Again, every aspect of
this nationwide initiative has been carefully conceived and planned for
years...
The following is just a quick way of providing a glimpse into the
plan.
(FROM AN EMAIL, WITH ANY PRIVATE NAMES REDACTED TO
PROTECT THE PARTIES' IDENTITIES...)
We are *not* affiliated with David (Levy) and his
CRC chapters/agenda, and completely agree with your proferring that parents
rights are Constitutionally, statutorily, morally, ethically,
and inherently superior to any so-called "rights" of the state, and
likewise to any so-called "rights" of the children themselves - who often do not
have a clue as to what is actually good for them in the first place (although
your daughter would apparently be one of the exceptions). That's why we are
parents, and that's the bottom line.
Accordingly, we are not, and will not, OFFICIALLY
involve the Childrens Rights Council, or any of their children's rights
"issues", in what we are doing. While we emphatically believe that ALL natural
FIT parents should, and must, have absolutely equal opportunity
to be active, willing, and supporting role models in their children's lives,
this is probably where the "commonality" between our initiative and the ideals
of the CRC realm ends abruptly...
The state cannot be allowed to interpose itself
upon our families as able to think and decide better than natural fit parents,
in regards to custody or anything else, with only very few exceptions that are
obvious and acceptable, including serious abuse, neglect, and etc. Again, these
kinds of situations are relatively rare, as compared to all custody
disputes between parents that are divorcing, are already divorced,
or likewise between the parents under unwed and/or paternity
situations. The various theoretical arguments you raised are supportive to
our beliefs as well that the state cannot normally inflict its will upon
families and the fundamental parent-child relationship, especially under the
theory that the state, by supporting any of a child's assumed "superior"
rights over the parents themselves, could decide the fate of the child against
the natural wishes and desires of either or both of the child's
parents.
Further, we do not, and will not, condone or
abdicate that ALL natural parents, and simply *because* they are biological
parents, should or must have equal rights to custody, care, control and
management of the child or children. Conversely, all natural parents should be
afforded the *opportunity* with which to prove themselves equally fit as
providers and supporters of their children, and if THAT is established, then
that their corresponding rights should be vindicated. The case in which one of
the parents clearly demonstrates animosity or other harmful issues - such as
your son's mother had done before - is precisely the variable that would prevent
that particular parent from obtaining full and equal rights to custody, care,
control and managment of the child or children in that family...
The above portions were included in response to the following email, which
gives a clear understanding of why giving children rights as even equal
decision-makers is a trojan-horse affair at best...