Who should have the authority in relation to a child’s welfare?
Most mums and dads would be confident in asserting no one loves their children or is more invested in their children than they are.
As the wise saying goes, “Blood is thicker than water.”
The bond between parent and child is strong and lifelong. It is not transitory. It is a deep, profound, and, yes, sometimes fraught relationship. But it is enduring.
Fractured relationships along life’s path are usually remedied within family units because of that instinctive bond.
Time is taken to transport children to early morning sports or from parties—it’s all part of a parent’s role and usually willingly undertaken.
In every possible way, children are a parent’s most consuming investment, not only in monetary terms but also in time and emotion. The investment is all-consuming and borne out of the natural love and affection mums and dads have for their own flesh and blood.
So when children are entrusted to teachers, the Latin legal expression of “loco parentis” is used to signify the teacher for that period of time is in the place of the parent—an awesome (in the word’s true meaning) responsibility.
When the child comes home from school, the parents are not in “loco teacheris.”
This is tantamount to misleading. It is, in fact, an outright breach of the teacher’s loco parentis responsibility.
A child’s feelings, consideration, and wishes in such a sensitive and life-altering matter need to be shared with mum and dad. After all, mum and dad spend more time with their child than a teacher or school.
The State Now Interfering in the Child-Parent Bond
For a teacher, care of a child is a job, and they must do it with the utmost professionalism. But it is a job for which they deservedly receive remuneration.For parents, it is a lifetime commitment that comes with substantial costs and sacrifices willingly provided. It is a genuinely different dynamic.
There should be no misunderstanding by any government or education department that while schooling is a vital part of a child’s development and socialisation, the parent is the primary caregiver and should not be deliberately deprived of information impacting the child’s future.
Yet, in a tortured misinterpretation of human rights, it is asserted teachers need to withhold from parents a child’s wishes if they wish to be addressed by a new pronoun or are considering a gender change.
Changing an academic course for a child rightly involves the parents, while changing a child’s gender is seemingly less momentous.
It is frustratingly obvious to any parent, which is the more important and needs their involvement.
Those falsely claiming “human rights” considerations to deliberately and cruelly withhold such information from parents would be well advised to fully acquaint themselves with the full suite of human rights documents and conventions, in particular, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC).
The Convention, designed to specifically protect our children, states in unambiguous language in Article 5 that governments should respect the rights and responsibilities of families to direct and guide their children.
It does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and gives more authority to governments. Rather it places on the government the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children.
Education departments would do well to understand that responsibility. Failure to do so will see parents and children rightly suing teachers and departments for the foreseeable devastating consequences of their wilful withholding of such information.
Further, elected leaders must take control of their departments and reinstate the rightful role of parents in the welfare of children.
