her or force her to attend church."

    Other people feel they have the duty to allow their child to learn in freedom, others feel they have the *duty* to bring them up in the same religion as them because otherwise they will be damned for all eternity - this is semantics. Changing the word from 'right' to 'duty' changes nothing. People still think they have a duty to raise their children in different ways to you.

    "I never supposed for a moment when my daughter was small that I had any rights at all over her. She is a human being; nobody owns another person."

    You did not feel you had the right/duty to force her to brush her teeth? You did not feel you had the right/duty to force her to learn to read if she had not chosen to? You feel you have this right/duty because it's for her own good. Other people feel they have the right/duty to allow their child to learn to read when they are ready or make their own decisions about teeth brushing for the child's good.

    These people (those who feel their duties are different to you) fear that force will prevent their child learning to read efficiently and risk spoiling their enjoyment of reading in future. Others feel that it is their right/duty to educate their children about mouth care giving them information about the benefits of care and the disadvantages of not caring (at their level of understanding) to enable them to make their own choices. They feel that, freely chosen, the child is more likely to carry it out efficiently and well (rather than just a quick brush across the front so they can 'prove' they brushed their teeth by the smell and presence of toothpaste when their parent checks up on them).

    If you wish to prevent parents making these choices, you are effectively saying that the state should have the final say in every minor aspect of family life and the upbringing of children, that the parent cannot fulfil their duty to the child as they see it. They must, in their eyes, bring their child up in an inferior and less safe way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. most of the population in UK does not really care how some other child is brought up they only care about they own child if a child is not at school and being home educated many people are pleased as it means they may be more money to spend on they child who is at a state school!

    it is also not a talking point for most people over how a child is brought up they to busy worrying about they jobs and how much tax they pay.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Apologies for the double post - I think blogspot are having problems - and also for the their instead of there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I said above:

    "if a parent wishes to spank a child or take her to church, for example, these things must only happen with the consent of the child."

    To which Anonymous replied;

    "Rubbish"

    Here is the relevant passage regarding church from the Convention:



    "Children have the right to think and believe what they want and to practise their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights."

    I think that since the UK has signed up to this, it is worth people reading it and seeing what sort of rights we are talking about. this document underpins the Every Child Matters programme.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Other people feel they have the duty to allow their child to learn in freedom, others feel they have the *duty* to bring them up in the same religion as them because otherwise they will be damned for all eternity - this is semantics."

    It is very far from being a matter of semantics; it goes to the heart of the matter. A parent's 'right' to home educate is a very different thing indeed from a child's right to an education. I certainly felt that I had a 'duty' to teach my child about the Bible; I did not think for a moment that I had a 'right' to compel her to attend church against her will. We have rights with respect to property and so on. We have no 'rights' at all with regard to any human being, unless of course we are prison officials or police officers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Article 5
    "States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention."

    ReplyDelete
  10. "A parent's 'right' to home educate is a very different thing indeed from a child's right to an education."

    It is my duty to provide my child with a suitable education. This is what the law says. My belief is that the suitable education for my child is autonomous home education. If I am prevented from providing this for my child, I am prevented from fulfilling my duty to my best abilities and I will have failed to support my child's right to a suitable education.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Simon wrote,
    "Here is the relevant passage regarding church from the Convention:

    "Children have the right to think and believe what they want and to practise their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights.""

    This seems to be the relevant article:

    Article 14
    1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
    2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.


    So you could direct your young child to go to church if you wish. Being autonomous we would not do this, but it seems you have this right.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "So you could direct your young child to go to church if you wish. Being autonomous we would not do this, but it seems you have this right."

    Once again, we return to the question of rights and duties. parents do indeed have a duty and a right to;

    " provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child."

    But the child, by virtue of the preceding article has the absolute right to:


    "believe what they want and to practise their religion"

    It is parts like this of the Convention which are motivating many home educating American parents to fight against ratification of the Convention.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Simon wrote,
    "" provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child."

    But the child, by virtue of the preceding article has the absolute right to:

    "believe what they want and to practise their religion""

    You are mistaken, both parts are from the same article. The second clause effectively limits the right of the state to interfere with the parent's rights and duties to provide direction to their child with regards to the child's rights provided for in the first clause.

    Article 14
    1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
    2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
    3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Simon wrote,
    "Here is the relevant passage regarding church from the Convention:

    "Children have the right to think and believe what they want and to practise their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights.""

    What document are you quoting from as the text quoted does not appear to be from the Convention articles themselves, unless my version is out of date?

    UNCRC: Full articles

    ReplyDelete
  16. Article 5 appears to give primary responsibility (both rights and duties) for the direction and guidance of a child in the exercise of their rights to parents. It is only if the parent fails in their duty to protect their child's rights that the state should become involved - effectively the parent of last resort.

    Article 5
    States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Speaking as an U.S. citizen who is very aware of the U.N. CRC and http://parentalrights.org/, I would like to address your concern about Americans misunderstanding the child rights situation in Europe.
    I honestly don't think that most Americans are against "child rights." I think that most of us believe that a child has a right not to be abused - mentally, emotionally, physically, sexually - and has a right to be cared for well. Those of us in the Parental Rights movement would also hold, however, that a child has a right to be raised by his parents unless real abuse is proven. Homeschooling is not abuse.
    Regarding the case of the Johanssons, unless our news is not covering the whole story (always possible), there doesn't seem to be any allegations of abuse except that the Johanssons homeschool. Nor does it seem that the son, Dominic, wants to leave his parents. This, to me, raises the problem I see with the European idea of child rights. It doesn't seem that _children_ get any more rights, but rather that the government is just given more power to interfere regardless of the child's wishes. Also, both the U.N. CRC and the whole concept of child rights is incredibly presumptuous in their assumption that it is the government, not _good_ parents who have the "best interest of the child" at heart.
    I think it is for these reasons that many in the U.S. react strongly against the U.N. CRC - currently there is a bill S.Res 519 which is apposing the U.N. CRC and bills in both houses calling for a constitutional amendment which would secure parental rights and fully prevent ratification of the U.N. CRC.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What the Convention actually says is this:

    Article 14
    1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

    2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

    This more or less precludes a parent from making a child follow the family's religion. this is a problem with some people.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Matthew, I notice you are in Purcellville. Tell me, are you a student at Patrick Henry or otherwise connected with the HDLSA? You say:

    " It doesn't seem that _children_ get any more rights, but rather that the government is just given more power to interfere regardless of the child's wishes."

    Actually, children get rights to be able to follow their own conscience reagrding religion and various other things. You go on to say:

    " the government, not _good_ parents who have the "best interest of the child" at heart."

    The problem here is that all parents think that they are good parents. Society has to be able to step in under some circumstances. The argument is, what are those circumstances. Some feel that a child should be removed from the parents if they hit her regularly. Others say that this is an unwarranted intervention by the state. Most would agree that if a parent imposes a strict dietry regime which might harm the child, then the state should step in. Even then, we must handle this on a case by case basis. Suppose that I wish to sacrifice my child to Moloch? Should the state intervene then? I strongly believe that the powers should be there for the state to take action. the UNCRC sets up a framework for this.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Simon wrote (after quoting the text I had previously quoted),
    "This more or less precludes a parent from making a child follow the family's religion. this is a problem with some people."

    It precludes the state from making a child follow a particular religion, is says nothing of the parent.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Some feel that a child should be removed from the parents if they hit her regularly. Others say that this is an unwarranted intervention by the state. Most would agree that if a parent imposes a strict dietry regime which might harm the child, then the state should step in."

    You don't think they should work with the parent before considering removal of the child? I was hit as a child, including with a hairbrush. There is no way that it would have justified my removal from my family - I think that would have been far more harmful to me. Obviously there are much more serious levels of abuse but I would not call what happened to me abuse. There has been no evidence of abuse sufficient to justify removal of Dominic from his family, either in court or elsewhere in my view.

    What in particular do you think justifies his removal and continued refusal to return him to his family, especially considering his parents have agreed to follow all advice from SS?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I strongly believe that the powers should be there for the state to take action. the UNCRC sets up a framework for this."

    The powers are there, but what happens when they are abused? Some people seem to assume that SS must be right (there's no smoke without fire) so lets try to figure out how the parents are abusing their child despite a complete lack of evidence. I must admit to this tendency to trust those whose job it is to care for children and families, but there comes a point when the evidence no longer justifies this trust.

    ReplyDelete
  23. it is not against the law for a parent in England to smack?hit a child if it is naughty Balls himself back dowm over this and said it was ok for a parent to do this?

    ReplyDelete
  24. some children at school want to be home educated what rights and help will Webb give them?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Simon,
    I am a pre-law student at Patrick Henry College and a Regional Director for Parentalrights.org. I am in complete agreement with you that the State needs to be able to step in if there is abuse. All that we at Parentalrights.org are trying to do is make the government _prove_ that there is abuse before they step in and disregard the parents' decisions. If you look at our amendment, section 2 states:

    "Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served."

    This clause is specifically designed to allow the government to intervene when necessary. Protecting the child from abuse is (as determined by our court system's precedent) a "governmental interest of the highest order" and if the situation has no other solution than removal of the child from the parents, then that is just. Of course, sacrificing one's children, physically abusing them, purposely malnourishing them, etc., would all fit under the "governmental interest of the highest order" concept, and the state would be correct to step in. The idea of putting religious/tradition instruction, homeschooling, decisions not to vaccinate, decisions not to place the child in public child-care, or decisions to opt one's child out of sex-ed classes in the same class of abuse as the previously mentioned abuses is absurd.

    The U.N. CRC, itself, seems to acknowledge the importance of parents in Article 9. That is all that Parentalrights.org and, I suspect, the American lawyers going to the ECHR are interested in protecting. Good parents, meaning parents who are not abusing their children, should be able to raise their children free of government intrusion.

    I'm very confused about the idea of a government granting a child freedom of conscience. While our own 1st amendment does exactly that, it is a freedom from _government_ intrusion into the freedom of conscience. Historically, parents have always brought up their children in their religion, customs, and traditions. Teaching one's children the precepts of Christianity, Islam, any other religion, or no religion is not abuse and the government does not have an interest in that area. Again, I am very concerned that the U.N.CRC does not actually give any rights to children, but rather to the government.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Also, I'm still not sure how the Johansson case fits into this whole realm of abuse. There seem to be no allegations of abuse, yet the government stepped in anyway. The ability of the government to step in and overturn the decisions of parents who are not accused of abuse is a step that even our Supreme Court refused to take. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a key case in parental rights jurisprudence in the U.S., our Supreme Court stated:
    "The child is not the mere creature of the State. Those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

    ReplyDelete
  27. "What in particular do you think justifies his removal and continued refusal to return him to his family, especially considering his parents have agreed to follow all advice from SS?"

    I don't know if they are justified in removing the child from his parents. Nor do I know whether his parents have agreed to follow all advice from the SS. It's possible that one side here is telling the whole truth and the other side telling nothing but lies. More likely is that both sides in this are telling some truth and some lies. That being so, we can't get at the whole picture. I'm not sure why so many people are prepared unconditionally to accept everything that is said by the parents and their supporters and nobody appears open to the possibility that the social workers have acted correctly. As to the truth of the matter; I amas much in the dark as everybody else.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "The idea of putting religious/tradition instruction, homeschooling, decisions not to vaccinate, decisions not to place the child in public child-care, or decisions to opt one's child out of sex-ed classes in the same class of abuse as the previously mentioned abuses is absurd."

    I agree with you completely on this, Matthew. I might mention here that I did not send my own daughter to school and that a primary motivation for this decision was religious.

    " Also, I'm still not sure how the Johansson case fits into this whole realm of abuse. There seem to be no allegations of abuse, yet the government stepped in anyway."

    I have seen nothing about abuse mentioned in connection with this case. Then again, we have not seen all the court documents and even supporters of the family say that they do not think that the decision to remove the child from his family was soley due to home education.

    "Historically, parents have always brought up their children in their religion, customs, and traditions. Teaching one's children the precepts of Christianity, Islam, any other religion, or no religion is not abuse and the government does not have an interest in that area."

    This is a debatable point. If parents teach their children that society at large is Godless and wicked and that the laws of civil society may be disobeyed if they conflict with those of the Lord, then society has a stake in the matter. Some Christians and Muslims do feel this way and I can see why society might feel that this is an unhealthy attitude to foster in children. Ultimately, such ways of thinking can, in extreme cases, lead to violence and even civil war. (Not that I think this likely with the average Christian family!) In this context, it was interesting to see that Christer Johansson wrote that he could not serve two masters. Such ways of raising children are not abusive but could still be of legitimate concern to the state.

    Another tricky area would be if a family believe that the Lord will preserve their health and reject doctors. I have known families like this, who pray rather than seek medical help. Clearly, these people are not abusive either and yet their children might be at risk. There are many more instances which I could give you where the methods which parents use to raise their children could be a concern of the state without being abusive. I have known God-fearing parents to fall into error in this way with the best intentions in the world. (There are some Brethren living in this county who still are not keen on doctors and so on).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hmmmmm, yes, I completely understand your last point about families rejecting medical assistance for their children. That is a really tricky issue. Personally, I'm inclined to say that when a child is involved, the government does have an interest of the highest order in preserving his life. I believe that under current U.S. law, the government does have the right to step in in such cases, and I completely support that.

    Also, I just had a simple question regarding (especially since you mentioned you homeschooled for religious reasons) what you believe the proper action is when there is a conflict between laws of faith and laws of civil society. Do you believe that "God's law is higher" for example. Just personally curious.

    ReplyDelete
  30. That is a very good question Matthew. The answer is that yes, I do believe that the laws of the Creator of the Universe take precedence over the laws of the man. there is a big problem though, which is that it is not always easy to know what God requires of us. To give an extreme example, a few years ago there was a case in England of a man who thought that the Lord was instructing him to kill prostitutes. Now I can see Biblical justification for this and I am sure you could find passages in Deuteronomy or Exodus which would support this activity. He felt that God's wishes were higher than the laws of man.

    This is the problem with taking a stand of this sort; whether it involves cleaning up the streets or home educating. I can pray and read the Bible and still be very mistaken in what the Lord actually requires of me. Having said that, I certainly felt that I had solid scriptural backing for my decision to raise my own child at home instead of allowing the state to take over the job! Actually, you have just suggested a good post for tomorrow about this very topic; home education the Biblical way. My daughter, who is a devout young Christian woman has very strong views on this and I shall try to work them into it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I do believe that the laws of the Creator of the Universe take precedence over the laws of the man.

    It is not against the law in UK to be gay and to sleep with other men? but it is against God so what would you Webb do if you saw 2 men kissing?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm guessing here that the politically correct answer would not be to say, "Yuk!" and turn away in disgust?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "but it is against God "

    I wonder what makes you think that God is opposed to homesexual activity between men?

    ReplyDelete
  34. 'm guessing here that the politically correct answer would not be to say, "Yuk!" and turn away in disgust?

    i asked you the question what would you do if you see 2 men kissing? what would you do if you see 2 men kissing in your church?

    it is not against the law to be gay? do you agree this is true? and if 2 men wish to go to bed with each other this is also not against the law?

    ReplyDelete
  35. do you agree Webb that it is not against the law for 2 gay men to home educate?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Peter, if you are trying to tell me that you have found a male partner and that he is helping you with your son's eduation, then I am very happy for you. It is hardly my affair though.

    ReplyDelete
  37. answer the question Webb?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Which one? What would I do if I saw two men kissing? Or how would I react if I saw two men kissing in my church? Or the one about whether it is against the law to be gay? Or did you perhaps want me to answer the question which you asked about whether if two men want to go to bed together, that's OK? Perhaps you want me to tell you whether it's against the law for two men to home educate?

    ReplyDelete
  39. just answer Webb and also tell us if LA staff asked if you abused your daughter when you invited them round to check up on you.Did you wait in anther room why they checked her out?

    your such a loser Webb like your daughter!

    ReplyDelete
  40. The answers to your questions are as follows; ignore it, be surprised, no, don't care, no and no.

    ReplyDelete
  41. so you did not mind being asked if you abused your daughter by council staff?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Your penultimate question was;

    "also tell us if LA staff asked if you abused your daughter when you invited them round to check up on you."

    I answered 'no' to this; meaning 'No, the LA staff did not ask if I had abused my daughter'.

    ReplyDelete
  43. but LA staff where looking to see if you abused your daughter? looking for marks on her? did they ask any questions why you waited in anther room? if you did not wait in anther room how come you want all other home educating parents to wait in anther room why they children are interviewed by box ticking council staff?

    Badman/Balls your 2 mates belive as do you that untill your checked home educators are guilty of child sexual abuse of they children?

    when you allowed them into your house they where looking to see if your daughter had been abused.

    ReplyDelete
  44. We in America are not debating for the right of the parent OVER the right of the child, but rather the right of the parent to PROTECT the rights of THEIR child. The problem with society defining what rights children have is that it is still one adult's opinion over another. If someone is going to force their belief on a child, it should be the person who truly does have their best interest at heart, the parent.

    In America we already have laws protecting the rights of children from abuse, child labor, and many other atrocities and parental rights supporters support those laws. However, when children are minors they do need guidance in most areas. In our society children are not considered an adult until the age of 18 (in some cases 16ish, etc). Until that time they are required to have someone looking out for them, and that person should be the parent.

    See, we are not trying to change a duty into a right, we are simply trying to protect our right to perform that God given duty and raise our children accordingly.

    ReplyDelete