Articles Book III - Pg 300-560 (Birthparents) - triadoption

child to a family taking precodonce over tho
child's individual rights, we are going to be
cr~ticized for interfering in the movement
for children's rights. Although it is obvious
from my own personal history, and from
tho work in Warrendolo and Browndale,
that we have always been the champions
of children's rights, but we have always
soon children's rights as being, of necossity,
within tho framework of the family,
not separate from the family. Evidence of
this is tho present situation whero the legal
rights for children organization recently
started in Ontario has been unable to idontify
itself with the Browndale movement
which not only fought tor childran's rights
but established services that rnake
children's rights meaningful.
I cannot think of anything more harmful to
children., or to families and to society in
general, than to have children's rights
championed separately from family rights.
Within an adversary legal system, where
there has to be a contest, rather than a
resolution of differences, the child, tho
family and society lose. In a situation
where tho child stands on one side and the
rest of the family stands on the other, fattening
the pocket books of the lawyers
who represent them, they become implacable
adversaries and it is impossible for
a resolution of the problem to occur. Our
social ordor is threatened when children
and families are alienated, or treated as
though they are separato entities. Let the
legal rights for children people first address
themselves to improving the social ordor
that weakens and corrupts families, that
victirliizes us all, rather than fragment
cliildren even lnoro from their families.
What children and families need is a sup.
portivo mediator of some kind. Because the
intere!;ts of the child and the interests of
the family overlap. At birth they overlap
100 per cent, at legal ago rnaybo only 20
per cent. But tho interests of members of
tlie famlly always overlap lo some uxtent.
Within the adversary legal system.
everyone acts as though that isn't true, as
though lar rents and cli~ldron are true adver.
saries, whun the most important thing that
characterizes fnnrily members is not their
opposition to one another but the things
they have in commori, the needs that overlap.
This fact is illustrated most horribly in situ.
ations tliat involve families 01 our minority
groups. Children's nervicos are generally
calloused against minority groups anyway
- ignorant concerning them, belligerent
and antagonistic toward them. It is easy for
people to say that children should not have
to put up with drinking in the family, for
examplo, that they should be protected
from that. And so wo remove children from
families whero there is the deepest love.
belonging and alfection that you could
possibly have between parents arid
children. In an adversary legal system it is
possible, under tho pretext of children's
rights, for a child lo lose the most precious
thing he will ever experience in his lifetime.
the closeness, love and commitment of his
parents.
The family may have all kinds of problems,
but where can you replace a mother's or
father's lovo for and commitment to their
child? We don't find replacements for this
love and commitment in the alternatives
tliat we offer these children. ITlie professionals
treat them objectively and work
6-hour shifts; the non-professionals.
struggling for professionalism, remain uninvolved
and work 8.hour shifts.1 What the
child needs is love and involvement. And
the existence of this lovo is far more impor.
tant than the fact that the father gets
drunk, or tho mother gets drunk, or even
that the child is neglected. If you deal with
the rights of children within the frame 01
reference of the family, you start with what
arc the essentials: the child has a right to
belonging and love: tlie child has a right to
Iiis history and roots: the child has a right to
tho kinship tliat is Iris and no one else's. All
ol these esseritials aro in danger of being
violated unless you make sure that tho
family is includod in (111 of our considerations.
We are often asked, if you believe so
slronyly that tho child's rlghts must be
FAMILY INVOLVEMENT