Content deleted Content added
link Parental responsibility (access and custody), Right to family life |
distinguish Parents' rights and Parental rights movement |
||
Line 99:
Parents do not have absolute power over their children. Parents are subject to criminal laws against abandonment, abuse, and neglect of children. International human rights law provides that manifestation of one's religion may be limited in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.<ref name="ICCPR" /><ref>''[http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] as amended by Protocols No. 11 and No. 14''. Adopted at Rome, 4 XL 1950.</ref>
Courts have placed other limits on parental powers and acts. The [[Supreme Court of the United States]], in the case of ''[[Prince v. Massachusetts]]'', ruled that a parent's religion does not permit a child to be placed at risk.<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0321_0158_ZO.html Prince v. Massachusetts], 321 U.S. 158 (1944).</ref> The [[Lords of Appeal in Ordinary]] ruled, in the case of ''Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and another'', that
The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] ruled, in the case of ''[[E (Mrs) v Eve]]'', that parents may not grant surrogate consent for non-therapeutic sterilization.<ref>[http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/170/index.do E. (Mrs.) v. Eve], [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388</ref> The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, in the case of ''B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto'':<ref>[http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1220/index.do B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto]. [1995] 1 S.C.R.</ref>
<blockquote>
Line 170:
===German law===
A report filed by the President of the [[INGOs Conference of the Council of Europe|INGO Conference of the Council of Europe]], Annelise Oeschger finds that children and their parents are subject to [[United Nations]], [[European Union]] and [[UNICEF]] [[human rights]] violations. Of particular concern is the German (and Austrian) agency, Jugendamt ([[German language|German]]: Youth office) that often unfairly allows for unchecked government control of the parent-child relationship, which have resulted in harm including [[torture]], degrading, cruel treatment and has led to children's death. The problem is complicated by the nearly "unlimited power" of the Jugendamt officers, with no processes to review or resolve inappropriate or harmful treatment. By German law, Jugendamt (JA) officers are protected against prosecution. JA officers span of control is seen in cases that go to family court where experts testimony may be overturned by lesser educated or experienced JA officers; In more than 90% of the cases the JA officer's recommendation is accepted by family court. Officers have also disregarded family court decisions, such as when to return children to their parents, without repercussions. Germany has not recognized related child-welfare decisions made by the European Parliamentary Court that have sought to protect or resolve children and
==See also==
Line 184:
* [[National Action Plan for Children]]
* [[Parental rights movement]]
* [[Red Hand Day]]
* [[Save the Children]]
| |||