CPS & The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Most people have a perception of the UN as a benevolent body that arbitrates disputes among nations... a forum through the world's problems can be mediated. As far as children are concerned- everybody has at least heard of UNICEF and that's how they view the organization. The organization has a far different and darker agenda than their public image discloses. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is just one example. Written in benign sounding language it conceals an attempt to supplant parental rights with the awesome and overpowering fiat of state intervention. Perhaps that's why it took from 1989 until 1995 for the United States to sign off on it. I'll add a link to the convention in its entirety at the end. But I'll go through and explain the more troubling aspects... the ones that give CPS and family courts undue authority.

~Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity, (Brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed by the UN, not of the ideals and values of the family from which the child comes.

Article 1 states, for clarification, that a child is any human being under the age of 18.

Article 3

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare
   institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. (Stating that the UN is the body that determines what "the best interests of the child are)

2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her
   well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other
   individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and
   administrative measures.

3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or
   protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities,
   particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision. (Once again... the state- no mention of parental rights)

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. (This is where the convention authorizes CPS and family courts to intervene citing the nebulous "best interest of the child.")

2. 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. (Once again, it is the state not parents that determine the "best interest of the child.")

Article 12

1. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. (It is the state that determines whether or not the child should be heard... most hearings in the US are closed and done ex parti.)

The convention goes on from here to endow children with basically the same rights as adults... freedom of religion, assembly, expression, etc.. The parents have no say in any of this. For example, if a child wants to join a gang, or worship Satan, they have that right guaranteed under the convention- the values or wishes of the parents have no part in the child's decision. It's axiomatic that children need adult supervision- one reason that they're not legally allowed to enter into contracts until they reach their majority. The "ownership" of children is what's at issue here. I don't like the idea of owning another person any more than anyone else, but this begs the question- who owns our children, the parents or the state. This document insures and ratifies the state ownership of children (at least in the signatory countries).

Another thing to consider is that Hillary Clinton, as the Director of the Children's Defense Fund, helped write the convention. She has been on record for decades pushing for diminished parental rights and the state ownership of children. In an article for the Harvard Educational Review in 1973, Mrs. Clinton, nee Rodham, bemoaned that "alien values, usually middle class are preventing state intervention into the lives of children." (I paraphrase)

The UN, CPS and the family courts (under federal adoption guidelines), along with NGO's such as the CDF, have formed a consortium to insure that in "the best interest of the child" parents are shut out of the process... This is what we're up against! I encourage everyone to read through the convention- it paints, in its entirety, a much bleaker outlook for parents than the little I shared.

http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/children/50f941fe9/united-nations-convention-rights-child-crc.html

GIF by @papa-pepper