The
best interests of the child language in Article 7 of the U.N. disability
rights treaty, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), is
one of the issues that separates some supporters and opponents of the CRPD.
Our Constitution says the
Senate must advise and consent on treaties.
Ratification has several steps. First, in the case of the CRPD, the State
Department, working with other departments, did an analysis and determined that
the CRPD was consistent with our Constitution and our laws and prepared a
report for the President. The State Department also outlined reservations, understandings, and
declarations, called RUDs, in
areas or on issues where the U.S. should choose to be more specific or special
in its interpretation of the CRPD.
The President reviewed the report and sent a transmittal package, also called a
ratification package, to the Senate (May 2012). Second, the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations reviewed the package, had a hearing (July 2012) and voted on
the package. Third, since a majority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
voted for it, the ratification package was put up for a vote by all Senators
(December 2012). Both in the Committee on Foreign Relations and then when all
Senators voted, amendments to the package were offered. Those that passed
became part of the final ratification package.
At least 67 Senators must vote for
a ratification package in order for a treaty to be ratified. The final vote on
the CRPD fell five short of 67. With a new Congress being sworn in January
2013, there is a second opportunity for the CRPD ratification package to be
considered, possibly amended, and voted on in the fall of 2013.
If supporters and opponents of CRPD
reach a common understanding of what Article 7 does and does not mean, we will
be one step closer to ratification this time around. It will help us all if we
take the time to read the words in original documents – first, in the CRPD and second, in the ratification package.
Here’s exactly what Article
7 of the CRPD says:
Article 7
Children with disabilities
1. States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full
enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms on an equal basis with other children.
2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best
interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the
right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views
being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal
basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and
age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 is where
strong views emerge. Many parents who homeschool their children with
disabilities believe that if the CRPD is ratified, paragraph 2 will give the
government, and some believe the U.N., the power to decide where and how their
children are educated. Supporters of the CRPD do not believe that is what
paragraph 2 means.
In the U.S. the best interests of
the child is in the hands of parents. In limited circumstances where a state
court determines that a child has been abused, neglected, abandoned, or
abducted unlawfully according to state law the state court can remove a
child from its parent(s) and make decisions for the child. This never happens
in situations that deal only with educational matters.
The ratification package the
President sent to the Senate includes three reservations. One of the
reservations deals with federalism, the division of authority between the
federal and state governments.
Federalism. To the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over issues covered by the
convention, U.S. obligations under the convention are limited to the U.S. government taking measures appropriate to the
federal system, such as enforcement under the ADA, with the ultimate objective of full implementation of the convention.
So if the Senate ratifies the CRPD,
state laws would not be impacted or need to be changed unless a state’s
legislature decides to amend them.
After reading this blog post, if
you still have concerns perhaps you should approach a bipartisan group of
Senators about what could be stated in the final ratification package to give
more detail about what “the best interests of the child” means.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
No comments:
Post a Comment