Parents no right to know what children are doing

[I, Brian]

As a parent, I find this disturbing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4636666.stm

A mother has lost her court battle for a parent's "right to know" if girls are being advised on abortion.

The High Court rejected a review of guidelines which state terminations do not need parents' consent and doctors should respect girls' confidentiality. Mr Justice Silber, sitting in London, said Mrs Axon, or any other parent, had no right to know unless the child decided otherwise.

Certainly there's a valid argument that children need protecting, especially in situations where parental involvement may endanger the child.

However, it seems ridiculous to myself as a responsible parent that the law determines that I have no right to know if my children are involved in major life-changing issues.

Surely a child in such a situation *needs* parental support?

I find it somewhat astonishing, really, that on the one hand, parents are supposed to be responsible for their children - but on the other, the state can remove that without notice.

Thoughts?

[brucegdc]

Ouch. You do open an interesting can of worms here - on both sides of the Atlantic. The US Supreme court just overturned a lower court decision that blocked implementation of a law regulating abortion on exactly this topic - arguing that the action taken (to block the law) was too broad, and although there were (apparently) constitutional violations in requiring parental notification, the court should have come up with something that blocked the provisions that were in question.

The problem comes where it's a dispute between the person's right to medical privacy and the parent's rights to know what's going on with the kids. While I agree 100% that a child in that situation may *need* parental support, there's far too many possible circumstances where that "support" will harm the kid to say it has to be there.

The article points out one of the main problems - if the child is concerned about the parental reaction, at present they can seek advice from a (presumably) disinterested medical professional as to the risks and feasibility, without feeing that the medical professional will turn around and report them to their parents. Take away that privacy, and you have a situation where the teen will be reluctant to seek competent advice in many circumstances. I would hope my children found me trustworthy to tell stuff too - which makes the need for doctors notification moot. If they didn't feel comfortable enough, then the issue is there - requiring notification reduces the ability of the child to trust the doctor, which is a key need in a medical relationship, as that trust has to be there to enable effective treatment. (I've had a couple of docs I didn't trust - and I switched away from them really quickly - one had a double doctorate - the other was in animal research, and I think he confused the two... his bedside manner was appropriate to chimpanzees, maybe....on a good day. He lasted one visit, and I switched providers that afternoon).

It's always a tradeoff - the answer, I think, is that if you want to know what your kids are doing, you have to create an atmosphere where they tell you themselves. Otherwise, they'll make use of other services - if the doctor isn't a secure place to go, they'll find someone else to trust - as the article put it "unlicenced abortionists" - who don't have a code of ethics or necessarily have the training needed to advise & perform the procedure.

The article also notes the balance with "maturity to understand" - at least here, most procedures require "informed consent" which requires that the person agreeing has to be capable of understanding the risks and procedure - of course, that relies on an assessment of "maturity" which is yet another kettle of eels... how to measure it... I know many legal adults that don't meet a level of what I'd term "maturity", and several teens that go way beyond them in that aspect.

[wil]

I find it somewhat astonishing, really, that on the one hand, parents are supposed to be responsible for their children - but on the other, the state can remove that without notice.

I think you hit on exactly the area this should be tested in the courts. If the state/country says that the child has an inherent right to privacy and the parent legally does not need to know what the child is doing, that should inevitably also pertain to crimes, drugs, alcohol, etc... and since the state and science has already indicated in many cases that a child cannot and should not be held responsible than the state should be held liable for all crimes of minors including any penalties and/or retribution required....

[lunamoth]

Bruce said it all very well, also pointing out the weak link in the chain, and that is whether the medical professional is competent and "disinterested" enough to determine whether the parents should be involved or not. Too easy to imagine the child or young woman who was abused by a family member or whose family would reject her and not provide that support she needs. However, it is hard for me to imagine a girl younger than 15 who would be ready to go it alone (or with only a peer) through an abortion.

I think it would be beneficial if children and teens had access to trained advocates or social service professionals who could help them when they run into situations they do not feel they can take to their families. While I support Planned Parenthood, I'm not sure that the providers of medical and abortion services are the best ones to be making decisions for the teens. I'm sure they would be inclined to just leave the parents out, whereas an advocate might be able to work with the kids and parents together eventually. In this country abortion is such an explosive and divisive issue it's hard to imagine support for building a truly unbiased para-profession to help teens who face these major decisions.

lunamoth

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Bruce said it all very well, also pointing out the weak link in the chain, and that is whether the medical professional is competent and "disinterested" enough to determine whether the parents should be involved or not. Too easy to imagine the child or young woman who was abused by a family member or whose family would reject her and not provide that support she needs. However, it is hard for me to imagine a girl younger than 15 who would be ready to go it alone (or with only a peer) through an abortion.

I think it would be beneficial if children and teens had access to trained advocates or social service professionals who could help them when they run into situations they do not feel they can take to their families. While I support Planned Parenthood, I'm not sure that the providers of medical and abortion services are the best ones to be making decisions for the teens. I'm sure they would be inclined to just leave the parents out, whereas an advocate might be able to work with the kids and parents together eventually. In this country abortion is such an explosive and divisive issue it's hard to imagine support for building a truly unbiased para-profession to help teens who face these major decisions.

lunamoth

My concern with this perspective is that once again, we are telling the parents they are incompetent to do their job, and that the state must provide an arbiter, in order to rectify the situation. In short we convict the partents without a trial, of "failure to properly parent" their child, and give the child the responsiblity to make a decision as an adult, while claiming to protect them as an innocent child. This is one of many issues that is effectively tearing the family structure apart. The decision made often ultimately affects every member of the family for several generations, as well as the horizontal spread of family branches, not to mention the girl that has to make the choice.

The family unit is in an uphill struggle to prevent the apparent push by society to effect the dissolution of said family unit.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

My concern with this perspective is that once again, we are telling the parents they are incompetent to do their job, and that the state must provide an arbiter, in order to rectify the situation. In short we convict the partents without a trial, of "failure to properly parent" their child, and give the child the responsiblity to make a decision as an adult, while claiming to protect them as an innocent child. This is one of many issues that is effectively tearing the family structure apart. The decision made often ultimately affects every member of the family for several generations, as well as the horizontal spread of family branches, not to mention the girl that has to make the choice.

The family unit is in an uphill struggle to prevent the apparent push by society to effect the dissolution of said family unit.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

Hi Q, Actually, I agree with you. What I had in mind when I wrote that is the case where a child is being molested by her father or other member of the household, resulting in the pregnancy. I had written a lot more when I wrote the above, but it quickly became too personal feeling for me, so cut off much of what I wrote.

And also, among the worst cases, is when a girl knows exactly how strongly pro-life her parents are, yet feels desperate and scared and ashamed. Even in such a family where love is evident she may go to an unqualified stranger before going to her parents. I don't want for it to be this way, but I know that it is. I'm thinking of options where a girl could go to someone she can trust to give her good advice and help, and who has the goal of involving the parents. But perhaps this is also pie in the sky thinking.

For the record I am pro-life and I don't want others meddling in my family. My own mother educated me about healthy and safe sexuality knowing that ultimately, when the decisions about sex and consequences are made, it would be up to me to make them. I think it is a delicate balance to try to instill your values in your kids but then also let them make their own choices in the long run. But then we are talking about the best case, where the family is functioning well most of the time.

From the OP and the article, I'm coming at it from the view that already the girl has shown mistrust of her family by not going to them first and also she is 16 (which is old enough to be taking responsibility for her actions, but of course when my girls are 16 it will still be all too young ). So, what I started to say in my first post is that "one-size-fits-all" laws do not work for everyone, it takes a case by case basis so that parents are not 'convicted without a trial,' but some attempt is made to determine the maturity level of the child and the functionality of the family, before rotely including or excluding them.

So, if you'd like to hear something I find equally disturbing, but in the same vein, consider the parents who cover up or otherwise assist their teens when those teens commit crimes. This happened in my previous neighborhood. There was a rash of car and garage break-ins, and some serious vandalism that included setting things on fire. A lot of damage was done and lots of stuff stolen (we are victims as well, my husband's computer was stolen from his car). When the kids doing this were finally found out, their parents caught wind of it and sent those kids on a vacation out of country so the police could not question them. I don't know how it all turned out, but here is an example of parents not acting responsibly nor even in the best interests of their kids, if you believe that we learn from the consequences of our mistakes.

You might also guess that I don't agree with parents being held accountable for the crimes of their older teen age children. I would argue as well that if 13-year olds are committing crimes then the parents are probably guilty of neglect at least, but I know very well that it is impossible to judge families from the outside. Again, the whole thing calls for someone to be paying attention as an unbiased third party when a family starts to have lots of trouble that involves the police.

For some reason I have a lot more to say about this but I will just have mercy on you all and stop here.

lunamoth

[Quahom1]

In the case of rape or incest (which is ultimately the same thing for a child), I firmly believe that the "Wards" and child should have professional and possibly spiritual guidance in the coming to a decision that is best for the girl. In a case like this, the legal system would already be involved, (as most likely would a case of abuse also be).

In the case where a "Ward" of a child (any Ward), diliberately hid a crime, or the offenders (keeping with the subject at hand), such as statutory rape by an adult, then quite simply they are guilty of aiding and abetting as well as obstruction of justice, hence, the legal system has an obligation to step in.

One other issue that must be contended with is the particular country or state's age of consent laws. After the girl has legally reached the age of consent, this would imply that the state or country most likely would consider the girl old enough to choose other issues pertaining to her own body as well.

I think we are on the same page.

v/r

Q

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Um, what if the case is like this one: http://wpr.org/HereOnEarth/archive_060122j.cfm

Sorry to get a bit off-topic here. *hands out :kitty:s and ferrets to everybody*

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

Um, what if the case is like this one: http://wpr.org/HereOnEarth/archive_060122j.cfm

Sorry to get a bit off-topic here. *hands out :kitty:s and ferrets to everybody*

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

Phyllis, that is clearly a case of life, health and well being for a child not mentally, spirituall, nor "Physically" prepared for child bearing. Also Phyllis, in such a "clear cut" case of a "child" struggling to bring forth a child, the result could have been death to both. Unless the family prefers death of the child (daughter), and the legal system has no contingencies for such a situation, hands would be tied on the matter.

I believe however, Brian, Luna and I are dealing with other than "third world" mentality. If this is also a result of church doctrine (written several hundreds of years ago), then I would be the first to say, an upgrade is in order...

Without getting into religious dogma, a wise man once said, "Suffer the children to come unto me"...not suffer come unto the children because of me.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

Um, what if the case is like this one: http://wpr.org/HereOnEarth/archive_060122j.cfm

Sorry to get a bit off-topic here. *hands out :kitty:s and ferrets to everybody*

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

Very very sad, Phyllis. Actually I could not bring myself to watch the clip but just going by the short description...sometimes I think that people forget that a pregnant girl is a person too, and too often a victim as well.

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I think we are on the same page.

v/r

Q

Yes, I think we probably are, or at least in the same chapter.

The OP touched a nerve I guess .

Even if you have the case of a girl in a more or less functioning family and she's just scared and ashamed to tell her family--this can loom much larger than right-to-life issues or worries about her own health and safety in her mind. Regardless of how we want it to be, if there is not a safe place a girl can go when she does not trust her family, she could end up in worse trouble.

I knew a social worker once who told me he thought religion was often a problematic factor for teens relating to their families about their sexuality. So much so that it was at least part of the reason he abandoned religion, even though he admitted that he also saw some good in it (not sure exactly what he thought that was...). But apparently he saw too many cases where kids were raised in strong Christian every Sunday in church abstinance only homes that ended up pregnant and/or into drugs just because the lid was kept so tight on these subjects that they could not get information and support from their families.

I don't know where I'm going with this, just rambling off some steam I guess.

I guess it's because I see this as a complex issue that I don't want to see rigid laws that allow no compassion, no room for God in a way.

I don't want laws end-running my authority and responsibility for my children, I most certainly don't want my daughters to ever think that abortion is an acceptible option of birth control, but I also don't want any girls to end up dead or with life-long health problems because they had no one to trust.

I am pro-life. I am pro-adoption. I am pro-family. I am pro-woman.

OK, I will shut up now.

lunamoth

[wil]

.. dealing with other than "third world" mentality.

This whole adventure is really so new. It was only in the 1900's that children began being treated as anything at all. Prior to that parent's did as they would to them, without any 'state' intervention. What is now deemed third world mentality... was most recently western world mentality. As we've raised an iota in consciousness we are now imposing our new attitudes on the world at large (human rights, child labor practices) sanctimoniously as if we always had them...

Civil rights in the US was what 1960's? Child labor laws, 40 hour work week, legislation on abortion...we are in our infancy when it comes to this and still working it all out, but that doesn't stop us from telling others what is right. On one hand we want to retain parental rights and on the other we want the state to protect those who can't protect themselves...just no in my house, I'm ok, it is them...

With the advent of better medical care, increase in women and babies living through childbirth, children's diseases of mumps and measles not killing them off... So many children didn't live through one thing or another that mothers would admonish their daughters not to get attached to them, as the odds were to high that they may not live... and once they did, we put them to work...they became valuable.

What we see today as normal in our society was not normal 50 or 100 years ago. But as we are 'enlightened' we suddenly look down our noses at others....who were but us until recently.

And as their society, medical professions and economy get better...their attitudes will change as ours did...in the western world, compassion, and caring did not come prior to the ability and werewitha to sustain it.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

This whole adventure is really so new. It was only in the 1900's that children began being treated as anything at all. Prior to that parent's did as they would to them, without any 'state' intervention. What is now deemed third world mentality... was most recently western world mentality. As we've raised an iota in consciousness we are now imposing our new attitudes on the world at large (human rights, child labor practices) sanctimoniously as if we always had them...

Civil rights in the US was what 1960's? Child labor laws, 40 hour work week, legislation on abortion...we are in our infancy when it comes to this and still working it all out, but that doesn't stop us from telling others what is right. On one hand we want to retain parental rights and on the other we want the state to protect those who can't protect themselves...just no in my house, I'm ok, it is them...

With the advent of better medical care, increase in women and babies living through childbirth, children's diseases of mumps and measles not killing them off... So many children didn't live through one thing or another that mothers would admonish their daughters not to get attached to them, as the odds were to high that they may not live... and once they did, we put them to work...they became valuable.

What we see today as normal in our society was not normal 50 or 100 years ago. But as we are 'enlightened' we suddenly look down our noses at others....who were but us until recently.

And as their society, medical professions and economy get better...their attitudes will change as ours did...in the western world, compassion, and caring did not come prior to the ability and werewitha to sustain it.

What does this have to do with a woman/child deciding to keep or abort her baby?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What does this have to do with a woman/child deciding to keep or abort her baby?

Pardon me, I thought the discussion was around government control of parental v. childrens rights. I was simply pointing out that this is all new territory in the history of the US and Euro culture as we have the ability and time to worry about more things than food and shelter. And that this decision is the current point in a string of past events where we have given more and more control over personal freedoms and rights to the government.

As this thread is in the politics and society forum and the decision discussed (parental notice on abortion) is really a symptom of the growth of governments and the evolution of our society..I thought my comments to be appropriate...if not excuse me.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Pardon me, I thought the discussion was around government control of parental v. childrens rights. I was simply pointing out that this is all new territory in the history of the US and Euro culture as we have the ability and time to worry about more things than food and shelter. And that this decision is the current point in a string of past events where we have given more and more control over personal freedoms and rights to the government.

As this thread is in the politics and society forum and the decision discussed (parental notice on abortion) is really a symptom of the growth of governments and the evolution of our society..I thought my comments to be appropriate...if not excuse me.

Actually this thread is about government attempting to override parental authority concerning children. And the question is: Does the government have the right to override the parents' authority over their own children, particularly in the case of a pregnant daughter?

Brian implies NO, I state NO, and Lunamoth stated CONDITIONAL, which we had to consider, because nothing is black and white. It had nothing to do with third world countries persee, or the problems with Euro/American civil rights.

So, you are pardoned.