Children are not property, parents do not have the right to do anything they want...

[Cleobulus]

to their kids, either through action or lack of action.

On a moral level, this is a repugnant argument, and it extends to medical care, contraception, mental health and medical procedures.

Parents, whether good or bad are handicapped in many ways when their children have certain issues come up, and the biggest reason is because they are not a neutral party, and because of this many will not make decisions that are in the best interest of their child.

What right should parents have in either being notified or giving permission in, for example, contraceptive issues? If the child is old enough to have sex, they are old enough to be given access to ways to protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy. The ideal situation would be for kids to talk to their parents about it and the parents agreeing with the child's decision. However, this ideal situation does not always occur, so Governments pass laws that are in the best interest of ALL children, they cannot pass laws on the assumption that all parents are perfect, just like they don't pass laws assuming all citizens are perfectly law abiding.

I think a lot of the angst from many parents comes from the assumption that the law is passed to target them, and that's simply not true, its enacted to protect your kids, ITS NOT ABOUT YOU! How selfish do you have to be?

And this issue extends far beyond just contraceptives or abortion. Think of something such as mental health issues, think of the uptick in teen suicides lately, how many of them could have been saved if they had access to counselors freely, with no conditions and with confidentiality, even from their parents? This is particularly important for GLBT teens, many of which face outright rejection or even abuse from misguided parents. I would love for every school in the nation to employ licensed counselors to help treat kids, from elementary to high school, with all their mental health and societal issues. This is something that should be done, and no, parents should not know when the kid goes to the counselor, or for what reason, if the kid doesn't want their parents to know.

And again, this is about the child's best interests, not about Parents wanting to control their children's lives. My own mother went through this issue when she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder many years ago with her own parents, they are good parents except for the fact that for years they didn't think of it as a "real" illness that needs to be treated. This type of attitude continues on today for many people who have kids, what should those kids do, suffer with mental illness, untreated, till they are old enough to leave home? Or should their be options for these children to get counseling, and even medication as needed, in confidentiality, even from their own parents?

The key is always this, children aren't little adults, but they aren't a piece of furniture either, and they will need, sometime in their lives, adults that they can trust to help them, that happen to not be their parents, and sometimes for very good reasons. This is all part of growing up, and in addition, isn't the end goal to do what is in the best interests of the children?

[bettyellen]

1. "children......will need, sometime in their lives, adults that they can trust to help them" YEP

it's about all kids!

"ITS NOT ABOUT YOU! How selfish do you have to be?" perfect!

[Cleobulus]

4. Yes, and the key is that they are more objective than parents can ever be...

most well adjusted parents are emotionally invested in their kids, try to teach them the values the parents hold dear, and try to help them become well adjusted adults. That's fine, as far as it goes, the problem comes from the emotionally invested part, sometimes that conflicts with the child's own well being, with disastrous results.

[bettyellen]

2. dupe.

[Odin2005]

3. Children are human beings, NOT CHATTEL.

[Cleobulus]

5. Too true, but a lot of people think they should be. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

6. They have to reside in that body for a life time, parents not a single moment

Seems open and shut on that count alone.

A parent is out of their bounds to dictate that a child reproduce if they have sex, or accept the risk of preventable disease, or suffer with mental illness because of a parents beliefs.

They have the consequences and no person has the right to lay such consequences on another sentient.

The teens should probably be looked at as a partnership with the teen taking the lead, hopefully leaning on the teachings passed on during the formative years when the parent was the President and teacher. One of the first things they must be prepared to do is own their bodies.

[Mudoria]

7. Does that mean they can pay their own way?

[bettyellen]

9. why, are you lookng to deny kids needed healthcare? or dole it out like an allowance?

maybe if their bad or you don;t think they need it you can just send them to their room?

[treestar]

13. Parents bring a kid into the world by choice these days

And then have to pay to raise them. Using that fact to guilt the kids into being manipulated is pretty low.

If you have kids in order to have someone you can control, manipulate and mold into what you want - maybe you should not have them.

[TheKentuckian]

22. Probably not. Parents accept a responsibility that is very one sided in benefit

If you don't want to be responsible for another's reasonable care then don't reproduce.

You insisted and called upon their existence in this world. You had the choice.

[kip_russell]

8. it is a fine line

hence the inclusion of children on a parent's insurance up to age 26

[TheKentuckian]

23. inclusion to 26 is a boon to the insurance companies who often lose all revenue from that

demographic.

Little to nothing to do with any lines fine or a mile wide but revenue stream, better to take a little reduction than get nothing.

[WolverineDG]

10. But who gets to decide "best interests?"

the government? I don't think so, considering I've seen folks on DU advocate for seizing children from their parents & throwing them into foster homes all because the parents (gasp) take the kids to church on Sundays. :crazy:

Not all parents or even most of them are the abusive, asshole control freaks you make them out to be.

dg

[Cleobulus]

11. The point of the OP completely flew over your head.

Where did I state anything you posted?

Are you even capable of discussing this issue rationally, or do you think creating strawmen is productive?

ON EDIT: In addition, it doesn't matter what percentage of parents are good or bad, when the percentage of bad parents is above 0%, then laws protecting children are necessary.

[WolverineDG]

25. No, it didn't

you natter on & on about "best interests" of children & state that parents should have no rights or input regarding what information or treatment their children seek, regardless of the fact that parents are legally responsible for everything involving their children, including their criminal acts. (You did know that parents can be arrested for failing to appear in juvvie court with their kids, or for their failure to attend school, right? And that if their kid decides to vandalize someone else's property, the parents can be sued for restitution?)

Apart from a legitimate concern that abuse has or may occur because a child seeks certain information/treatment (in which case, why hasn't law enforcement & CPS been contacted?), a parent should at least be notified.


dg

[Cleobulus]

27. Why should parents claim rights that don't belong to them...

In addition, you would have to show a history of abuse in order to remove a child from a home. Parents don't have to be abusive now to be abusive in the future. Many behave quite irrationally and extremist in situations such as teen pregnancy, having a GLBT child, etc. You state the so called easy cases, of provable abuse, but things aren't nearly so neat and orderly in the real world. You harp on the rights of the parents, where the fuck are the rights of children in your worldview?

[WolverineDG]

37. Because they are the ones responsible for raising the child and paying for his/her upbringing

that's why those "rights" belong to them.

I realize that you believe all parents have no say in how their children should be brought up, but just because you're "afraid" a parent "might be" abusive when there's been no history of abuse doesn't mean a parent has no right to at least be informed of whether their child is sexually active or seeking mental health treatment.

dg

[Cleobulus]

40. See, this is yet another strawman, no one is saying parents should have no say...

but if these children seek help and ask that their parents not be informed, then that request should be honored, without conditions.

[WolverineDG]

42. Sorry, can't wiggle out of the FACTS by whining about "strawman" nt

[Cleobulus]

29. An addition, a simple question, why should parents...

Be made aware of these issues? What purpose would it serve?

[WolverineDG]

38. because they'd might likely be supportive of their child

(for starters)

Because they're the ones responsible for what happens to that child until he/she turns 18?
Because they're the ones who'll be expected to pay?

:eyes:

dg

[Cleobulus]

39. The first assumption is no guarantee...

The second one relies on the first, so is invalid.

The third one also isn't true, most of these services are provided by charities and/or government. Confidentiality agreements are strictly enforced, your not going to see the parents get a bill from a medical testing lab that performed an STD test, for example. That would be a blatant violation of the very laws we are talking about here.

And again, just to emphasize, these types of laws are NOT ABOUT THE PARENTS, but about what is best, and safest for all children. To create laws, or even worse, fail to create laws, to protect children based on the assumption that all parents are perfect is stupid. I would prefer you suffer the angst of not knowing over the rights of children to be free from coercion, abuse, and neglect.

[WolverineDG]

41. You falsely assume that all parents are abusive

and twist like a bendy-straw to get around the fact that parents are legally responsible for what their children do, as well as financially responsible for raising them & providing them with medical care (as well as for the bills). To expect parents to be responsible for the bills but not be allowed to know what it is they are paying for is wrong.

dg

[Cleobulus]

43. No, I'm saying the LAW has to make that assumption, why is that so hard to understand?

laws that protect people assume the WORST in people, think of the Civil Rights Acts that passed in the 1960s, using your logic, they were bad laws because they assumed all white owned publicly accessible businesses were run by the KKK. The assumption is and was wrong, but in order to protect some people from the actions of some others, you have to make the law apply to all.

You cannot make a law to only cover some situations some of the time, that's halfassed and bound to fail.

[treestar]

15. Society, via the laws

We allow for many differences - religion, etc. But there is a line society draws, at the law.

Thus you can't beat your children senseless for example. Any parent who thinks that is in the best interests of the child is simply denied that by society.

Sexual issues are of course grey areas - the period of minority now extends over the period of physical sexual maturity - creating some issues. But the argument that whatever the parent wants is what should go is no longer completely acceptable.

[Starry Messenger]

12. k & r

[Cleobulus]

16. delete.

[pipi_k]

14. One of the most difficult jobs ever...

being a parent.

No matter what a parent does, there's always someone in the wings thinking the parent made a bad choice.


One example...the issue of whether to spank or not. Some parents believe it's in their childrens' best interests to mete out physical "discipline". Others think it's abuse.

Each side thinks the other is WRONG.


Does anyone ever have the totally correct answer? Yeah, people think they do, but who really has the final word on what's "in the best interests" of the child? Sometimes people make horrible mistakes when trying to decide what's in the best interests of a child...like putting a kid back into an abusive family situation.

People can only try and hope for the best, and unless there's evidence of abuse or neglect, other people need to keep their noses out of someone else's business.

[Cleobulus]

17. Define abuse or neglect...

Would forcing an underdeveloped teenager to carry a fetus to term against their will qualify? How about refusing to allow your child that has mental health issues to be treated? Why would you forbid these children options to help them?

[johnroshan]

20. I would recommend this..

INFORM the parents of any treatment that is about to be taken on the child. Treatment decisions should be able to be challenged by the parents. Giving these decisions completely up to third parties who need to meet quotas or maybe make profits of a child's perceived sickness might end up disastrous.

The reason such decisions can't be just taken by children alone is because they are just that, "CHILDREN". They need a TRUSTED adult. Not someone who is motivated by business or quotas to fill.

I remember my childhood school event in India where a Soy milk company was allowed to dispense a promotional health drink free of cost to all children in my school. Only the next day it was found that acted as a good laxative too(found it the hard way). Now, the children all WANTED to drink that chocolate flavored drink, the school authorities thought it was a HEALTH drink, The company tried to make money by promoting it to school kids. Who is at fault here? Kids need some amount of adult control.

John.

[Cleobulus]

21. So parents should have the right to challenge needed treatment...

Simply because they object to it, most of the time based on nothing but their own beliefs? And what is with this BS about quotas and shit. Not to mention the laughable example you gave. Shall we compare that to pChristian Scientists who kill their kids through medical neglect? Or parents who kick kids out of their homes because they ended up pregnant?

[seaglass]

18. When is a child old enough to have sex? Do you mean legally?

Not sure what the parameters are around this. My daughter knew she could ask me when she wanted to get bc but she was 17, not 13.

Not sure if there is an age requirement for buying condoms, is there?

[Cleobulus]

19. I'm talking biologically, as in capable of getting pregnant...

Should have clarified that. As far as condoms, I'm assuming there are no legal restrictions, but stores may restrict sales based on age. Its great that you daughter was able to talk to you about BC, not all daughters are that lucky, this thread is about them.

[RainDog]

24. this is the truth

girls should not be forced to forgo birth control because of parents who don't want them to be sexually active.

the best thing would be for teenagers to wait - but the best thing doesn't always happen.

the best thing would be for teenagers to be able to talk to their parents about birth control and sex - but the best thing doesn't always happen.

there is no reason a girl should have to give birth as a teenager when there are ways to prevent pregnancy that are safe for the vast majority.

those parents who want to control their children while denying a reality of that child's life are not being good parents. they are attempting to impose punishment for behaviors they do not like. having a child as a form of punishment is a horrible way to become a parent and does not bode well for that child.

[uppityperson]

26. k&r with a thought for you

While I don't particularly care for rec/unrec, am amused by the number of views, posts and recs on this and a couple other threads with similar sorts of topics.

Thanks for posting and keeping on this.

[Cleobulus]

28. It was partly inspired by a few other threads and also the experiences...

My mother related to me struggling with bipolar disorder as a teen with apathetic parents. They weren't bad people, just in denial, and I wonder if it would have been better for my mom to have been able to get treatment without being under her parents' thumbs.

[cleanhippie]

30. Does your viewpoint on this extend to religious indoctrination as well?

It can be argued that religious indoctrination (brainwashing) is also child abuse. Do you feel that same about that as the other issues you mentioned?


And a final question: who determines what a child's "best interests" are if not the parents?

[Lyric]

32. I think there are some things that we can universally recognize as everyone's "best interests".

Having access to needed mental health and substance abuse medical care is one of them. Having control of your own reproduction is another. I don't know a single man, woman, or child for whom these things WOULDN'T be in their best interests.

[cleanhippie]

33. Perhaps, but what you stated does not answer my question at all.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you wrote, but it really does not address the two questions I posed at all.

[Lyric]

34. I addressed the second question.

If certain things are universally in *everyone's* best interests, then society-at-large has already decided it. Kinda like how food, avoidance of physical abuse, and oxygen are in every man, woman, and child's best interests. We as human beings decide that certain things are so intrinsic to all of our best interests that it's beyond the scope of any person or entity to forbid them or block access to them. That doesn't mean that nobody ever WILL block access to those things, but it means that we universally recognize such an act as "wrong", and we make laws that punish it.

As for your first question, I *personally* believe that it's wrong to teach your children your religion in the same way that you teach them about things that are factual and proven. Too many kids grow up being taught that their parent's version of "God" is to be taken for granted as "true" in the same way that we take for granted that fire is hot and water is wet. To me, that's icky--it compromises a child's freedom to choose their beliefs without undue influence or pressure. If I were the dictator of the world, then I'd declare that children have a "right" to choose their own religious beliefs, even if they conflict with the beliefs of their parents.

However that's purely an out-there theoretical, because we're never going to have a practical chance of legislating any such thing. We DO have a practical chance of legislating THESE rights for children. In fact, we already have.

[cleanhippie]

35. Again, we agree.

And thank you for the clarification.

But the items you listed..."access to mental health and substance abuse treatment"...is that a big issue for children? Maybe I am not seeing your point in regard to how that is in childrens' best interest, as I see many other issues that would take priority over those two when it comes to children, but that's just me.

[Lyric]

36. We say "children" but what we really mean is "teens"

And preteens. Kids who are at risk of sexual diseases, pregnancy, substance abuse problems, and stigmatized mental illnesses like depression, bipolar disorder, etc. All of these health issues have in common that there's a certain negative social association. We are not completely out of the era in which we (as a society) blame the victim for these kinds of health problems; even today, there are still people who think that these illnesses are a curse from God, and thus that the people suffering from them "deserve" it for their moral failures.

It's bad enough that adults get subjected to this, but it's worse when KIDS are subjected to it by their own parents. And that DOES happen. We can't put a camera in every home to scan for abusive and cruel parental behavior (and to document it as evidence that the kid can use when appealing to the authorities if, say, they need an abortion or BC pills or some other medical treatment that their parents refuse to permit.) Therefore the only practical way to make sure that bad parents can't overrule and block a medical treatment that IS in their kid's best interest is to legally allow kids to seek that treatment on their own.

Since we're discussing hypotheticals: if a child of Jehovah's Witnesses desperately needs a blood transfusion to survive, and WANTS it, but the parents are objecting, who should have the final say? I suspect 99% of us would say that the child should, because in the end, it's the child whose life is as stake--not the parents. Well the same logic applies to abortion, birth control pills, substance abuse treatment, and mental illness treatment. It's the child's life that is at risk if those medical needs go untreated--not the parents. Therefore, the child deserves to have the right to make the final choice, with or without parental permission. As for parental notification (even if after the fact)--I suspect that our legal authorities were trying to curtail incidents of retaliatory child abuse--for example, if the parents are notified after-the-fact that their daughter had an abortion, they might be angry enough to hurt her, neglect her needs, or otherwise "punish" her for it. Parental notification can instigate abuse, and the fear of parental retaliation can keep a child from seeking needed healthcare. Keeping certain aspects of the child's healthcare private can help prevent those problems.

And of course, there's always the purely logical argument that if the child is mature enough to be given the power to make those decisions in the first place, then he or she should also expect the same level of privacy that any adult person would have under those circumstances.

[Lyric]

31. I think part of the reason that some liberal parents are uncomfortable with this

is that they are good parents, but are still fearful that their child might do something like this--perhaps out of pique or spite or rebelliousness. The best parents are the ones who are actively involved with, and close to, their children. What they don't understand is that it's incredibly rare for the children of good, involved, caring Moms and Dads to ever resort to seeking medical treatments without telling their parents. Even if you have a willful, moody, sulky teenager, so long as your teen always knows that you will be 100% behind them, they aren't going to go get birth control or Prozac behind your back. However, if your kids feel like they CAN'T talk to you without facing judgement, scorn, or anger, then the problem is YOU--not them.

These rights exist because there are parents out there who would literally lock their daughters in the closet before allowing them to get birth control pills. They exist because there are parents out there who'd rather see their kid suffering and miserable than to get them needed mental health care, because they see mental illness as either a defect in their child or a negative judgement about their OWN parenting skills. It's important that kids have these rights because there are terrible, terrible parents out there, and the children of terrible parents need to have a way to get the care they need without subjecting themselves to emotional, verbal, and physical abuse. But there are also parents who are only a little bit "bad"--maybe just in one or two areas. If those areas happen to be related to things like sex, substance abuse, or mental illness, then their kids still need to have access to medical care, whether their parents approve or not.

Unfortunately, sub-par parents don't seem to realize (or just won't admit) that they have problems. Even someone who's a fantastic parent 99% of the time can have problems that keep their kids from feeling comfortable talking to them about certain subjects. There is help for parents who are struggling and making mistakes, but because being a "bad parent" is considered the ultimate life failure, and having to seek professional help is largely seen as something that only a "failed parent" would do, hardly anyone seeks out parenting help until the damage is done and they're forced into family counseling and parenting classes via a court order.

We can't expect the kids of bad parents to suffer for the sake of maintaining universal parental sovereignty. You can indeed prevent your children from seeking medical care without your knowledge, but not by making such an act illegal, because that unfairly burdens and punishes the innocent children of terrible parents. The ONLY way to prevent your child from doing such a thing is to develop and maintain a close and mutually respectful relationship with your kids, so that they always feel 100% comfortable with the idea of coming to you with any and all of their problems. If you expect the law to forbid your children from seeking medical care without notifying you, then you're expecting the law to parent your kids for you, and that's just not going to happen. If you're doing a proper job as a parent, your kids won't feel the need to go behind your back. But if you're the kind of parent who runs away from discussions of sex (or just forbids "that kind of talk" outright), or the kind of parent who rants in front of your kids that your promiscuous/bipolar/alcoholic/schizophrenic family member "isn't REALLY sick--she's just lazy/irresponsible/selfish"...then don't be surprised if your kids don't trust you enough to come to you if and when THEY have problems related to sex, substance abuse, or mental illness. Being excessively judgemental WILL lead to your kids keeping secrets from you, because THEY don't want to subject themselves to your "judgement". It's a fact of life.

As a parent, you are not "owed" the trust of your children. You are not "owed" their confidence. They are their own people, and their minds (and secrets) are their own as well.

But you can earn that trust, with some hard work, swallowed pride, and sacrifice. You can earn their confidence by refraining from being a negative, judgemental person--at least while you're in front of them. At the very least, you can give them YOUR confidence. If you fear your child being able to legally go behind your back and get medical care, then tell this this, frequently and sincerely:

"I know that I can be judgemental of other people sometimes. It's a relic of my own upbringing, and I'm not always conscious of it when I do it. But I promise you, that judgement does NOT extend to you. You're my child, and if you're having a problem, I am ALWAYS going to be here for you. That's a promise. I might not always LIKE what you have to tell me, but I promise you that I will not think that you're a "bad person". In the end, no matter what happens, I will always be on your side. I love you."

Build that trust. It's worth more than anything else in the world.