Fundamental Parental Rights and Family Preservation

Position

Origins-USA, Inc. advocates for the natural right of mothers and fathers to nurture their children and for keeping families together.  It is inherent in the law that progenitors, both mothers and fathers, have a right to parent, unless such right is terminated or voluntarily surrendered.

Every mother, regardless of marital status, age, financial condition, or physical limitations should receive the support she needs to nurture her children. Mothers and children should not be separated unless all efforts to keep them together have failed. Children separated from their mothers should be provided stable living arrangements that honor and maintain their connection to their family.

Supporting evidence

The success of any society depends on its ability to support women in bearing and nuturing their children. Throughout history cultures have honored this natural connection between mother and child through art, literature, and music.

Since its beginnings, American law has protected the right of parents to raise their children which can be abrogated only where necessary to protect the child.

“Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs.” (United States Supreme Court) Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982)

“The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14.” (Federal District Court in Michigan) Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan (1985).

“Short of preventing harm to the child, the standard of ‘best interest of the child’ is insufficient to serve as a compelling state interest overruling a parent's fundamental rights…. To suggest otherwise would be the logical equivalent to asserting that the state has the authority to break up stable families and redistribute its infant population to provide each child with the "best family." It is not within the province of the state to make significant decisions concerning the custody of children merely because it could make a ‘better’ decision.” (Supreme Court of Washington), In Re Custody of Smith, 969 P 2d 21, 30, 31 (1998)

The right of the child to be nurtured by his parents is likewise recognized. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child promulgated by the United Nations General Assembly in 1959 includes the following:

“The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of State and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.” (Principle 6, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/25.htm)

The cultural values which spawned these rights are affirmed by experts in the field of child welfare including the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform and the National Association of Social Workers. These organizations promote family preservation as the best way to care for children. (http://nccpr.org/; NASW Policy Statements on Foster Care and Adoption (20th Edition, 2006-09, p.165)

Conclusion