(12-12-2013, 04:06 AM)DeeBye Wrote: Why wouldn't they?All well and good for Canadian children. :-)
The basis in law in the US is not clear. The US and Somalia are the only two nations in the world who have not ratified the UN-CRC. My understanding of the US's opposition are two issues; a) the hard definition of 18 as the age of adulthood -- many juveniles are treated legally as adults in serious crimes, and b) in that criminal law is handled by each state, and not federal law.
The U.S. Supreme court first ruled on children's rights issues in the 60's, and not much has progressed in the last 50 years. The two leading concepts are HLA Hart's Choice Theory and Joseph Raz’s interest theory. I found it particularly sad that it was the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, that began defending children.
Hidden in Plain Sight The Tragedy of Children's Rights from Ben Franklin to Lionel Tate
Here is another good review of the state of thinking on it; Do Children Have Rights? A brief analysis of the theories of rights.
And, that returns us back to the "culture war" forces leading legislation, like "The Parental Rights Amendment" -- which seeks to permantly block the UNCRC. This type of legislation is more of a rally flag, than a serious attempt at law -- it becomes a platform to gin up political support. The usual suspects are involved, "Organizations that have allied with Parentalrights.org on the issue include the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, Liberty Counsel, and the Traditional Values Coalition, among others."
/S Because, you know, Kofi Annan wants to deny you your parental rights to toss your kids into snake pits. Seriously though, what they are worried about are cases like this where a government judge gets between a parent [relative] and a dependent person. And, here is where choice theory, and interest theory collide -- as well as there being an inflexible and arbitrary interpretation of competency. I can see both sides, although I eschew the clericalism and anti-clericalism involved in using law this way.