Michael F. Haverluck   (
Friday, November 09, 2012

The government knows best when it comes to your children.

This is what the Irish government is telling citizens, who will vote on a referendum Saturday to determine if they will forfeit their parental rights to government officials — on a nationwide scale.

But this is not your usual referendum. And when severe government intrusion comes into play internationally, the United Nations is usually not far from the scene. In fact, the “child rights” amendment being voted upon is the brainchild of the Constitutional Review Group — an organization that structured the treaty to emulate the highly controversial U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which Ireland ratified 20 years ago.

IrelandUnder the proposed amendment, the government would be given the power to take children away from their parents and put them up for adoption “where the best interest of the child so require.” Even more unbelievable than this is that it will not be mandatory for government officials to show any proof of parental unfitness before such seizures.

So why would voters approve the referendum this weekend and put the government well on its way to push families into forced adoptions when they believe they are acting in the so-called “best interests of the child?” An aggressive state campaign for such “protective” measures and little media coverage could be all the government needs to ram this through. And this intrusion of power is not something that would happen only on exceptional circumstances; this measure will be used in “all proceedings.”

With enough votes, Ireland could give the term “nanny state” a whole new meaning.

“By eliminating the current presumption that parents act in the best interest of the child, the amendment would empower the government through its social welfare agencies to summon families to answer to secret courts if it were ‘likely’ that a child’s safety or welfare ‘could’ be compromised,” reads a statement issued by

Whose interests?

But what are the “best interests” of the child and who determines them?

“[The] best interests [standard] provides decisions and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child,” proclaims Geraldine Van Bueren, a legal scholar at the University of London International.

Despite all of the warning signs and indications that such a law would render parents powerless to protect their children from an authoritarian state, many parents in Ireland are divided over the issue, with many not fully comprehending the dire conditions they could be voting themselves into.

Furthermore, even though such legislation would be taking place thousands of miles across the sea, such a passed measure could end up on American shores before long, especially with the trend of U.S. judges looking to European rulings when deciding domestic cases.

“This would be a grave tragedy for families in Ireland, and certainly something we do not want to see happen in the United States,” asserts spokesman, Michael Donnelly, who serves as adjunct professor of constitutional law at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia. “This amendment would completely take away the common sense safeguard and presumption that parents act in their child’s best interests unless proven otherwise.”

Regardless, Donnelly notes that the amendment provides no added or needed protection for children, as provisions are currently in place that gives the government the ability to intercede on the behalf of children if and when their safety has been proven to be in jeopardy.

“Two former Irish supreme court justices have stated that this amendment is not necessary because Irish law and the constitution already allow state intervention in cases of abuse or neglect,” Donnelly adds.

Few have grasped the gravity of this situation, which has been largely masked across airwaves and endorsed by the state.

“Despite the serious nature of the change, opponents have thus far been unable to get the attention of the Irish media,” contends Michael Ramey, the director of communications and research for “The measure is backed by every political party and many vocal non-profit groups in the country, and is the subject of a major information campaign by the government.”

Preemptive strike

Taking no chances of similar intrusions coming at the hands of the U.S. government in the homes of American families, has been taking matters into its own hands to ensure that Americans won’t have the same luck of the Irish.

Already witnessing areas where the state has stepped between parents and their children — such as sexual education, where parents cannot opt their children out of instruction that attacks their beliefs; anti-spanking laws; and the inability of parents to obtain information about their children regarding contraception and medical treatment at schools and clinics — is calling upon Americans to sign a petition to enact its proposed Parental Rights Amendment.

The petition is designed to make certain parental rights constitutionally protected. More specifically, the safeguard makes four major provisions that don’t let the government usurp parental authority in certain areas:

  • The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.
  • Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
  • This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.
  • No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

But would the U.S. government really overstep its boundaries — straight into family rooms?

The threat of America’s court system adopting the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of the Child is very real, as President Barack Obama (along with Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer – California) has wanted to employ it since his first year in office under the guise of civil rights and extra security measures for kids. Proponents of the CRC attest that it creates “the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” while outlawing the “arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy.”

However, the organization (U.N.) that is frequently praised in public schools for its international peacekeeping forces — the same one that is trying to regulate businesses and the distribution of wealth under its climate-change banner … the same U.N. that propagates population control via forced abortion measures internationally — is the same organization that is being warned about for its radical policies concerning children … policies that many might consider no less than a home invasion.

To publicize this multi-front attack on the home, essentially put together two “top 10” lists of things to watch out for when it comes to the U.N.’s CRC. It is titled “20 Things You Need to Know about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.” The first ten warn about the treaty’s structure, while the second ten (listed below) alert Americans about its substance and the consequences of adopting the CRC.

  • Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
  • The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
  • A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
  • According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
  • Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
  • Christian schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that Christianity is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29” of the treaty.
  • Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
  • Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
  • A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

For those not believing that such binding measures could be enforced on America’s land of the free, they might want to remember that such policies have already been under consideration in their own court system — and championed by their current administration.