[DEFEATED] The Children Act

[Canasius]

Stop micromanaging nations, goddamn

[Imperium Anglorum]

You didn't define what the "age of majority" is after defining a child as any person under the age of majority.

It's defined by each member nation for itself. See 'Legal Competence'.

[Underwater Sovereignties]

"The Attonesian Delegation to the WA has declared that there is not enough information about this issue to have a firm stance. Therefore, we abstain from taking any position and thus will not vote. The wording of this proposal is too vague, although we agree with its humanitarian goals. Our nation already has various measures in place to protect the rights of children and this proposal would conflict with our current legislation, thereby making it more difficult to enforce our own laws."

[Mally Piznoopia]

3C: *guarantee

[Suratia]

The nationstate of Suratia rejects this proposed legislation.

While we respect the underlying values of it, we raise the following concerns:

-- The focus of the Act is on the best interests of the children. The "best interests of the children" is subjective and not explicit. In the situation of a child's parents being separated, each parent could have conflicting opinions about what constitutes the best interests.
-- The "best interests of the children" has the potential to be used as means of leverage in arguments between separated parents, further disintegrating relationships between all parties involved.
-- Given that family members can hold a variety of personal values, any of which may be of value to the development of a child, but may not be accepted by the other parties, it is apparent that it is impossible to construct all-encompassing best interest guidelines. Therefore, any attempt to enforce such legislation is fraught with problems.
-- We consider legislation which is open to so many problems, and likely to contribute to the disintegration of families further, to be counterproductive micromanagement.

Due to the abovementioned concerns, Suratia will not support this Act.

[Goolistan]

You didn't define what the "age of majority" is after defining a child as any person under the age of majority.

It's defined by each member nation for itself. See 'Legal Competence'.

With such flexibility this resolution can easily be abused.

[Telgan Alpha]

I concede that there are indeed typos. I think we all accept that.

I think, on reflection, it has been poorly communicated (wholly on time constraints) what certain clauses mean and why, as a person has pointed out, say a 2-year-old would have the right to be represented by a lawyer (hyperbole, but anyway, let us go with this as it has been started). The issue I am finding is the global customs vary between established norms, laws, and practices which, alas, cloud thinking. Another example of the term empowerment which has been mentioned also. My working definition is wildly different from others, and some appear to slide in pretty well. The same again goes got the best interest of the child principle. The fauly, absolutely, is on me here. One issue is lack of space, and probably the proposed Act covering too much. The danger of a unified document, but was, I think anyway, a worthwhile attempt.

The unfortunate part of the WA (and understandable) is the inability of practice guidance to be published in conjunction with WA law, which would be a normal part of the legislative process and certainly in its implementation of the law. This could have gone some way in assisting in interpreting. No law is that good that wouldn't require this. That would be a ludicrous state of affairs, I have to say, that law wouldn't need this. So we work with what we have, instead. I think on the whole (removal of typos) that the intentions are fairly clear. Happy to relook at it and seems to be supported in principle, it is how the changes to practical support.

So instead, for now, I leave the final remark - I hope at least it has made some think of the importance of balancing risk and need in child protective work. I see a few comments on the thread about acting, when to act and how then the child is represented. These are daily dilemmas social workers face, and how judges attempt to interpret the law and create case law, which in turn again adds to the daily complexity of protection work, child welfare in general and we as a society respond. I will leave it here for now.

Best.

[Seppen]

It's defined by each member nation for itself. See 'Legal Competence'.

With such flexibility this resolution can easily be abused.

This, and I quite don't agree with the equation Under18=Child: a 17-years-old who will turn 18 next week and can legally work full-time is hardly a child by our cultural and social (admittedly, at least by mine) and surely is physically, psychologically and culturally different from a 4-years-old who hasn't started school yet.
(Furthermore, there would be the issue (no pun) of the various ages of consent for voting, drinking, driving, etc.)
For such reasons Seppen will vote AGAINST this resolution.

[Draconisisia]

I'm concerned that the requirement that parents ensure that the physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs of those children are met would put undue hardship on parents if the member state does not provide free healthcare, free universal education, and public housing. There are a number of member states that fail to provide these to their people and have a significant number of people living in poverty. Are they just going to imprison all poor parents now? There are already too many parents in their prisons and too many children in their foster care systems.

[The Hazar Amisnery]

This is funny cause here in Aus we have a term called the Stolen Generation which refers to all the children who were taken away from their families by the government in the last century. I hope this act isn't trying to get nations to go down a similar path.

[Shaktirajya]

We find that the requirements of section 2, particularly that member nations must ensure that children have the opportunity to air their views, are too vague and impossible to enforce. Also, this section leaves too much room for the government to overstep its jurisdiction. Additionally, although We do not always follow Our regional delegate Dilber's vote in perfect lockstep, We do generally take their vote into account. It is for the aforesaid reasons that We hereby vote AGAINST this resolution.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

[Pattevere]

The nationstate of Suratia rejects this proposed legislation.

While we respect the underlying values of it, we raise the following concerns:

-- The focus of the Act is on the best interests of the children. The "best interests of the children" is subjective and not explicit. In the situation of a child's parents being separated, each parent could have conflicting opinions about what constitutes the best interests.
-- The "best interests of the children" has the potential to be used as means of leverage in arguments between separated parents, further disintegrating relationships between all parties involved.
-- Given that family members can hold a variety of personal values, any of which may be of value to the development of a child, but may not be accepted by the other parties, it is apparent that it is impossible to construct all-encompassing best interest guidelines. Therefore, any attempt to enforce such legislation is fraught with problems.
-- We consider legislation which is open to so many problems, and likely to contribute to the disintegration of families further, to be counterproductive micromanagement.

Due to the abovementioned concerns, Suratia will not support this Act.

The Community of Pattevere concurs with the Nation-State of Suratia on these items, and wishes to add additional points of disagreement.

If the World Assembly establishes a precedent that children have the right to "have their voice be heard" in court, and from what we interpret is the overall intent of the document, likely have that voice be the deciding factor from a legal standpoint, then what separates them from "adulthood"? What age and maturity level would the World Assembly draw the line? We implore our peers to envision the second-order effects. Those less-than-reputable nations and extremist, unholy special interest groups and political parties lurking about would argue that children also ought to have the right to earn an income and defend their country, to name a few examples.

And if the above was not intended, then pardon, but with utmost respect, we would like to point out the terms "rights" and "protections" are being conflated. The blessed Patteverian Stag does not have "rights" on par with our adult citizens, but he is most certainly advocated for and afforded "protections" under Patteverian law. We mean not to equate animals and children at all, only to draw a relevant comparison on this particular subject.

In short, a child is simply not capable of advocating for his or her own welfare with consideration of all available information and reasonable vision of various outcomes. Legal staff should take into account the child's bodily autonomy, however, a wise and compassionate decision may be contrary to his or her wishes at that point in time.

Overall, we vehemently protest any attempts to micromanage the sacred Patteverian family unit. We do not support The Children Act.


With humility and piety,

State Speaker Thiex McBiggen, on behalf of Grand Minister Jane Lexena

[Underwater Sovereignties]

I'm concerned that the requirement that parents ensure that the physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs of those children are met would put undue hardship on parents if the member state does not provide free healthcare, free universal education, and public housing. There are a number of member states that fail to provide these to their people and have a significant number of people living in poverty. Are they just going to imprison all poor parents now? There are already too many parents in their prisons and too many children in their foster care systems.

I agree. Although the Attonesian government does provide living standards such as universal healthcare and free public education (and also requires parents to obtain a permit to have children), we agree that such legislation should not be imposed on nations that, due to a lack of resources and economic constraints, do not have the means to fully support their people. Moreover, this legislation fails to consider nations that already have extensive social service programs in place and how it would contradict their laws or policies. It is for this reason that we cannot support this proposal either.

[Kekistoni]

VOTE AGAINST THIS BAD-WRITTEN RESOLUTION!!!!!!!!!

[Caymarnia]

The single question asked by every single member of the National Council of the People's Voice has been relayed to me, and it is simply... "What the hell is this crap?"

[The admiral stifles a laugh, before composing himself.]

The President of the Republic and the Central Committee also concur, with the following statement: "We know how to deal with our children, and don't need to jump through such ridiculous hoops. If this is what passes for 'child care' in the proposing country, let them keep it to themselves."

Caymarnia therefore votes against.

[Draconisisia]

I'm concerned that the requirement that parents ensure that the physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs of those children are met would put undue hardship on parents if the member state does not provide free healthcare, free universal education, and public housing. There are a number of member states that fail to provide these to their people and have a significant number of people living in poverty. Are they just going to imprison all poor parents now? There are already too many parents in their prisons and too many children in their foster care systems.

I agree. Although the Attonesian government does provide living standards such as universal healthcare and free public education (and also requires parents to obtain a permit to have children), we agree that such legislation should not be imposed on nations that, due to a lack of resources and economic constraints, do not have the means to fully support their people. Moreover, this legislation fails to consider nations that already have extensive social service programs in place and how it would contradict their laws or policies. It is for this reason that we cannot support this proposal either.

Most nations do have the means to provide healthcare and education, and the World Assembly could help nations that lack those means. If these issues were addressed Draconisisia would support this bill.

[Collective A]

The custodian (or which word should be used here?) of the child is not always the parent.

[New Magadan]

Is this thread voting broken? Why is there only one vote and I cannot vote?

[Goobergunchia]

Is this thread voting broken? Why is there only one vote and I cannot vote?

The poll in the thread closed ten days ago. (It's also nonbinding.)

[Telgan Alpha]

Thank you for your contributions to all. Evidently, from the feedback, we have (I have) tried to do too much with too few words. Pithy it isn't and yet is. I will consider the feedback, and time-dependent, can consider a redraft which will need to - massively - limit the scope. It is evident from the writing of others - and I have enjoyed reading some of the comments - that there are significant deficits within the text. I will relook at this at a later date and consider if it is worthwhile to resubmit with heavy amendments \ a completely fresh copy.

Before this is even further contemplated, I ask one question: is there, in theory, enough support for a resolution like this for WA voters?

Cheers.

[Draconisisia]

Thank you for your contributions to all. Evidently, from the feedback, we have (I have) tried to do too much with too few words. Pithy it isn't and yet is. I will consider the feedback, and time-dependent, can consider a redraft which will need to - massively - limit the scope. It is evident from the writing of others - and I have enjoyed reading some of the comments - that there are significant deficits within the text. I will relook at this at a later date and consider if it is worthwhile to resubmit with heavy amendments \ a completely fresh copy.

Before this is even further contemplated, I ask one question: is there, in theory, enough support for a resolution like this for WA voters?

Cheers.

Draconisisia would strongly support a resolution like this, provided that it would not be counterproductive. Might I suggest that this resolution be more like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in that it puts obligations on member states, not on parents. This resolution could also express positive affirmation of rights, like the Declaration of Human Rights does.

For example, instead of the following:
All parents of children in member states must show due regard to their rights and responsibilities as parents. In particular, they must:

ensure that the physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs of those children are met,

ensure appropriate contact and relationship with those children, and

otherwise dispense appropriate guidance and control over the welfare of those children, with due regard to their best interest, until the age of majority, and consideration given to age and maturity of said child.


The new resolution could read:
The member states of the world assembly recognize:
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups.
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

[Goobergunchia]

We note our vote for the Child Protection Act, passed by this body's predecessor.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Suratia]

Thank you for your contributions to all. Evidently, from the feedback, we have (I have) tried to do too much with too few words. Pithy it isn't and yet is. I will consider the feedback, and time-dependent, can consider a redraft which will need to - massively - limit the scope. It is evident from the writing of others - and I have enjoyed reading some of the comments - that there are significant deficits within the text. I will relook at this at a later date and consider if it is worthwhile to resubmit with heavy amendments \ a completely fresh copy.

Before this is even further contemplated, I ask one question: is there, in theory, enough support for a resolution like this for WA voters?

Cheers.

I would like to see good outcomes for children and their families. Although, I can't envision an Act that would address the numerous concerns raised by various nationstates here. Furthermore, I feel that the particulars of child wellbeing are most appropriately managed at a national level. The reason being is that the nation that a person grows up in forms a significant part of their cultural identity. Culture consists of a multitude of factors, each of which shapes the overall identity. While I raised concerns about The Children Act lacking specificity, I believe that enforcing such a fine level of detail across all WA Member states is impractical micromanagement and overreaching. Perhaps the way forward is an Act comprising of less specificity; an Act which has broad achievable goals, while respecting the culture and leadership of each member state.

[Draconisisia]

Thank you for your contributions to all. Evidently, from the feedback, we have (I have) tried to do too much with too few words. Pithy it isn't and yet is. I will consider the feedback, and time-dependent, can consider a redraft which will need to - massively - limit the scope. It is evident from the writing of others - and I have enjoyed reading some of the comments - that there are significant deficits within the text. I will relook at this at a later date and consider if it is worthwhile to resubmit with heavy amendments \ a completely fresh copy.

Before this is even further contemplated, I ask one question: is there, in theory, enough support for a resolution like this for WA voters?

Cheers.

I would like to see good outcomes for children and their families. Although, I can't envision an Act that would address the numerous concerns raised by various nationstates here. Furthermore, I feel that the particulars of child wellbeing are most appropriately managed at a national level. The reason being is that the nation that a person grows up in forms a significant part of their cultural identity. Culture consists of a multitude of factors, each of which shapes the overall identity. While I raised concerns about The Children Act lacking specificity, I believe that enforcing such a fine level of detail across all WA Member states is impractical micromanagement and overreaching. Perhaps the way forward is an Act comprising of less specificity; an Act which has broad achievable goals, while respecting the culture and leadership of each member state.

We agree that nations are best equipped to manage the particular concerns of child wellbeing, but we think it is appropriate that the World Assembly positively state our support for the rights of children. We hold that these rights are more important to the wellbeing of children than any cultural beliefs that children are raised with.

[Amerion]

The South Pacific's World Assembly Delegation has cast the Coalition's vote AGAINST this proposed resolution, The Children Act, and warmly encourages fellow member regions to vote AGAINST.

Despite a clear subject area, the at-vote resolution is not of the most esteemed quality. There are numerous spelling and grammar mistakes within the resolution (e.g. "faciliate" and "guarntee"), and the resolution has many vague mandates relying on standards such as "reasonable" and "appropriate". The resolution also fails to define the "physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs" of children, leaving that open to interpretation. Other issues in the resolution include 5iii, which in theory allows infants to be able to hire lawyers, failing to mandate how member states must "commit to ending child poverty", and 5E being overly broad. Due to these major flaws, the Office of WA Legislation strongly recommends a vote AGAINST the at-vote resolution, "The Children Act".