NationStates

The Hazar Amisnery wrote: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.

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

Xanthorrhoea wrote:Children need protection, sometimes from those who should be caring from them.

Holy Thranity Xerros wrote:Holy Thranity Xerros stands by our stance that children are property of the state, and that the family unit is inherently flawed and untrustworthy. We believe section 4C directly combats our sovereignty, and we will be voting against this

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:

Holy Thranity Xerros wrote:Holy Thranity Xerros stands by our stance that children are property of the state, and that the family unit is inherently flawed and untrustworthy. We believe section 4C directly combats our sovereignty, and we will be voting against this

I'm rethinking my vote, now that I'm apparently caucusing with the nation that was just founded today, that was just admitted to the WA today, and that speaks out for the first time to announce their national child slavery policy.

Telgan Alpha wrote:The entire extent of this law was to balance children rights and ensure autonomy, whilst seesawing the need that parents have a reasonable responsibility of their child. The state does need to play a role in this also. I think it is ridiculous otherwise. Too many comments on but what if X cannot afford it (parent to private health care, or state to universal healthcare). Is it not a fundamental tennet that a child's welfare is the responsibility of adults? Is it not also a fundamental right that a child has an independent advocate in law cases? The reason lawyer was used as opposed to advocate was based language choice and an understanding that those interpreting the law would not necessarily the have a solid understanding of advocacy services.

I understand that this is an emotive issue. It should be. It better be. There have been disasters in the past - and I fully appreciate the example given in the forgotten children fiasco. I had hoped this law read enough as to ensure that that never happens. I have read comments about how this takes away from state sovereignty, could to X, could do Y. No it couldn't. I am debating now that this will be my final attempt to enact anything meaningful. If we cannot agree that the welfare of children is more important than who funds a health system, I am no longer playing. Clearly for all points, we would be looking at creating laws which tie in to say a universal health system, and so many other things. This would then have a massive come back on state sovereignty. To this I say: yawn. The hyperbole in many of the responses borders on the neoconservative BS. Was fun for a while, but I now bow out.

Clearly, the WA is not a forum for me. I will stick to real policy in the real world. This is just ludicrous now.

Cheers.

Telgan Alpha wrote:The entire extent of this law was to balance children rights and ensure autonomy, whilst seesawing the need that parents have a reasonable responsibility of their child. The state does need to play a role in this also. I think it is ridiculous otherwise. Too many comments on but what if X cannot afford it (parent to private health care, or state to universal healthcare). Is it not a fundamental tennet that a child's welfare is the responsibility of adults? Is it not also a fundamental right that a child has an independent advocate in law cases? The reason lawyer was used as opposed to advocate was based language choice and an understanding that those interpreting the law would not necessarily the have a solid understanding of advocacy services.

I understand that this is an emotive issue. It should be. It better be. There have been disasters in the past - and I fully appreciate the example given in the forgotten children fiasco. I had hoped this law read enough as to ensure that that never happens. I have read comments about how this takes away from state sovereignty, could to X, could do Y. No it couldn't. I am debating now that this will be my final attempt to enact anything meaningful. If we cannot agree that the welfare of children is more important than who funds a health system, I am no longer playing. Clearly for all points, we would be looking at creating laws which tie in to say a universal health system, and so many other things. This would then have a massive come back on state sovereignty. To this I say: yawn. The hyperbole in many of the responses borders on the neoconservative BS. Was fun for a while, but I now bow out.

Clearly, the WA is not a forum for me. I will stick to real policy in the real world. This is just ludicrous now.

Cheers.

Telgan Alpha wrote:As edited \ amended on 18 of December 2021 to highlight new version - new Section 3, as well as, we hope, fixes the legal challenge.

Debating if strength changes from Sig to sstrong.

Any comment welcome, especially in regards to any possible legal challenge.


CURRENT / NEW version:


Understanding that children require care, guidance, and protection as they grow and develop.

Disappointed, therefore, that the rights of children have seen relatively insufficient protection from this body compared to other protected groups (despite the laudable advances delivered by GA#4 "Restrictions on Child Labor," GA#222 "Prevention of Child Abuse" and GA#297 "Child Welfare in Adoption" in these regards).

Convinced that an international, universal standard of parental rights and responsibilities, in addition to the rights of the child will act as a defence of child welfare.

Further seeking to establish the best interests of the child, least restrictive intervention, and the reciprocity of intervention as the guiding principles of child welfare.

Hoping that the aforementioned standards and principles - as well as measures to establish child welfare services and access to justice in times of absolute necessity - will provide a solid foundation for the welfare of children everywhere.

The World Assembly hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in force, enacts the following:

1. In this resolution:
   1. a "child" is defined as any person under the age of majority, and
   2. a "parent" is defined as any person who currently looks after any child as a consequence of birth, adoption, or court order.
2. All parents of children in member states must show due regard to their rights and responsibilities as parents. In particular, they must:
   1. ensure that the physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs of those children are met,
   2. ensure appropriate contact and relationship with those children, and
   3. 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.
3. Member States must respect the rights of the child, in particular, it must enshrine:
   1. ensure children are empowered to state their views,
   2. faciliate the right to social and familial relationships,
   3. guarntee the right to education, as to meet individual need,
   4. ensure protection from harm and exploitation,
   5. faciliate social and other developmental pursuits,
   6. commit to ending child poverty.
4. Member states must establish child welfare services, which shall:
   1. intervene where they have a reasonable belief that parents have failed to discharge their Section 2 duties, or to assist in Section 3 duties
   2. transfer a child to a safe location where they can prove significant likelihood that the failure of that child's parent(s) to discharge their Section 2 duties poses a significant risk to that child's life or development,
   3. never take any child away from their parents except in the course of a Section 4B transfer,
   4. robustly assess children and their immediate family members where those children are affected by a Section 4A intervention or Section 4B transfer,
   5. seek to work with such children and their parent(s) voluntarily (subject to Section 5C) and with as little restrictive intervention as possible, while also taking into account the expressed views of those children (with due regard to their maturity as assessed by welfare services, or by a specialist medical practitioner or judge) when making decisions,
   6. protect and support the development (including the care, guidance, and protection) of all children, whether or not they are affected by a Section 4A intervention, and
   7. ensure that their employees are qualified to discharge their duties, including by requiring them to adhere to an ethical code of conduct.
5. Member States shall ensure the welfare of the child is protected through the legal system, which:
   1. must ensure the full representation of that child, in particular by:
      1. involving the child in the decision-making process with due regard to their age and maturity,
      2. allowing that child to express their views and have them considered when decisions are made (with due regard to their maturity) unless excused to protect their psychological welfare or due to their inability to understand, and
      3. allowing that child to request and use the services of a lawyer or advocate at no cost to them or their parent(s),
   2. must adopt their rulings with enough swiftness to avoid harm to the child, having due regards for the best interests in the child, and in order to adopt the least restrictive means of harm reduction possible,
   3. act as an arbitrator in regards to Section 3,
   4. may require parents to co-operate with those child welfare services defined in Section 4, and such services to use all resources at their disposal to serve the best interests of the child,
   5. shall permit all rulings to be appealed to any higher courts that may exist, and
   6. may only remove any of a parent's rights with respect to any of their children if:
      1. it can be shown that the continued exercise of the targeted rights by that parent would beyond reasonable doubt cause significant harm to their children,
      2. all voluntary and less restrictive means of harm reduction have been exhausted, and
      3. the children and their parent(s) are informed about the rights that have been removed and the duration of their removal.

Outer Sparta wrote:The WA definitely isn't for everybody, but at least you gave it a go.

The Order of Makai wrote:Oh goodie, yet another Tinhampton proposal, opposed... Wait a minute that title is alarming, lets read over it...

...

You people really don't have any self-awareness do you? Did you read about the Stolen Generations and think that true Stolen Generations have never really been tried like your exalted idols of communism and socialism? What's next on the agenda? A Two Children Maximum policy? Or are you going to take the next logical step and abolish parenthood in your Brave New World? If you think I'm being unfair in this extrapolation, please self-reflect first, please consider that your progressive kind has been predictable in the pushing of any and all boundaries in the name of "progress" through constricting legislation and micromanagement of things which should never be handled by the souless state, just look at Mainland Taiwan (China) if you want to see your future.

Telgan Alpha wrote:As edited \ amended on 18 of December 2021 to highlight new version - new Section 3, as well as, we hope, fixes the legal challenge.

Debating if strength changes from Sig to sstrong.

Any comment welcome, especially in regards to any possible legal challenge.


CURRENT / NEW version:


Understanding that children require care, guidance, and protection as they grow and develop.

Disappointed, therefore, that the rights of children have seen relatively insufficient protection from this body compared to other protected groups (despite the laudable advances delivered by GA#4 "Restrictions on Child Labor," GA#222 "Prevention of Child Abuse" and GA#297 "Child Welfare in Adoption" in these regards).

Convinced that an international, universal standard of parental rights and responsibilities, in addition to the rights of the child will act as a defence of child welfare.

Further seeking to establish the best interests of the child, least restrictive intervention, and the reciprocity of intervention as the guiding principles of child welfare.

Hoping that the aforementioned standards and principles - as well as measures to establish child welfare services and access to justice in times of absolute necessity - will provide a solid foundation for the welfare of children everywhere.

The World Assembly hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in force, enacts the following:

1. In this resolution:
   1. a "child" is defined as any person under the age of majority, and
   2. a "parent" is defined as any person who currently looks after any child as a consequence of birth, adoption, or court order.
2. All parents of children in member states must show due regard to their rights and responsibilities as parents. In particular, they must:
   1. ensure that the physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs of those children are met,
   2. ensure appropriate contact and relationship with those children, and
   3. 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.
3. Member States must respect the rights of the child, in particular, it must enshrine:
   1. ensure children are empowered to state their views,
   2. faciliate the right to social and familial relationships,
   3. guarntee the right to education, as to meet individual need,
   4. ensure protection from harm and exploitation,
   5. faciliate social and other developmental pursuits,
   6. commit to ending child poverty.
4. Member states must establish child welfare services, which shall:
   1. intervene where they have a reasonable belief that parents have failed to discharge their Section 2 duties, or to assist in Section 3 duties
   2. transfer a child to a safe location where they can prove significant likelihood that the failure of that child's parent(s) to discharge their Section 2 duties poses a significant risk to that child's life or development,
   3. never take any child away from their parents except in the course of a Section 4B transfer,
   4. robustly assess children and their immediate family members where those children are affected by a Section 4A intervention or Section 4B transfer,
   5. seek to work with such children and their parent(s) voluntarily (subject to Section 5C) and with as little restrictive intervention as possible, while also taking into account the expressed views of those children (with due regard to their maturity as assessed by welfare services, or by a specialist medical practitioner or judge) when making decisions,
   6. protect and support the development (including the care, guidance, and protection) of all children, whether or not they are affected by a Section 4A intervention, and
   7. ensure that their employees are qualified to discharge their duties, including by requiring them to adhere to an ethical code of conduct.
5. Member States shall ensure the welfare of the child is protected through the legal system, which:
   1. must ensure the full representation of that child, in particular by:
      1. involving the child in the decision-making process with due regard to their age and maturity,
      2. allowing that child to express their views and have them considered when decisions are made (with due regard to their maturity) unless excused to protect their psychological welfare or due to their inability to understand, and
      3. allowing that child to request and use the services of a lawyer or advocate at no cost to them or their parent(s),
   2. must adopt their rulings with enough swiftness to avoid harm to the child, having due regards for the best interests in the child, and in order to adopt the least restrictive means of harm reduction possible,
   3. act as an arbitrator in regards to Section 3,
   4. may require parents to co-operate with those child welfare services defined in Section 4, and such services to use all resources at their disposal to serve the best interests of the child,
   5. shall permit all rulings to be appealed to any higher courts that may exist, and
   6. may only remove any of a parent's rights with respect to any of their children if:
      1. it can be shown that the continued exercise of the targeted rights by that parent would beyond reasonable doubt cause significant harm to their children,
      2. all voluntary and less restrictive means of harm reduction have been exhausted, and
      3. the children and their parent(s) are informed about the rights that have been removed and the duration of their removal.

The Canadian Republic Colonies wrote:The definition of parent is far too restrictive. Leaves out people who have used surrogates, invitro, artificial insemination, etc. And allows for far too much ambiguity. Within the lines is a very likely potential of discrimination, failure to recognize those who care for children without needing a court order to "declare" them a parent. They are a parent legally. It also leaves open the possibility then of a surrogate or sperm donor to be held.legally liable as if they are a parent when they are not at that point.

Draconisisia wrote:I would like to introduce this act, but I need another endorsement.
<snip>

Indo States wrote:I think i can propose a repeal for "The Children Act", but i do not think it would be the same situation as this one, and i do not know which parts of this resolution was considered opposed by the majority of the wa members and delegates.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Indo States wrote:I think i can propose a repeal for "The Children Act", but i do not think it would be the same situation as this one, and i do not know which parts of this resolution was considered opposed by the majority of the wa members and delegates.

I don't know how you would propose a repeal, insofar as nothing was passed.

Indo States wrote:i am not proposing a repeal, but i am looking forward too in the future, and i am hoping that someone would repeal this, even if i would not make a repeal on this resolution. Highly unlikely that there would be no repeal for this one, as it contains nothing. just wishing for this proposal.