Autonomy Under 18
A recent book on children’s rights calls for a new paradigm for children stuck in broken systems like foster care.
By Erika Asgiersson
June 16, 2008
Tony, a young boy who spent nine years in the foster care system, was 13 years old when the state terminated the parental rights of his mentally ill mother. Tony also had a father, who he located on his own while in foster care, but he died before Tony could meet him. Once the state decided to terminate Tony’s mother’s parental rights, any legal relationship with his remaining family was forever severed. To make matters worse, the state said he wasn’t entitled to his father’s Social Security survivors’ benefits and that he was not allowed to visit his paternal grandfather, who had already paid for Tony to visit him. Because Tony was a minor, the court determined he didn’t have autonomy under the law. When Tony first met his legal consultant Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, he was frustrated and outraged. Pointing to a pocket-sized U.S. Constitution, he cried out, “Ain’t I a person? Ain’t this my life? Ain’t I got rights?”
This is one of many heartbreaking stories that Woodhouse tells in her book, Hidden in Plain Sight: The Tragedy of Children’s Rights from Ben Franklin to Lionel Tate. She provides a narrative balanced with historical examples, including Anne Frank and the children of Dred Scott, as well as contemporary examples, like children of illegal immigrants, to explain the need for a defined structure of children’s rights in the United States. Recognizing the ways that America has failed its children, Woodhouse advocates for a much-needed perspective and commitment when it comes to thinking about how we treat our country’s most vulnerable youth. Woodhouse argues that while there is no simple solution and no silver bullet, “it is time for Americans to grapple seriously with children’s rights.”
As a founder and director of the Center on Children and Families at the University of Florida and the Chair in Family Law at the University of Florida Levin, Woodhouse is uniquely situated to write about advocating for children’s rights. The book is very personal account. As a child, Woodhouse was sexually abused by her uncle, something she writes about in the book. In addition, she uses examples from her parenthood and the children she has encountered through her work.
Urging a paradigm shift in the way we view children is the primary point of Woodhouse’s book. She defines children’s rights in terms of their needs and capacity. “Children have a present value of their own as young humans, not just as potential adults or as a means to adult ends,” she explains. Because attitudes shape policies and practices, reforming the way adults think about children is the first step in developing a better legal system for them.
This is a refreshing attitude. In the wake of the super-predator myth, an irrational prediction of a juvenile crime epidemic and a new breed of juvenile delinquents that were even more violent and ruthless than their predecessors, this is a much-needed change of attitude. Woodhouse says “we have seen a phenomenon in the last two decades that I can only call the ‘demonization’ of children.”
A recurring subject throughout the book is foster care; Woodhouse’s main criticism is that the system too often ignores the child’s voice when determining best interests. While most have turned away from the notion that children are objects without autonomy, her examples show that the foster care system often gets stuck in old reasoning. Lost in the system, there can be a lack of concern to satisfy a child’s need for a sense of belonging and family relationships. “Abused and neglected children in state custody have fewer rights than accused criminals,” Woodhouse argues.
Woodhouse also criticizes the foster care system for relying too heavily on removing children from their homes. While she recognizes that there are cases where the best option is to remove the child from the home, the decision must be made carefully. A recent article from Ms. Magazine shares this same frustration as it cites the overrepresentation of poor, black youth in the foster care system not because their mothers are unfit, but because poverty is the bigger issue that needs to be addressed. Poor mothers predictability have a harder time providing basic needs for their children, but as the article points out, “race and poverty should not be a barrier to raising one’s children.” Addressing poverty first will prevent children from unnecessarily being placed in the foster care system.
Woodhouse argues that children have distinct rights just like older human beings. She criticizes a 1990 decision by the United States to refuse to sign on to the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (also known as the Children’s Rights Convention, or CRC). The United States was the only country in the United Nations to not ratify the convention. Woodhouse explains that, contrary to what some believe, signing the CRC would not have internationalized the American family nor would it have destroyed the role of parents. In fact, she makes clear that the rights she talks about are rights of the child versus the state, not versus the parent or guardian.
Very rarely are human rights issues clear-cut. Often times, fighting for human rights means balancing one basic right against another. A recent example is the case of the FLDS ranch in Eldorado, Texas. After a young woman made an anonymous call claiming to be a sexually abused minor, Texas authorities raided the ranch. More than 400 children were taken into custody and spread across the state in foster care homes, often separated from siblings. Now, as authorities continue to investigate the call, the case becomes shakier. Mothers are taking action to get their children back and an appeals court recently ruled that the children were unnecessarily taken from the ranch. Complicated even further by claims of religious persecution and extremely chaotic legal proceedings, we can’t help but wonder how we are serving the best interests of each of the FLDS children, who have been through a traumatic month to say the least. Like in Tony’s case, each child was taken from a home he or she knew by authorities with good intentions.
Such cases remind us it is important to fulfill responsibilities to protect children. Yet as children get stuck in broken systems of education, juvenile justice, or foster care, authorities should keep in mind the full spectrum of human rights and the trauma of being removed from familiar situations. It isn’t always clear that foster care is a better situation than the previous one. Woodhouse didn’t offer solutions to such problems, but she did provide valuable insight. If authorities adopt new guidelines along the lines of the framework she suggests, we can hope to fix broken systems. Children’s rights issues will no doubt always be complicated, but with a child-centered approach, children can play an expanded role in their own futures.
Erika Asgiersson is a former Outreach Intern at Campus Progress. She is currently a senior at George Washington University.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
Leave a comment about this article below. For more discussion, visit our community page and sign up for your own Campus Progress blog!
!
Great review, Erika. I’ll have to pick that book up.
Young people have the capacity be incredibly independent, responsible people. It’s only through institutions like popular culture (e.g. TV), our means of public/private education, and economic system that we see what some call the “infantilization” of young adults. One of the stories of the 20th century was that of the gradual extension of childhood and years of mental immaturity.
The solution of course isn’t to send them off to work a job every moment they’re not in school: the solution is to empower them to make important decisions for themselves, and empower them to collectively make decisions that affect young people as groups.
— For Student Power - Jun 17, 02:50 PM - #amazing!
— JohneeJohnson - Jun 21, 10:48 PM - #> she makes clear that the rights
> she talks about are rights of
> the child versus the state, not
> versus the parent or guardian.
The problem with this reasoning is that the state enforces the ownership rights of the parent or guardian over the child. Unless a child can convince a judge that a crime has been committed against them then every public servant is expected to return them to their parent or guardian. As such, acknowledging the autonomy of children with regards to the state threatens parents rights.
That said, I’ll be looking for this book too.
— Vinnie S - Jun 21, 11:28 PM - #good
— 汤彬 - Jul 25, 08:35 PM - #