Here are some comments on the Elsje Bonthuys article.
I hope you scrutinise these as closely as you've obviously been scrutinising the original article (as it's taken most of you so long to respond now!?).
Anyway here they are (I can't say I agree with "Sam's" views on extending the involvement of the courts but the rest are okay I feel - ATB, Graham)
Sidebar wrote:
With all the constitutions and covanents respective of all this I'd like to point out the obvious.
Children can't have "equal" rights as those rights come with responsibilities. They can expect partial rights as in protection and care but lack the developement to respond in an equal fashion-thus I argue, that although well intended the universal declaration of human rights with it's "all members of the family are equal" clause and others isn't realistic. The only thing this can achieve is to further alienate the parent(s) at both the child's and societies expense.
James T wrote:
What I find really interesting is that when fathers started objecting to the family law, the wording was changed.
Custodial parent became the residential parent and the non-custodial parent to the non-residential parent. The term access was changed to visitation.
'In the best interest of the child'(BIC) was also introduced into family law as a counter attack against fathers seeking custody. Parent's rights changed to parenting responsibilties. So we have the situation where children have rights and parents have responsibilities.
Sam wrote:
Guest "Sidebar" wrote as "children can't have "equal" rights as those rights come with responsibilities. They can expect partial rights as in protection and care but lack the developement to respond in an equal fashion-thus I argue, that although well intended the universal declaration of human rights with it's "all members of the family are equal" clause and others isn't realistic."
True; but law must rise to meet this challenge of what entails in the best interest of the child. The first step is for law to realize that what it orders in courts has a real day to day effect on child, and the current theme of once orders given the courts duty is over must be corrected to the courts continuing its obligation to BIC until child is an adult, in and out of court.
A reasoned approach would be the formation of children's health and welfare body, that is kept at the highest of obligation to their duty to preform and free from corruption and external influence, whose sole obligation is to ensure a happy child in everyday life. (like the relationship centres, which are doomed to fail anyway by fact its a failed relationship that goes there and there is more incentive for the woman to force remove the father from it).
The obvious statement is that a 'watched' parent is going to be a better parent.
I dont see anything else that could practically have the effect of ensuring happy children, which must be the primary prerogative in the best interest of child principle (or 'right' if it is given that legal status). Its the same obligation we as good fathers have to our children.
Sam