Home Australia Rights of Parents and Children: In-house Direction by Australia’s Office of Attorney...

Rights of Parents and Children: In-house Direction by Australia’s Office of Attorney General

22
Norman Rockwell’s mosiac, The “Golden Rule” hangs in the UN Head Quarters in New York

[Editor’s Note: Thanks to the great interest by readers of our various articles on Family Law, we print this item (verbatim, slightly abridged, bolding added) from the website of Australia’s Attorney General, ag.gov.au.]

This material is provided to persons who have a role in Commonwealth legislation, policy and programs as general guidance only and is not to be relied upon as legal advice.

What are the rights of parents and children?

In addition to the rights enjoyed by all persons under human rights treaties, parents and children enjoy special rights, particular to their status. The rights cover:

  •     best interests of the child
  •     responsibilities, rights and duties of parents
  •     separation of children
  •     adoption of children
  •     right of children to be heard…
  •     families and disability.

Where do rights of parents and children come from?

Australia is a party to seven core international human rights treaties. The rights of parents and children are contained in article 3 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) and article 24(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

When do I need to consider the rights of parents and children?

You will need to consider the particular rights accorded to parents and children when you are working on legislation, a policy or a program that:

  •     relates to any aspect of the care of children, including children with a disability, by parents or other guardians or informal carers
  •     relates to any aspect of the welfare of children, such as child-care arrangements
  •     relates to the care of children by people with disability
  •     provides for the removal of children from parents or other persons responsible for their care
  •     relates to any situation that would result in splitting up a family, or a parent and child, for example by forcing them to live apart or become separated….
  •     relates to any situation that would result in preventing the reunification of the child with their family and/or parent(s)
  •     relates to any aspect of out-of-home care…

This list should not be regarded as exhaustive.

What is the scope of rights of parents and children?

The particular rights accorded to parents and children need to be considered in a number of policy contexts.

Best interests of the child

Under the CRC, countries are required to apply the principle of best interests of the child. The principle applies to all actions concerning children and requires active measures to protect their rights and promote their survival, growth, and wellbeing, as well as measures to support and assist parents and others who have day-to-day responsibility for ensuring recognition of children’s rights.

It requires all legislative, administrative and judicial bodies and institutions to systematically consider how children’s rights and interests are or will be affected directly or indirectly by their decisions and actions.

Responsibilities, rights and duties of parents

Under the CRC, countries are required to respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or other persons who have responsibility for the child to provide direction and guidance in the child’s exercise of the rights recognised in the CRC.

Countries are also required under the CRC to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child and to provide appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities….

Under the CRPD, countries are required to ensure the rights and responsibilities of people with disability with regard to guardianship and adoption of children and to render appropriate assistance to people with disability in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities.

Under CEDAW, [Conventon on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women] countries are required, as a measure to eliminate discrimination against women, to ensure on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights and responsibilities as parents….

Separation of children

Under the CRC, countries are required to ensure that children shall not be separated from their parents against their will, except when competent authorities determine, subject to judicial review and in accordance with the law, that separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.

In any proceedings regarding the separation of children, all interested parties must be given an opportunity to participate. Where separation results from any action by the country against a parent, [it must] provide the parents and the child with information concerning the whereabouts of the absent family member unless this would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child.

A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment is entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the country, such as foster placement or placement in suitable institutions for the care of children.

Adoption of children

Under the CRC, … adoption can only be authorised by competent authorities who determine that the adoption is permissible.   Inter-country adoption may be considered if the child cannot be suitably cared for in the child’s country of origin. …

Right of children to be heard

Under the CRC, children who are capable of forming their own views have the right to express those views freely, and those views are to be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. This right includes the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body.

[Omiting sections on children in the criminal process and refugee children]

Families and disability

The CRPD  [Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability] enshrines the right to family in various ways for people with disability. It requires countries to take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children, and that … the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. The CRPD protects the right to marry, …  a right to rear children, and have a united family unit on an equal basis with the rest of the community.

The Convention also provides that, where the immediate family is unable to care for a child with disabilities, efforts be made to provide alternative care within the wider family, and failing that, within the community in a family setting.

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples contains provisions relevant to the rights of parents and children. The Declaration does not create legally binding obligations, but informs the way governments engage with and protect the rights of Indigenous people.

Can the rights of parents and children be limited?

Human rights treaties recognise that countries may establish their own rules regarding matters, such as adoption, provided those rules respect the fundamental principles provided for in the treaties.

Derogation

Under article 4 of the ICCPR, countries may take measures derogating from certain of their obligations under the Covenant, including the protection of children under article 24(1),’in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed’.

Limitation

There may be circumstances in which the best interests of the child under the CRC can be outweighed by other primary considerations. Examples of other primary considerations may include public security considerations, and whether the costs of an action taken in the best interests of the child would be so disproportionately expensive so as to outweigh the potential benefits for the child.

Which domestic laws relate to the rights of parents and children?

Commonwealth legislation regarding child care is contained in the Child Care Act 1972.

The current framework for family assistance comprises a range of payments and is primarily governed by two statutes: A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999. Such payments comprise a range of types, including the child care benefit and child care rebate….

Other laws make particular provisions regarding children in the criminal process. For instance, Part 1AD of the Crimes Act provides for the protection of children in proceedings for sexual offences.

The Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 makes provision for the guardianship of unaccompanied non-citizen children who arrive in Australia.

State and Territory laws provide for care provided by non-parent carers (unrelated foster carers, and relative or kinship carers who are mainly grandparents) of children who cannot live with their parents. This may be as a result of a child protection intervention, or where parents are incapable of providing adequate care, or where alternative accommodation is needed during times of family conflict.

What other rights and freedoms relate to the rights of parents and children?

The rights of parents and children may be relevant to:

The right to freedom from arbitrary or unlawful interference with the privacy of the family under article 17 of the ICCPR [international Convenant on Civil and Political Rights]

the right to protection of the family under article 23 of the ICCPR

fair trial and fair hearing rights under article 14 of the ICCPR

the obligation to separate children accused of criminal offences from adults in article 10(2) of the ICCPR

minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings in article 14 of the ICCPR, and/or

the right to protection against exploitation, violence and abuse.

Articles from relevant Conventions

Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

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.

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.

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.

Article 24(1)  of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.

See also: CRC articles 5, 9, 18, 20, 21, 22, 40; ICCPR article 14(4); CRPD articles 3(h), 7, 18(2), 23; CEDAW article 16

SHARE

22 COMMENTS

  2. The whole thing is wide open to interpretation and due to a certain overarching issue, it’s essentially useless.

    Back in the ‘80s I never thought twice about obtaining a government-issued marriage licence or registering the respective children at birth. Due to what I witnessed during the following two decades I’d advise anyone to exercise extreme caution re doing either.

    I don’t agree with everything in this article:
    http://hushmoney.org/MarriageLicense-5.htm

    but there’s no getting round the fundamentals, quote:

    “In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, “your marriage license and their birth certificates.” Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications. “

  3. One of the problems amongst many is the mandating of vaccinations and the enforcement with penalties. This is a clear breach of human rights and is being blatantly ignored and over-ruled because of the vaccine corporations who give bribes to the Australian government and all other governments calling them ‘donations’. Every single vaccine is toxic and contaminated and it is not a public health issue as proclaimed. It is another Agenda 21/200. Ex PM Turnbull and his wife have shares in the vaccine industry so that is a clear “conflict of interest’ when he was PM. I have studied and researched the sinister vaccine agenda for 35 years and it is a hoax, a fraud, a scam and a lie. The ex PM’s website is a total lie and a misinformation or disinformation to the public by deception. It is making fraudulent claims and that is a criminal offence in advertising. It is a government imposed child abuse. The so-called concocted ‘herd theory’ is only a theory and cannot be proven. So where are the remedies for these constant government breaches of human rights?

    • Actually, Arlyn,The phrase “herd immunity” is even less scientific than that. Its genesis was 1950s/ 1960s bovine TB testing terminology, in which veterinarians and farmers referred to herd-immunity… meaning each dairy farmer’s herd was free of TB following herd testing.

      A decade or so ago, some wally applied this term to human herd immunity, entirely ignoring such a thing is utterly impossible. Immunity can only be individual.

      And I say “immunity” with my finger crossed because around 87% of current Pertussis victims are fully immunised. This is about 90% in mumps. Some immunity!

      So, ‘herd immunity” is not even a theory as it has no scientific substance whatsoever.

      Cheers
      tony

  4. The office of United Nations Commissioner of Human Rights is a total sham and useless. I wrote twice, since the first time I was unanswered, requesting their help in regard to the Port Arthur atrocity.

    I forwarded to the UN, information that I had at my disposal and copies of the communications to and from the Australian authorities up until that time.

    Part of my letter, dated 4th August 2004: “I am concerned that in my opinion, two very important subjects, that affect the safety and rights of ordinary Australians, have been compromised in this Port Arthur Massacre outcome. 1) That Martin Bryant has been framed and the authorities have locked him up without any evidence that he was the culprit. 2) I believe that this incidence was a matter of National Security for Australia, yet our Prime Minister has shown by his letter, that he is not interested in the safety of Australian citizens.”

    Part of reply: “I regret to inform you that the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights cannot be of assistance to you in the matter raised by your communication.

    I should like to let you know that the activities of our office depend in many ways upon the cumulative content of communications received from around the world, including your own. I therefore thank you for you having taken the time to write to us.”

    In other words the UN Commissioner of Human Rights is nothing more than a recorder of abuses that are reported to his organisation.

      • Hi Mary. Gareth Evens got a much better job in International Affairs. He is a big wig in “humanitarian interventions” such as hiring agents provocateurs and thugs to destroy the Venezuelan Government.

    • Aussiemal The UN wants to ban guns as they want to seize all firearms from its law abiding citizens throughout the world. That was the whole agenda of the Port Arthur Massacre in the first place as a priority as Australia is the test soil for all countries according to many in the know. Australia is a signature to the Communist UN so they are complying in a number of areas including murder, seditious acts of supporting a foreign power… the UN and its agencies. Why does any country who claims that they are democratic want to finance and support a Communist ideology agenda for the UN? This is all part of the insidious One World Order which is Communism. That is what is coming once again. The Australian politicians are traitors to this country. I will give you some examples.

      Aussie Government collusion

      According to this presenter, ex PM Malcom Turnbull, Julie Bishop, Alexander Downer and George Brandis is going to be indicted shortly for their part of attempting to overthrow a duly elected president of a foreign country and colluding with another country to do so the UK.

      1st Comment
      I have seen three Youtube videos mentioning Alexander Downer and also how Australia and the UK illegally spied on President Elect Trump and how they continued to spy on him after he was elected President. Both governments then went through diplomatic channels to keep this secret from both countries. I think the Whittaker is the name you wanted. as AG. They have had to cleanse the Department of Justice and the FBI of criminal elements at the highest level prior to getting Judge Kavanaugh in office. Then they can commence the military tribunals against these traitors, murderers, pedophiles, blackmailing and bribing, sedition etc. As ex Prime Minister Turnbull was in office at the time and President Trump, Q and others were quite angry about this illegal spying between allies. The Americans have done it in the past as well. So the Gang of Four or more Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop the Minster for Foreign Affairs, George Brandis the High Commissioner to the UK and Alexander Downer who was the High commissioner in London. I would add the insidious criminal CIA who have most certainly infiltrated the Australian intelligence services which is quite obvious in a number of areas. This is High Treason of helping a foreign government to oust a democratically elected President of another country. If this is so, I hope all get properly indicted and charged with stiff jail terms and fined heavy penalties.

      AUSSIE TREASON

      Aussie Treason Part 2

      Aussie Collusion

      Australian Government Acts of Treason 1/4

    • Yes the fishnet stockings tell some of the story. So nothing happened to him in the Woods Royal Commission which the corrupt BAR system as well as the Downer family is steep in freemasonry if you go to the Adelaide freemasons building. He also gave $25 million dollars on behalf of the Australian Government of the evil Clinton foundation for aids but the money was transferred some where else and no mention of it by the ‘Australian government’ as it did not go to the aids account. I wonder if it was was hush money for blackmail…? The Clinton Foundation according to many researchers is an evil foundation of pay to play with sex slave children, pedophilia, murder, fraud, blackmail and corruption are but a few.

  6. One of my teachers at Adelaide Law, Steven Churches, ran a case to the High Court, the Teoh case. Mr Teoh was going to be deported for drug crime but he was the sole support of his niece and nephew in Oz. So Atty Churches used the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” to win the case.

    Mums should not get all excited about it as there has been no followup (that I know of). I mean the High Court allowed it but not because it is in domestic Oz law. The treaty was ratified but never made into domestic law. In the Teoh case they said the fact of ratification built up “an expectation that Australia would do the kids-rights thing.”

    OFF TOPIC – we heard of someone being INJECTED by the Fixated Persons Unit (for her own good, no doubt). It is unverified. If you hear more, pray tell.

  7. For a start; I don’t put much faith the international covenant cited.

    In one of these “rights” it states “everyone has a right to present themselves to the court as a person”

    Look up the definition of “person,” you’ll find a person is a legal entity. One of the lawyers on here should be verify that.
    _____________________________

    separation of children – funny how something so undesirable is given such prominence

    adoption of children – same comment.

  8. Nice to know that Gumshoe is disclosing what those of us have known for some time.
    God bless the internet!!
    Pity the msm’s; fake, phoney and false flag liars
    (911) are going to go down the ‘discredibilit’y plug hole.
    Go broke msm’s and shock jokes and for all those poor ‘prestituted’ journalists.. ,,,,,, Do not increase your household mortgages and forget private education for your children in the future.
    TRAITORs!!.
    By the way, the fake alleged Russia collaboration fiasco is now exposed as a lie.
    Watch Happens to Mueller after he has to report zilch and the following exposure of the FISA deceits.
    Try the X22reports.

  9. Off Topic?
    Barr has been confirmed US atty gen with only one Republican senator voting against him — my hero Rand Paul, MD

    Rand said:
    “I am unable to support Bill Barr’s nomination to be the next Attorney General. While I support President Trump and have supported most of his nominees, I have too many concerns about the record and views of this nominee. Bill Barr was a leading proponent of warrantless surveillance, and his overall record on the Fourth Amendment is troubling to me. I remain concerned that Bill Barr does not agree with our bipartisan efforts to reform our criminal justice system. Finally, Bill Barr has a troubling record on the Second Amendment. For these reasons, I voted today against his nomination for Attorney General.”

    — and how about Barr’s zipped-up lips during Iran/contra….

  10. If nothing more, the U.N. Charter is a valuable reminder that, in order for any entity to gain/maintain control of any population, a veneer of benevolence is critical. Civilian disarmament and birth registration have thus been largely accepted by the respective subjects despite all the evidence that the former fosters crime and the latter simply proves that “belonging” to a Nation or State isn’t based on any sort of consensus. Small wonder that a world without any sort of government meddling in family affairs is well beyond mass consciousness

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.