Is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child an Anti-parent Treaty?

Parents are responsible for the spiritual, emotional, physical and social growth of children.  It is the responsibility and right of parents to educate their children, most especially in the faith.  This right to educate our children is a God-given, intrinsic and inaliable part of parenting.   As the Catechism teaches:

“The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.  The right and duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inaliable.”  (2221)

Parents have the first responsibility for the education of  their children.  They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity and disinterested service are the rule.  The home is well suited for education in the virtues… (CCC 2223)

As parents, we are the first heralds of the faith to our children, and it is our right to choose a school for them.  It is the duty of public authorities to ensure this right is protected:

Parents should initiate their children at an early age into the mysteries of the faith of which they are the “first heralds’ for their children. (2225)

Education in the faith by the parents should begin in the child’s earliest years.  (2226).   As those first responsible for the education of their children, parents have the right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions.  This right is fundamental.  As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators.  Public authorities have the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise.  (222)

Parenting is no picnic these days.  Given the odds that, at every turn, some evil is conspiring against the family, were it not for God’s grace, one might wonder how any Catholic family could survive at all in the twisted culture of today.  Now we can add to the list of family attackers, the United Nations.

The United Nations has come up with a treaty called the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” (CNC) with binding implications in the United States.  This treaty robs Catholic parents of their “right and responsibility” to educate their children in the faith. In lieu of enabling parents to pass their faith onto their children, “children would be granted authority by the state to choose their own religion…”  (Parental Rights.org)  If it is our job as Catholic parents to educate our children in the Catholic faith, and if the UN treaty on the child blocks parents from doing their job, then is the treaty on the Rights of the Child an anti-parent treaty?

The right to educate our children in the faith is not the only right being denied to parents by the UN’s CNC.  There are 40 rights being granted to children in the CNC document, and the rights given to the children will sometimes undermine a parents right to parent.  One of the 40 rights is the right of a child not to be spanked.  In the UN’s world, when little Johnny mocks or torments his little brother, or talks back to his mother, Dad can no longer step in and give him a quick swat on the backside.  According to the CNC “reasonable spankings” are no longer permissible.  While disallowing reasonable spankings, the UN seems intent on furthering the activation of childhood sexuality.  The UN would grant children the right to “reproductive health information,” even against parental wishes.  Every child would be granted the “right” to an abortion.

What if parents, seeking to protect their children, deny them one of these UN-granted “rights”?  Then “a child’s ‘right to be heard’ would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parent decision with which the child disagreed.”   (Parental Rights.Org)

If the CNC treaty is ratified by the United States, it creates binding laws which supersede American laws.  Don’t be lured into thinking that ratifying this document in the United States would help children in other countries.  It would not.  The Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has long warned of the CNC treaty implications, and to see why one can look at what the British government has already done to homeschoolers with it.

Britain has taken steps to use the United Nation’s CNC stated need to balance the “rights of the parents with the rights of the children,” and approved a plan to at last gain control over homeschooling families who have chosen to raise their children in a way that British authorities do not like.   This plan grants authorities “the right of access to the home,” and the “right to speak to each child alone.”  What parent, (homeschooled or not) in their right mind, would permit a civil authority, and a most likely a perfect stranger, to speak to their child ALONE?  British homeschooling parents are understandably outraged.

Governmental authorities, smart though they may be, just don’t “get it.”  Most homeschooling parents are homeschooling because in one way or another (academically, morally, socially or spiritually) the school system has failed their children.  Many homeschoolers opt to homeschool out of desperation, and then find that homeschooling unites the family, permits the child to excel, and brings peace to the home.  Isn’t it ironic that authorities, who have so failed these children in so many ways for so long, would now seek to control in the home that which they could not themselves accomplish in the institutional school itself?

The UN Treaty on the rights of the child first took effect in 1990.  Although the Clinton administration did sign the treaty, it was at that time opposed by US Senators and thus never submitted to the Senate for approval.   It is true that the treaty was not approved during the Bush administration, however President Obama’s administration is now “reviving efforts to have the United States sign…”  (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_re_us/un_un_children_s_rights).  Because this treaty threatens the right of parents to parent their own children, and the right of parent’s to pass on their faith, parents have a responsibility to oppose this treaty and to contact their Senators to indicate their indignation.  Contact information for your Senator can be found at http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml.

Other Links:

UN Protocol Used to Regulate Homeschoolers (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101371)

Parental Rights.org (http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8}

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • HomeschoolNfpDad

    We need to negotiate a treaty with Nicaragua or Costa Rica that bans abortion.

  • sonjacorbitt

    I am so angry about this, particularly because there is no where to go; globalization has all but removed the alternative to flee to another first world country. At this point I am wondering how long we could live in a tent if required. Everywhere you turn governments are trying to get their disgusting hands on our children, and as a homeschool mother, I feel the distinct protective urge to behave like a mother bear, stand on hind feet and roar something horrible. It is very hard to stay positive in this increasingly anti-family climate. Dearest Mother Mary, pray for us and for our children!

  • khan47

    I guess I have mixed feelings on this. As a Catholic, I would not want my child to be able to access an abortion against my wishes for obvious reasons – killing of an innocent life and the repercussions that would come with that for my child.

    I’m not thrilled about further governmental regulations, but as a social worker I do see the other point of view in this as well. Some parents do use homeschooling as a guise to keep their kids out of the school system and away from mandated reporters so they can abuse them without fear of being caught. Some parents use the term homeschooling to allow their teen to be truant and start a life of doing whatever they want, ususally ending in drugs and promiscuity. We do kids in these situations such a disservice if there’s no opportunity for someone to check up on them. And it’s unfortunate that homeschoolers choosing to do so for legitimate reasons have more oversight than necessary as a result of the bad choices of a minority.

    As for spanking, I’ll never think it’s okay to hit a child. In my opinion and experience, it doesn’t teach the child a lesson – it teaches the child it’s okay to hit if you’re bigger and more powerful than the other person. There are plenty other non-violent methods of discipline for parents to select and use.

  • MichelleGA

    This is very scary. I echo Sonjacorbitt’s response! Everytime I come across more info on this, I think the same thing…there is no place to go to escape these control freaks, and OH! how I want to protect my children from their evil clutches! Help us, Dearest Mother!

  • Doria2

    The double standard is remarkable

    A Laughable Double Standard – The Duke University-Rape Case Nobody Knows About
    Oliver Sykes

    When the Duke University-lacrosse-rape story broke in the spring of 2006, it sparked massive media coverage nationwide for more than two years and endless liberal posturing about white privilege vs. a disadvantaged black woman – three Duke lacrosse players were charged with raping and kidnapping a black stripper. It all turned out to be a lie, as we now know, and the politically correct house of cards collapsed. The liberal media quickly moved on with few regrets about a rush to judgment.

    Now there is another Duke University-rape story with a strong evidence trail of e-mails, photos, and videos, as well as investigative work by the FBI, an Internet Crimes Against Children task force, the State Bureau of Investigation, and police forces in Washington, D.C. and in Durham, N.C. But this time, the liberal media aren’t saying much.

    That’s because this case involves a homosexual Duke University official who does AIDS research; who lives with his partner in a sexually liberated and eco-friendly housing community; who adopted two black boys; who allegedly drugged and sodomized one of the boys; who allegedly broadcast the sodomy online; and who reportedly offered the 5-year-old boy up to other gay abusers on the Internet.

    This is not a politically correct storyline: ‘Gay White Duke Official Rapes Adopted Black Boy.’ It doesn’t fit the liberal worldview. ‘Angry White Male Rapes Black Girl’ does – but that’s not the story here. Thus the meager media coverage. Let’s look at what’s known so far.

    Frank Lombard, 42, is the associate director of the Center for Health Policy at Duke University where he does a lot of patients-with-HIV/AIDS research and brings in grant money: for example, $4 million in 2007. He also teaches undergraduate courses, as listed for 2009, including “Introduction to the United States Health Care System” and “Health Policy Analysis.”

    Lombard lives at the Eno Commons with his partner Ken Shipp, a pharmacist who also works at Duke doing HIV/AIDS research. Eno Commons is a cohousing neighborhood in Durham, which was developed by lesbian activist Sherri Zann Rosenthal, also the assistant city attorney for Durham.

    Enos Commons describes itself as “embracing diversity” and welcoming to “residents of all ages, races, religious beliefs, and affectional preferences.” It says it is open to lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender members and has no restrictions on romantic relations between consenting adults. It also describes itself as a “Paradise for Children” who “learn what they live.”

    The FBI, the police, and U.S. attorneys first learned about Lombard through a “confidential source,” as explained in a sworn statement by Detective Timothy Palchak, who works for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, assigned to the Northern Virginia Regional Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

    The confidential source, or “CS,” was facing child pornography charges and decided to cooperate with investigators about other people involved “in the sexual abuse and molestation of children.”

    CS stated that he used the Internet-based video chat program ICUii (I See You Too) to talk with a person with the user name “cooper2” and “cooperse.” According to Palchak’s statement, the following was determined:

    – Officials with ICUii, under subpoena, “provided information that the ICUii account of ‘cooper2’ belongs to Frank Lombard.” ICUii “listed Frank Lombard’s email address” and his telephone number, and also indicated “that Frank Lombard’s profile description stated he was interested in ‘perv fam fun,’ a reference to incestuous child molestation.”

    – ICUii also disclosed to the FBI that a customer had complained back in January 2007 that, in chatting with Lombard on ICUii, “Lombard told the complainant that he ‘was into incest’ and that he had adopted two African-American children.”

    – “The complainant also explained that Frank Lombard described himself, in his profile, as being a ‘perv dad for fun.’”

    – CS said he met cooper2 about four years ago through ICUii and they corresponded every few weeks, and CS had seen cooper2 “over webcam as many as one hundred times.”

    – CS witnessed cooper2 “perform oral sex on an African-American child who appeared to be under the age of ten, and [too graphic to print], all of which activity was displayed to CS using the individual’s webcam.”

    – Cooper 2 also, according to CS, advised “that he lived in the Raleigh/Durham area of North Carolina; that the child was an adopted child, one of two adopted African-American children; that he had a live-in gay male partner who did not participate in the sexual abuse; and that he had allowed other individuals to sexually molest the child.”

    As the statement continues, Palchak says that he engaged in an undercover operation using the online chat program Yahoo! Instant Messenger and chatted with a person using the “display name ‘F L.’” Sections of Palchak’s statement read:

    – FL used the “photo share” feature of Yahoo! Instant Messenger and sent to the detective “nude photos of himself, which pictures match the North Carolina driver’s license photograph of Frank Mccorkle Lombard.”

    – “User with the display name ‘F L’ stated that he had sexually molested his adopted, male, African-American child who he had adopted as an infant and is currently five-years old.”

    – “He advised Your affiant [Palchak] in particular that the child had performed oral sex on him, he had ‘fingered’ the child, and that he had [too graphic to print].

    – “He also advised … that he has met other pedophiles on the program ICUii at times when he was willing to display his adopted child on that program.”

    – “He further stated that the abuse of the child was easier when the child was too young to talk or know what was happening, but that he had drugged the child with Benadryl during the molestation.”

    – “ ‘F L’ invited your affiant to fly to Durham this week in order to have sexual contact with his 5-year-old adopted child. ‘F L’ stated to Your affiant that there would be no limits on the sexual activity he could engage in with his 5-year-old adopted child.”

    – “During this conversation, ‘F L’ was fully visible over the webcam, including his face. ‘F L’ is identical to the North Carolina driver’s license photograph of Frank Mccorkle Lombard.”

    Lombard was arrested on June 24. He is charged with offering up his 5-year-old adopted son for sex to other people (U.S. Code Section 2422(a). The maximum penalty for such a crime is 20 years imprisonment.

    One would think that the arrest of a prominent Duke University official for such a heinous crime would spark a lot of major media coverage. After all, this is the same Duke University that the media (and Duke’s liberal faculty members) went batty over with the lacrosse-rape story – a story based on one woman’s unsubstantiated allegation, which quickly fell apart.

    But that story was so politically correct – three young white men allegedly rape a poor, young black woman in the South – the maniacal liberal media would not let it go. It fit all their stereotypes and their political agenda.

    The gay and eco-friendly Frank Lombard who adopts black boys and then allegedly sodomizes one of them on Web-cam does not fit the liberal media’s stereotypes or their agenda.

    Let’s look at the numbers. In the 15 days following Lombard’s arrest, a search of the Nexis news service database (search term “Frank Lombard” and “Duke University”) shows that 19 news stories were published. Most of that coverage was in small, local newspapers and was cursory.

    In the 15 days that followed the arrest of two Duke lacrosse players, on April 18, 2006, there were 1,056 news stories. (Nexis search for “Duke University” and “lacrosse” and “rape.”) (The third lacrosse player was not arrested until May 15.)

    And in the few weeks prior to those arrests, following the woman’s Mar. 14, 2006, claim that she was raped, there were an additional 1,367 stories. All of that included extensive coverage on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, National Public Radio, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and all the major newspapers and magazines. The coverage was wall-to-wall. Yet a fairly prominent gay Duke University official is nabbed in an FBI child-sex sting and there are 19 news stories. Two Duke lacrosse players get arrested for supposedly raping a stripper and there are more than 2,400 stories. There’s something wrong with this picture.

    Does anyone doubt that if a prominent straight man at Duke University had adopted a young black girl and then sexually abused her and broadcast the abuse over the Internet, it would not be big news?

    The coverage would again be wall-to-wall.

    But here’s the reality. The liberal media support homosexuality. Stories that in any way undermine the media’s rosy picture of homosexuality are usually not given wide coverage.

    Lombard lives in a sexually progressive commune with his gay partner. A story that undermines the liberal image of the committed gay couple – in this case, two highly educated Duke university employees – living comfortably in suburbia is not to be promoted.

    Lombard adopted two black boys. A story that in any way taints the liberal picture of gay adoption is not to be promoted, and especially not promoted if the story has a race component (white male father, black sons).

    Lombard allegedly drugged one of his sons and then sexually abused him on more than one occasion, and allegedly allowed others to abuse the boy. A gay man drugging and sodomizing his own son does not help advance the gay agenda, so it gets little coverage.

    At the same time, the story is so morally revolting it can only taint anyone or anything associated with it – that includes Duke University, Eno Commons, the city of Durham, the gay community in general and the liberal media who rabidly covered the Duke lacrosse scandal story.

    Bottom line for liberal media: White males allegedly rape black woman in the South equals politically correct story, lots of coverage. Gay man adopts and then allegedly sodomizes his black son equals politically incorrect story, very little coverage.

    The good news in all this? The two children adopted by Lombard are now with the North Carolina Department of Social Services. Hopefully, they will get the counseling they need and, God willing, a real mother and father to adopt them.

    Link – http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0815-laughable_double_standard.htm

    AndyP/Doria2 Yonkers, NY Hosea 4:6

  • celothriel

    Excellent article. Thank you very much for making more people aware of this. I think one of the most disturbing things about the treaty is that the government can override a parent’s decision for no other reason than that the government thinks its way is better; abuse or neglect does not have to be proven, or even alleged.

    Khan47, I am sure that you are motivated by a sincere concern for children’s welfare, but I have not heard of any factual information that backs up the idea that homeschoooled children are more at risk than other children, and that their families therefore warrant greater scrutiny. The National Catholic Register has run articles on the “public school cover-up” ; numerous children are abused IN public schools, and there are documented incidents where principals and teachers have not reported abuse despite being mandated reporters.

    There have been high-profile cases where “homeschooling” parents were guilty of horrible abuses, but were already known to social services, and in fact were not following the law regarding homeschooling requirements. So, the laws that are already in place seem to be “catching” families that are abusive or neglectful, but they aren’t being enforced.

MENU