Since Joel can't vote on his behalf, I will help voice his story for him. Sometimes children are placed in foster-care because mother's can't care for their children due to health reasons (ie. Post Partum Depression)
In these cases, if the mother has no husband, or extended family to help with child care, state-agencies will take the child and place that child with foster-parents. Whether these adults are trained, certified and interested in the needs of the child entering that house or facility is known only in the heart of that care provider. It is the State's duty to ensure this child is being cared-for while his mother is being medically treated. The goal should be for mother and child to be re-united as soon as possible.
What happens between care-provider and child during this separation is usually known only by that adult.
It's unknown by me what the percentage of children being adopted by their own mothers is.
Imagine having to adopt your own child, simply because you became ill, had no one to care for your baby, and you didn't want anything bad to happen to your child.
Imagine being that child, knowing your mommy is sick, wondering: will I ever see mommy again?
Please read Joel's Story, and know, he is not the only foster-care fall-out in this world.
Something must be done to keep babies mothers and fathers in healthy, happy safe family environments and together as much as possible, so no harm is done to anyone when any one of them gets hurt, injured or sick.
EVERY child and young person under 18 has rights and responsibilities. They’re protected by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It’s been signed by every country in the world, except the USA and Somalia.
The Convention begins by talking about the reasons why it's needed:
BECAUSE children are individuals and members of their families and communities. They have rights and responsibilities, appropriate to their age and development.
BECAUSE recognising everyone's rights is vital for a world full of freedom, justice and peace.
BECAUSE children need special care and protection.
BECAUSE families play a really important role in society. Children develop best if their families give them love, understanding, and happiness.
BECAUSE children should grow up "in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity."
BECAUSE, in all countries of the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions. These children need special help.
BECAUSE children's cultures and traditions should be protected.
BECAUSE the world needs to work together to make life better for children, especially children in the world's poorest countries.
Joel's story is a perfect example how children's rights were not acknowledged and his best interest was never served.
Article nine of the UNCRC says:
You should not be separated from your parents unless it is for your own good - for example, if a parent is mistreating or neglecting you. If your parents have separated, you have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might harm you.
More on the UNCRC children's rights can be read here.
Overcoming Religious Objections To The Convention on the Rights of the Children
David M. Smolin
INTRODUCTION
This Essay is an exercise in mediation between children’s rights groups and conservative religious groups within the United States. Of course the two groups are not mutually exclusive; many persons of conservative religious belief are significantly involved in the human rights or children’s rights movements. However, to a significant degree, the two groups have collided over the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The United States is virtually the only nation that has not ratified the CRC, and some religious groups’ opposition to ratification has apparently played a significant role. Unfortunately, the alliance of mutual concern that should exist between conservative religious communities and human rights advocacy, including children’s rights, has foundered to some degree due to the sharp disagreement about U.S. ratification of the CRC.
Mediation, as a method of dispute resolution, requires the concerted effort of each side to understand the other in an environment of mutual respect. Because I am an active participant in the kind of religious community that has opposed ratification of the CRC, while also being actively involved in scholarship on children’s issues, I am hopeful that this Essay can further the kind of understanding and respect conducive to productive discussions of the issues.
The title of this Essay may erroneously suggest that its purpose is to demonstrate that there are no valid religious objections to the CRC. Thus, some may expect me to attempt a definition of religious doctrine that would lead logically to support for the CRC. Instead, I will describe the objections to the CRC commonly mentioned by some religious conservatives, but then suggest the kinds of reservations, understandings, and declarations that could logically overcome these objections. Overcoming religious objections to the CRC from this standpoint does not require so much a modification of religious belief as it does a somewhat altered understanding of the nature and obligations of the CRC. At the same time, I attempt here to place the religious objections to the CRC within the context of political and legal traditions and conflicts within the United States. Seen in this light, it may be that the socalled “religious” objections to the CRC have as much to do with the peculiar legal and political situation of the United States as they do with religious doctrine per se.
Wow. I don't know under what conditions I was adopted because I don't trust any story told to me anymore. I don't even trust the documents drafted, because God knows they can be bogus.
As if people in offices can't be paid-off to lie and cheat?!? Please!
I read a little into that pdf file mentioned above.
"The largest groups of religious conservatives in the United States are evangelical Protestant Christians and traditionalist “high church” Christians, including Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and others."
2008 is an election year.
We have the right to vote.
Let's make our voices count, and watch our religious conservative intiatives. Let's prove to them we're not scared or stupid children anymore.
Comments
Substitute Parents
Since Joel can't vote on his behalf, I will help voice his story for him. Sometimes children are placed in foster-care because mother's can't care for their children due to health reasons (ie. Post Partum Depression)
In these cases, if the mother has no husband, or extended family to help with child care, state-agencies will take the child and place that child with foster-parents. Whether these adults are trained, certified and interested in the needs of the child entering that house or facility is known only in the heart of that care provider. It is the State's duty to ensure this child is being cared-for while his mother is being medically treated. The goal should be for mother and child to be re-united as soon as possible.
What happens between care-provider and child during this separation is usually known only by that adult.
It's unknown by me what the percentage of children being adopted by their own mothers is.
Imagine having to adopt your own child, simply because you became ill, had no one to care for your baby, and you didn't want anything bad to happen to your child.
Imagine being that child, knowing your mommy is sick, wondering: will I ever see mommy again?
Please read Joel's Story, and know, he is not the only foster-care fall-out in this world.
Something must be done to keep babies mothers and fathers in healthy, happy safe family environments and together as much as possible, so no harm is done to anyone when any one of them gets hurt, injured or sick.
Children's rights
I completely agree with you and Joel's story is the perfect example how bad things can go.
That brings me to the notion of children's rights. Unicef has voiced it in its United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as follows:
EVERY child and young person under 18 has rights and responsibilities. They’re protected by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It’s been signed by every country in the world, except the USA and Somalia.
The Convention begins by talking about the reasons why it's needed:
Joel's story is a perfect example how children's rights were not acknowledged and his best interest was never served.
Article nine of the UNCRC says:
More on the UNCRC children's rights can be read here.
UNCRC essay
Overcoming Religious Objections To The Convention on the Rights of the Children
David M. Smolin
INTRODUCTION
This Essay is an exercise in mediation between children’s rights groups and conservative religious groups within the United States. Of course the two groups are not mutually exclusive; many persons of conservative religious belief are significantly involved in the human rights or children’s rights movements. However, to a significant degree, the two groups have collided over the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The United States is virtually the only nation that has not ratified the CRC, and some religious groups’ opposition to ratification has apparently played a significant role. Unfortunately, the alliance of mutual concern that should exist between conservative religious communities and human rights advocacy, including children’s rights, has foundered to some degree due to the sharp disagreement about U.S. ratification of the CRC.
Mediation, as a method of dispute resolution, requires the concerted effort of each side to understand the other in an environment of mutual respect. Because I am an active participant in the kind of religious community that has opposed ratification of the CRC, while also being actively involved in scholarship on children’s issues, I am hopeful that this Essay can further the kind of understanding and respect conducive to productive discussions of the issues.
The title of this Essay may erroneously suggest that its purpose is to demonstrate that there are no valid religious objections to the CRC. Thus, some may expect me to attempt a definition of religious doctrine that would lead logically to support for the CRC. Instead, I will describe the objections to the CRC commonly mentioned by some religious conservatives, but then suggest the kinds of reservations, understandings, and declarations that could logically overcome these objections. Overcoming religious objections to the CRC from this standpoint does not require so much a modification of religious belief as it does a somewhat altered understanding of the nature and obligations of the CRC. At the same time, I attempt here to place the religious objections to the CRC within the context of political and legal traditions and conflicts within the United States. Seen in this light, it may be that the socalled “religious” objections to the CRC have as much to do with the peculiar legal and political situation of the United States as they do with religious doctrine per se.
The complete article can be found here.
Sex, lies, and the right to say, "No more!"
Wow. I don't know under what conditions I was adopted because I don't trust any story told to me anymore. I don't even trust the documents drafted, because God knows they can be bogus.
As if people in offices can't be paid-off to lie and cheat?!? Please!
I read a little into that pdf file mentioned above.
"The largest groups of religious conservatives in the United States are evangelical Protestant Christians and traditionalist “high church” Christians, including Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and others."
2008 is an election year.
We have the right to vote.
Let's make our voices count, and watch our religious conservative intiatives. Let's prove to them we're not scared or stupid children anymore.