Children and Rights

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

1/27

Children and Rights-Murray Roth BardWe have now established each man's property right in his own person andin the virgin land that he finds and transforms by his labor, and we haveshown that from these two principles we can deduce the entire structure

of property rights in all types of goods. These include the goods which heacquires in exchange or as a result of a voluntary gift or bequest.There remains, however, the difficult case of children . The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On theother hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense anexisting self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner . [1] But this poses adifficult problem: for when , or in what way, does a growing child acquire

his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once?At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift ortransition?...Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a "trustee"or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and istherefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the rightof self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potentialadult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for aparent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering

him, etc. On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative"one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properlyinterfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone todo a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right ofperson or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say thata man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his propertyinvaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage,"for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him

with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of thepeople being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society,no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything foranother, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legalobligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights.

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

2/27

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parentdoes not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that theparent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate hischildren, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon

the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent thereforemay not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws aparent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not tofeed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. [2] The law, therefore, may notproperly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive . [3] (Again,whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceableobligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) Thisrule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have theright to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it) ?[4] Theanswer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right toallow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shallsee below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby marketwill bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)Our theory also enables us to examine the question of Dr. Kenneth Edelin,of Boston City Hospital, who was convicted in 1975 of manslaughter forallowing a fetus to die (at the wish, of course, of the mother) afterperforming an abortion. If parents have the legal right to allow a baby to

die, then a fortiori they have the same right for extra-uterine fetuses.Similarly, in a future world where babies may be born in extra-uterinedevices ("test tubes"), again the parents would have the legal right to"pull the plug" on the fetuses or, rather, to refuse to pay to continue theplug in place.Let us examine the implications of the doctrine that parents should have alegally enforceable obligation to keep their children alive. The argumentfor this obligation contains two components: that the parents created the

child by a freely chosen, purposive act; and that the child is temporarilyhelpless and not a self-owner . [5] If we consider first the argument fromhelplessness, then first, we may make the general point that it is aphilosophical fallacy to maintain that A's needs properly impose coerciveobligations on B to satisfy these needs. For one thing, B's rights are thenviolated. Secondly, if a helpless child may be said to impose legalobligations on someone else, why specifically on its parents , and not on

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

3/27

other people? What do the parents have to do with it? The answer, ofcourse, is that they are the creators of the child, but this brings us to thesecond argument, the argument from creation."In a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring

such 'neglect' down to a minimum" Considering, then, the creation argument, this immediately rules out anyobligation of a mother to keep a child alive who was the result of an actof rape, since this was not a freely undertaken act. It also rules out anysuch obligation by a stepparent, foster parent, or guardian, who didn'tparticipate at all in creating the child.Furthermore, if creation engenders an obligation to maintain thechild, why should it stop when the child becomes an adult? As Eversstates:The parents are still the creators of the child, why aren't they obliged tosupport the child forever? It is true that the child is no longer helpless;but helplessness (as pointed out above) is not in and of itself a cause ofbinding obligation. If the condition of being the creator of another is thesource of the obligation, and this condition persists, why doesn't theobligation ?[6]

And what of the case, in some future decade, when a scientist becomes

able to create human life in the laboratory? The scientist is then the"creator." Must he also have a legal obligation to keep the child alive? Andsuppose the child is deformed and ill, scarcely human; does he still havea binding legal obligation to maintain the child? And if so, how much of hisresources his time, energy, money, capital equipment should he belegally required to invest to keep the child alive? Where does hisobligation stop, and by what criterion?

This question of resources is also directly relevant to the case of natural

parents. As Evers points out:

[L]et us consider the case of poor parents who have a child who gets sick.The sickness is grave enough that the parents in order to obtain themedical care to keep the baby alive, would have to starve themselves. Do

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

4/27

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

5/27

But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction overchildren shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, orwhatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution ofthis thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For

the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that hehas them in nature in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home.Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right torun away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him,or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runawaychild to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and anaggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force tocompel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child'sultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer thatownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or hemay sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we mustface the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing freemarket in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. Butcloser thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. Forwe must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since

the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may nowonly give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free ofcharge . [10] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but thatthe government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restrictsthe market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. Theresult has been a typical market where the price of the commodity isheld by government far below the free-market price: an enormous"shortage" of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far

greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adultsdenied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoptionagencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults andcouples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwantedbabies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free marketin children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for anallocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

6/27

care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire suchchildren. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and thefoster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort ofsociety. [11]

In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute rightto her own body and therefore to perform an abortion; and would havethe trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership limited only by theillegality of aggressing against their persons and by their absolute right torun away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to selltheir trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at anymutually agreed price.

The present state of juvenile law in the United States, it might bepointed out, is in many ways nearly the reverse of our desired libertarianmodel. In the current situation, both the rights of parents and childrenare systematically violated by the State. [12]

First, the rights of the parents. In present law, children may be seizedfrom their parents by outside adults (almost always, the State) for avariety of reasons. Two reasons, physical abuse by the parent andvoluntary abandonment, are plausible, since in the former case theparent aggressed against the child, and in the latter the parentvoluntarily abandoned custody. Two points, however, should bementioned:

1. that, until recent years, the parents were rendered immune by court decisionsfrom ordinary tort liability in physically aggressing against their children fortunately, this is now being remedied ;[13] and

2. despite the publicity being given to the "battered child syndrome," it has beenestimated that only 5 percent of "child abuse" cases involve physical aggression

by the parents .[14]

On the other hand, the two other grounds for seizing children from theirparents, both coming under the broad rubric of "child neglect," clearly

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

7/27

violate parental rights. These are: failure to provide children with the"proper" food, shelter, medical care, or education; and failure to providechildren with a "fit environment." It should be clear that both categories,and especially the latter, are vague enough to provide an excuse for the

State to seize almost any children, since it is up to the State to definewhat is "proper" and "fit." Equally vague are other, corollary, standardsallowing the State to seize children whose "optimal development" is notbeing promoted by the parents, or where the "best interests" of the child(again, all defined by the State) are promoted thereby.

"The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of hisright of self-ownership, regardless of age."A few recent cases will serve as examples of how broadly the seizurepower has been exercised. In the 1950 case of In re Watson , the statefound a mother to have neglected three children by virtue of the factthat she was "incapable by reason of her emotional status, her mentalcondition, and her allegedly deeply religious feelings amounting tofanaticism." In its decision, fraught with totalitarian implications, thecourt stressed the alleged obligation of parents to bring up childrenrespecting and adjusting to "the conventions and the mores of thecommunity in which they are to live. "[15] In 1954, in the case of Hunter v.

Powers , the court again violated religious freedom as well as parentalrights by seizing a child on the ground that the parent was too intenselydevoted to a nonconformist religion, and that the child should properlyhave been studying or playing, rather than passing out religiousliterature. A year later, in the case of In re Black, a Utah court seizedeight children from their parents because the parents had failed toteach the children that polygamy was immoral. [16]

Not only religion, but also personal morality has been dictated by thegovernment. In 1962, five children were seized from their mother by acourt on the ground that the mother "frequently entertained malecompanions in the apartment." In other cases, courts have held parents tohave "neglected" the child, and thereupon seized the child, becauseparental quarrelling or a child's sense of insecurity allegedly endangeredthe child's best interests.

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

8/27

In a recent decision, Justice Woodside of the Pennsylvania Superior Courttrenchantly warned of the massive coercive potential of the "bestinterest" criterion:

A court should not take the custody of a child from their parents solely onthe ground that the state or its agencies can find a better home for them.If "the better home" test were the only test, public welfare officials couldtake children from half the parents in the state whose homes areconsidered to be the less desirable and place them in the homes of theother half of the population considered to have the more desirablehomes. Extending this principle further, we would find that the familybelieved to have the best home would have the choice of any of ourchildren. [17]

The rights of children, even more than those of parents, have beensystematically invaded by the state. Compulsory school attendance laws,endemic in the United States since the turn of this century, force childreneither into public schools or into private schools officially approved bythe state . [18] Supposedly "humanitarian" child labor laws havesystematically forcibly prevented children from entering the labor force,thereby privileging their adult competitors. Forcibly prevented fromworking and earning a living, and forced into schools which they oftendislike or are not suited for, children often become "truants," a chargeused by the state to corral them into penal institutions in the name of"reform" schools, where children are in effect imprisoned for actions ornon-actions that would never be considered "crimes" if committed byadults.It has, indeed, been estimated that from one-quarter to one-half of"juvenile delinquents" currently incarcerated by the state did not commitacts that would be considered crimes if committed by adults (i.e.,

aggression against person and property). [19] The "crimes" of thesechildren were in exercising their freedom in ways disliked by the minionsof the state: truancy "incorrigibility," running away. Between the sexes, itis particularly girl children who are jailed in this way for "immoral" ratherthan truly criminal actions. The percentage of girls jailed for immorality

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

9/27

("waywardness," sexual relations) rather than for genuine crimes rangesfrom 50 to over 80 percent . [20] Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the 1967 case of In re Gault ,juvenile defendants, at least in theory, have been accorded the

elementary procedural rights of adults (the right to notice of specificcharges, the right to counsel, the right to cross-examine witnesses), butthese have onlybeen granted in cases where they have actually beenaccused of being criminals . As Beatrice Levidow writes, the Gault andsimilar decisions:do not apply to any adjudicatory hearings except those in which theoffense charged to the juvenile would be violation of the criminal laws ifcommitted by an adult. Therefore, the safeguards of Kent, Gault ,and Winship do not protect the due process rights of juveniles who aredependent, neglected, in need of supervision, truant, run away, oraccused of other offenses of which only juveniles can be guilty such assmoking, drinking, staying out late, etc. [21]

As a result, juveniles are habitually deprived of such elementalprocedural rights accorded to adult defendants as the right to bail, theright to a transcript, the right to appeal, the right to a jury trial, theburden of proof to be on the prosecution, and the inadmissability of

hearsay evidence. As Roscoe Pound has written, "the powers of the StarChamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile courts."Once in a while, a dissenting judge has levelled a trenchant critique ofthis system. Thus, Judge Michael Musmanno stated in a 1954 Pennsylvaniacase:

Certain constitutional and legal guarantees, such as immunity againstself-incrimination, prohibition of hearsay interdiction of ex parte andsecret reports, all so jealously upheld in decisions from Alabama toWyoming, are to be jettisoned in Pennsylvania when the person at the barof justice is a tender-aged boy or girl. [22]

Furthermore, the state juvenile codes are studded with vague languagethat permits almost unlimited trial and incarceration for various forms of"immorality," "habitual truancy," "habitual disobedience," "incorrigibility,"

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

10/27

"ungovernability," "moral depravity," "in danger of becoming morallydepraved," "immoral conduct," and even associating with persons of"immoral character. "[23] Moreover, the tyranny of indeterminate sentencing ( see our chapter above

on punishment ) has been wielded against juveniles, with juveniles oftenreceiving a longer sentence than an adult would have suffered for thesame offense. Indeed the rule in contemporary juvenile justice has beento impose a sentence that may leave a juvenile in jail until he reachesthe age of majority. Furthermore, in some states in recent years, this evilhas been compounded by separating juvenile offenders into twocategories genuine criminals who are called "delinquents," and other,"immoral" children who are called "persons in need of supervision" orPINS. After which, the PINS "offenders" receive longer sentences than theactual juvenile criminals! Thus, in a recent study, Paul Lerman writes:The range of institutional stay was two to twenty-eight months fordelinquents and four to forty-eight months for PINS boys; the median wasnine months for delinquents and thirteen months for PINS; and theaverage length of stay was 10.7 months for delinquents and 16.3 monthsfor PINS. The results of length of stay do not include the detention period; thestage of correctional processing prior to placement in an institution.

Analyses of recent detention figures for all five boroughs of New York Cityrevealed the following patterns: (1) PINS boys and girls are more likely tobe detained than delinquents (54 to 31 percent); and (2) once PINS youthare detained they are twice as likely to be detained for more than 30days than are regular delinquents (50 to 25 percent) . [24]

Again, it is mainly female juveniles that are punished for "immoral"offenses. A recent study of Hawaii, for example, found that girls chargedmerely with running away normally spend two weeks in pretrialdetention, whereas boys charged with actual crimes are held for only afew days; and that nearly 70 percent of the imprisoned girls in a statetraining school were incarcerated for immorality offenses, whereas thesame was true of only 13 percent for the imprisoned boys. [25]

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

11/27

The current judicial view, which regards the child as having virtually norights, was trenchantly analyzed by Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas inhis decision in the Gault case:The idea of crime and punishment was to be abandoned. The child was to

be "treated" and "rehabilitated and the procedures, from apprehensionthrough institutionalization, were to be "clinical" rather than punitive.These results were to be achieved, without coming to conceptual andconstitutional grief, by insisting that the proceedings were not adversary,but that the State was proceeding as parens patriae (the State as parent).The Latin phrase proved to be a great help to those who sought torationalize the exclusion of juveniles from the constitutional scheme; butits meaning is murky and its historical credentials are of dubiousrelevance.The right of the State, as parens patriae , to deny the child proceduralrights available to his elders was elaborated by the assertion that a child,unlike an adult, has a right "not to liberty but to custody." If his parentsdefault in effectively performing their custodial functions that is if thechild is "delinquent" the state may interfere. In doing so, it does notdeprive the child of any rights, because he has none. It merely providesthe "custody" to which the child is entitled. On this basis, proceedingsinvolving juveniles were described as "civil" not "criminal" and therefore

not subject to the requirements which restrict the State when it seeks todeprive a person of his liberty . [26]

It may be added that calling an action "civil" or "custody" does not makeincarceration any more pleasant or any less incarceration for the victimof the "treatment" or the "rehabilitation." Criminologist Frederick Howletthas trenchantly criticized the juvenile court system, and placed it in awider libertarian context. He writes of

the denial of certain basic rights of individuals the right to associatewith those of their choice and to engage voluntarily in acts that harm noone but themselves. The drunk who clogs our courts should have the rightto get drunk; the prostitute and her clie nt should not have to answer tothe law for an act that is their personal decision. The misbehaving childlikewise has a fundamental right to be a child, and if he has committed

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

12/27

no act that would be considered criminal were he an adult, why seekrecourse t hrough the courts ? Before rushing to treat or "help" a personoutside the justice system, should not the community first consider thealternative of doing nothing? Should it not recognize the child's right, as a

person, to nontreatment and noninterference by an outside authority ?[27]

A particularly eloquent judicial defense of the rights of children occurredin an 1870 Illinois decision, years earlier than the modern assertion ofstate despotism in the juvenile court system, beginning with the turn ofthe century Progressive period. In his decision in People ex rel. O'Connell v.Turner, Justice Thornton declared:The principle of the absorption of the child in, and its completesubjection to the despotism of, the State, is wholly inadmissible in the

modern civilized world.

"In the current situation, both the rights of parents and children are systematicallyviolated by the State."

These laws provide for the "safe keeping" of the child; they direct his"commitment," and only a "ticket of leave," of the uncontrolled discretionof a board of guardians, will permit the imprisoned boy to breathe thepure air of heaven outside his prison walls, and to feel the instincts ofmanhood by contact with the busy world . The confinement may be fromone to fifteen years, according to the age of the child. Executiveclemency cannot open the prison doors, for no offense has beencommitted. The writ of habeas corpus, a writ for the security of liberty canafford no relief, for the sovereign power of the State, as parens patriae, hasdetermined the imprisonment beyond recall. Such a restraint uponnatural liberty is tyranny and oppression. If, without crime, without theconviction of any offense, the children of the State are thus to beconfined for the "good of society" then society had better be reduced to

its original elements, and free government acknowledged a failure. The disability of minors does not make slaves or criminals of them. Canwe hold children responsible for crime; liable for their torts; imposeonerous burdens upon them, and yet deprive them of their liberty,without charge or conviction of crime? [The Illinois Bill of Rights,following upon the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Declaration of

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

13/27

Independence, declares that] "all men are, by nature, free andindependent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights amongthese life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This language is notrestrictive; it is broad and comprehensive, and declares a grand truth,

that "all men," all people, everywhere, have the inherent and inalienableright to liberty. Shall we say to the children of the State, you shall notenjoy this right a right independent of all human laws andregulations. Even criminals can not be convicted and imprisoned withoutdue process of law . [28]

Kids Noting Property RightsMonday, June 27th, 2011 by George Bragues postedin Capitalism , Economics , Education ,Philosophy . inShare Share

My two year old nephew has a habit of telling his onlookers that a certainobject, say a toy or a ball, is mine. What makes this interesting is that itcannot be chalked off to the self-absorption of youth. For he will oftenremind us to heed the fact that certain objects belong to others, as in whenhe says, thats Georges car. Though I have sometimes wonderedwhether this reflected an inborn human trait, not having kids of my own, Iwas inclined to conclude from the smallness of my sample (namely, onechild) that my nephew just happened to be uniquely attuned to propertyrights.

Well, it turns out that the behaviour of my nephew may well be geneticallyencoded in human nature. In a study conducted by Ori Friedman of theUniversity of Waterloo, young children demonstrated an appreciation for

property rights. This is significant because kids have been subject tolimited socialization. So any behaviour spontaneously exhibited by them ismore likely to reflect nature as opposed to nurture.

One experiment went as follows:

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

14/27

Friedmans team presented a simple quandary to 40 preschoolers, ages 4and 5, and to 44 adults. Participants saw an image of a cartoon boyholding a crayon who appeared above the word user and a cartoon girlwho appeared above the word owner. After hearing from an

experimenter that the girl wanted her crayon back, volunteers wereasked to rule on which cartoon child should get the prized object. About 75 percent of 4- and 5-year-olds decided in favor of the owner,versus about 20 percent of adults. [to read the whole article, link here ]

The big question, of course, is whether any moral conclusions can bedrawn from this evidence. In other words, does this mean that propertyrights are natural? Have 17-18th century classical liberals like John Lockebeen proved right?

To say the least, this is a thorny issue. The main obstacle to deducing anatural right to property from the fact that human beings seem hard-wiredto recognize that right is what moral philosophers refer to as thenaturalistic fallacy to wit, one would be trying to infer ought fromis. This is widely thought to be a logically invalid move because theconclusion to an argument must be limited to what is contained in thepremises. In this instance, the conclusion, that individual control ofresources ought to be respected, comprises a value judgement that is

nowhere to be found in the factual observation that such control isinstinctually respected.

One way around the ought-is dilemma is to say that no matter what moralvalue one happens to prize whether it be freedom, equality, fairness, thepursuit of happiness, human excellence, or some combination thereof onemust take the structure of human nature into account. This structure helpsilluminate what the costs/benefits of advancing a given value are likely tobe. It will do so by indicating whether one is going with the grain of human

nature or against it.

Better to go with the grain if the tendency in question can be channeled tosocially beneficial purposes, such as peace and economic prosperity. Andthese are what we tend to get when society acknowledges individualproperty rights.

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

15/27

Children's Rights Protection Law

Chapter IGeneral Provisions

Article 1. Task of the Law

(1) The task of this Law is to determine the rights of a child, freedoms and his/her protection, by taking into consideration that the child, as a physically andintellectually immature person, needs special protection and care.

(2) This Law regulates also basic provisions in accordance with which a child's behaviour shall be controlled and his/her responsibility determined, it regulates therights of parents and other physical and legal persons, obligations and responsibilityfor securing a child's rights, as well as determines the system for protection of thechild's rights, and the legal principles for its activity.

Article 2. A child

A child is a person who has not reached the age of 18 years, except these persons to

whom, in accordance with the law, reach earlier maturity by being declaredemancipated minors, or who become married before reaching the age of 18 years.

Article 3. Principle of equality of children's rights

The state shall provide children's rights and freedoms to all children without anydiscrimination - regardless of a child's, his/her parent's, trustee's, or family member'srace, nationality, sex, language, party membership, political and religious conviction,national, ethical or social origin, property or health status, birth, or othercircumstances.

Article 4. Purposes of children's rights protection

A child's rights are protected in order to achieve the following goals:

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

16/27

1) creating and strengthening within the child a set of values suitable to the interestsof society;

2) a child's orientation to work as the only morally-acceptable source for acquiring themeans of existence and welfare;

3) a child's orientation to the family as the basic value of society and one of the principal rewards of an individual in society;

4) orientation of a child to a healthy lifestyle as an objective precondition for thesurvival of the nation;

5) maximum protection of a child's health and life by providing special attention tothis during public activities, armed conflicts, fires, or other extraordinary situations(storms, floods, increased level of radioactivity, etc.).

Article 5. Subject of children's rights protection

(1) The protection of the child's rights within the state shall be ensured by:

1) child's parents (adopters), foster-parents and trustees;

2) educational, health care, social aid and culture institutions, as well as employers;

3) state and local government institutions;

4) public organisations, the activity of which is connected with providing support andhelp to children.(2) Children's organisations and the family shall be protected also.

Article 6. The principle of children's rights protection

(1) In legal actions which effect a child, the child's rights and interests shall be paramount.

(2) All activities regarding a child, regardless of which are performed by the state orlocal government institutions, public organisations or other physical and legal personswhich are occupied with taking care about the child and his/her upbringing, as well ascourts and other rights protection institutions, shall ensure the priority of the child's

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

17/27

interests.

(3) Theprotectionofachild'srightsshallbeaccomplishedincooperationwiththe family,state and local government institutions, public organisations and other physical andlegal persons.

(4) During a period of care for a child outside of the family, necessary measures forensuring the reunion of the child and parents shall be executed.

(5) Activity or inactivity, as a result of which a child's rights are not considered(leaving a child without the minimum means of existence, shelter, care, guardianship),or other activities which limit the child's personal and property rights and freedoms,shall be considered as immoral and unlawful.

Chapter IIChild's basic rights

Article 7. Child's rights to life and development

Every child has an inalienable rights to the protection of life and development.

Article 8. Child's rights to individuality

(1) From the moment of birth a child has rights to a name, surname, and theacquisition of citizenship. The child shall be registered in accordance with the law.

(2) A child has the right to national identity.

Article 9. Child's rights to a private life, personal inviolability and freedom

(1) A child has the right to a private life, privacy of living-space and correspondence, personal inviolability and freedom.

(2) A child can not be treated cruelly, can not be tormented and physically punished,and his/her dignity and honour can not be offended.

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

18/27

Article 10. Child's rights to conditions for a rewarding life

(1) A child has the right to such life conditions and favourable social surroundingswhich shall provide valuable physical and intellectual development. Every child mustreceive proper food, clothing and shelter.

(2) A child with physical or mental disabilities, also, has the right to everything for thesatisfaction of his/her special needs.

(3) A child has the right to a permanent place of residence.

(4) The minimum level of welfare within the country is regulated by law and Cabinetof Ministers regulations.

Article 11. Child's rights to education and creativity

(1) The state shall provide to all children equal rights and the possibility to acquire aneducation according to their abilities.

(2) A child has the right to free elementary, secondary and vocational education.

(3) Children belonging to the minority nationalities of Latvia have the right to acquire

education in their native language in accordance with the Education law.

(4) A child has author's rights as well as patent rights to his/her invention.

Article 12. Child's social rights

(1) A child has the right to acquire a profession and to choose a job corresponding toit.

(2) A child has the right to free medical care, which is determined by the state program.

(3) A child who receives insufficient parental care has the right to state and localgovernment social aid.

(4) The state and local governments shall provide the necessary material conditions

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

19/27

for life to every orphan and child left without parental care.

Article 13. Child's freedoms

(1) A child has the right to express his/her own thoughts freely, and for this purpose toreceive and to provide any kind of information, the right to be heard, as well as theright to awareness and religious freedom. The religious persuasion ofa child, through14 years of age, shall be determined by the parents.

(2) A child has the right to freedom of association, in so far as far it does not endangerhis/her health and life.

(3) A child has the right to participate in self-administration in education, culture andsports fields. In any other fields which effect the child's interests, proper attentionshall be paid to the child's point of view, in accordance with his/her age and maturity.

Article 14. Child's rights to personal property

(1) A child has the right to personal property.

(2) A child has the right, depending upon age, him/herself, or with the mediation ofhis/her own legal representatives, to execute deeds and to realise other owner's rights

determined by law.

Article 15. Child's rights to protection against exploitation

(1) A child has the right to be protected from economic exploitation, fromemployment in conditions dangerous or hazardous for his/her health, physical,

psychological or moral development, work at night, or during such working hourswhich interrupts his/her studies.

(2) The child has the right to be protected from physical and intellectual exploitationand temptation, as well as from other types of exploitation which can harm him/her inany way.

Article 16. Child's rights to recreation and spare time

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

20/27

A child has the right, in accordance with his/her age and physical and mentaldevelopment, to recreation and spare time, rights to participate in games andamusement activities, as well as a cultural life, and to be involved with the arts.

Article 17. Child's rights to participate in developing the children's rightsprotection program

A child has the right him/herself, or through his/her own legal representatives, to participate in the development and implementation of children's rights protection programs.

Chapter IIIChildren's rights guarantees and rights restrictions

Article 18. Children's rights guarantees

The guarantees of children's rights are determined in this Law, the Education law,Medical Law, the law "On Social Security", the law "On Social Aid", the law "OnLocal Governments", the Civil Law, the law "On Orphans' Courts and Rural DistrictsCourts" and other laws, as well as international agreements binding upon Latvia.

Article 19. Information about child's rights

(1) The state shall provide the possibility for every child , at elementary school andsecondary school, or an educational institution equal to it, to acquire the basicknowledge about children's rights, in accordance with the Education Law.

(2) The state shall inform society about provisions of this Law and other laws andnormative acts adopted within the field of children's rights protection, as well as

principles of international rights in this field.

Article 20. Reviewing of cases connected with child rights protection

(1) The States hall ensure that cases connected with children's rights protection arereviewed by specialists who have appropriate knowledge within the field of children'srights.

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

21/27

(2) Motions and complaints which are connected with children's rights protection shall

be reviewed immediately.(3) A child shall be given the opportunity to be heard in any court or administrative

procedures connected with him/her , directly or through his/her own legalrepresentative or an appropriate institution.

Article 21. Child's rights restrictions

(1) The realising of children's rights can be subjected to such restrictions as aredetermined by law and are necessary for the protection of the national safety, publicorder, morals and health of residents, and protection of other persons' rights andfreedoms, as well as the child's own security and protection.

(2) A child shall receive explanations on such restrictions as soon as an error in his/her behaviour is noticed.

Chapter IVChild's obligations

Article 22. Child's obligations at home

(1) A child has the obligation, in conformity to his/her own age, to take care of him/herself and to participate in housework.

(2) A child must behave with dignity to his/her parents (adopters) and other membersof the family, as well as to trustees and members of the foster-family.

Article 23. Child's obligations to society

(1) A child is a full-fledged member of society. His/her obligations to society increasewith age.

(2) A child has the obligation to study appropriate to his/her own physical and mentaldevelopment. During such studies he/she shall observe the rules of internal order ofeducational institutions.

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

22/27

(3) Depending upon his/her age and stage of maturity, a child has the obligation to protect his/her own health.

(4) A child must behave with dignity to the state, its symbols, and to observe the laws.

(5) A child must observe the accepted rules of behaviour within society. A child maynot, using his/her rights, offend against the rights and legal interests of other childrenand adults.

Chapter VA child and the family

Article 24. Parents' obligations to the child

(1) In conformity with provisions of the Civil Law, the obligation of the parents is, in proportion to their property and social status, to take care about their own child's lifeand welfare, to provide him/her with maintenance, which is to give food, shelter,clothing, take care of, to bring up, and to educate him/her.

(2) The obligation of the parents is to prepare the child for an independent life insociety, as much as possible respecting his/her individuality, taking into considerationhis/her abilities and inclinations.

(3) The parents are the child's legal representatives. Their obligation is to safe-guardthe child's rights and interests protected by law.

(4) For failure to discharge parental obligations, or for the malicious usage of parentalauthority, the physica1 punishing of a child, as well as cruel behaviour againsthim/her, the parents shall be held accountable as determined by law.

(5) The expression of parental will regarding a child can be limited, regardless of theiropinions and religious convictions, if it is discovered that they can physically ormorally harm the further development of a child.

Article 25. Parents rights to limit a child's freedoms

(1) The parents can limit a child's rights to a private life, association and freedom ofspeech, depending on his/her stage of maturity, in order to:

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

23/27

1) promote the development of the child;

2) protect social order, morals and the health of residents;

3) protect rights and freedoms of other persons.

(2) A child can apply for help to the Orphans' Court (rural district court) if the parents,in his/her own mind, have established baseless restrictions, or if othermisunderstandings occur in their relationship.

Article 26. State and local government help to the family

(1) The faini1y is the natural surrounding for a child's development and growth, andevery child has an inalienable right to grow up in a family.

(2) If a parent-child relationship does not provide surroundings favourable for thechild's development, or the child has a chronic disease, the local government shallgive help to the family, providing consultations with psychologists, social workers orother specialists, choose for the child a support family or a trustee who can help tonormalise the parent-child relationship. Regulations about children's support familiesand trustees shall be developed by the Cabinet of Ministers.

(3) Depending on the age of a child, a local government shall offer help to the family,

especial1y poor families, in the child's upbringing and education, vocational trainingand in finding employment and an apartment.

(4) The state and local government shall provide support to family-recreation housesand sanitariums, recreation and health clubs, as well as establish necessary institutionsin order to promote children's physical development and creative activity, and provideother services which promote children's improvement, and help to the family in thechildren's upbringing.

Article 27. Child's separation from the family

(1) A child can be separated from the family if:

1) the child's life, health or development is seriously endangered be-cause of lack ofcare or home circumstances (social surroundings);

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

24/27

2) the child seriously endangers his/her own health or development using alcohol,narcotics or toxic substances;

3) the child has committed a criminal offence.

(2) In those cases anticipated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the first Part of this Article, achild shall be separated form the family if is impossible to prevent unfavourablecircumstances for the child's development with him/her staying with the family.

(3) Upon separating a child from the family, outside-family care shall provided tohim/her by a guardian, in a foster-family or a children's care and upbringinginstitution.

(4) If outside-family care is determined in accordance with circumstances mentionedin Paragraph 1 of the first Part of this Article:

1) children from one family shall not be separated, except in special cases when it isdone in the interests of the children;

2) in choosing the type of outside-family care the point of view of child shall be takeninto consideration also.

Article 28. Procedure for extinction or interruption of parental authority

(1) The extinction or interruption of parental authority is determined by the Civil Lawand the law "On Orphans' Courts and Rural District Courts".

(2) In the case anticipated in Paragraph 3 of the first Part of Article 27 of this Law, thedecision shall be made by the court. Compulsory reformatory and medical procedures,in cases anticipated in Paragraph 2ofArticle 27 of this Law, shall be imposed by thecourt.

Article 29. Children's outside-family care upon request of the parents

(1) The Orphans' Court (rural district court) shall provide children's outside-familycare upon the request of the parents if they, as a result of medical treatment,employment, or other circumstances, can not take care of the child.

(2) Children shall be taken from parents who have refused them at the parturition

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

25/27

home, or later, and placed in outside-family care, on the order of the Orphans' Court(rural district court).

(3) A new born child's mother, upon request, if she does not have the means ofsubsistence, shall be admitted to an infant house together with the child during the

period she is nursing the baby.

Article 30. Payment for children's outside-family care

(1) The parents have the obligation to pay for outside-family care services to theextent in which parents are obligated to maintain the child as determined in the CivilLaw.

(2) This circumstance that parents can not pay for a child's outside-family care can not be a basis for not providing outside-family services. Payment for services in suchcases shall be covered from the state or corresponding local government budget, andshall be collected later from the parents by the court.

(3) Child and family benefits, during a period of outside-family care, shall not be paidto the parents.

Article 31. Adoption

(1) In order to provide family surroundings for child's development the adoption oforphans shall be supported.

(2) The legal basis and procedure for adoption are determined by the Civil Law and aseparate law.

(3) In the cases and procedure anticipated by law, a child can be adopted to a foreigncounty if Latvia and such country have signed a mutual agreement on ensuringchildren's rights protection.

Chapter VIOutside-family care

Article 32. Purpose of outside-family care

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

26/27

The purpose of outside-family care is to create for the child a feeling of protection, to

provide circumstances for his/her development and welfare, and to support the child'saspirations to be self-dependent.

Article 33, Children's taken under outside-family care shall have contact withparents

(1) A child who was given under guardianship or to a foster-family or placed into achildren's care and upbringing institution has the right to meet with his/her parents andclose relatives, except cases when such meeting:

1) is harmful for the child's health and development;

2) poses a threat to the guardians, foster-families, employees of the children's care andupbringing institution or to other children.

(2) If the circumstances mentioned in the first Part of this Article exist, the Orphans'Court (rural district court) or other institution, which has made the decision foroutside-family care can refuse to inform the parents and close relatives of the locationof the child.

(3) The decision on such severance of contact can be appealed to the court, by the

interested parties, in the procedure stipulated by law.

Article 34. Informing a child about his/her parents

Upon child's request, a guardian, foster-family or the manager of a children's care andupbringing institution, taking into consideration the child's age and maturity, caninform the child, why he/she is under outside-family care and provide informationabout his/her family and for how long he/she will remain under outside-family care.

Article 73. Obligations of residents for children's rights protection

(1) The obligation of every resident is to protect their own children's and otherchildren's safety, within the same day reporting to the police, Orphans' Court (ruraldistrict court) or other children's rights protection institution about any violenceagainst a child or different endangerment to him/her, or about violations of his/her

8/13/2019 Children and Rights

27/27