Human Rights in the Context of Children, Custody and Child Support

Children's rights in the context of divorce or any other situation are not something that come and go. To be a "right" what is under discussion must have the following attributes:

1. It must imbue in the person at birth (or, some would argue, at conception) - that is, it is endowed from our Creator. This is true whether or not you are religious.
2. It must be equally applicable to all persons, regardless of race, gender, location, familial status or age. That is, a right does not disappear because you turned 10, 18, 21, or some other magical age, because you moved out of your parent's house, or got married.
3. It must be able to be concretely defined in both the abstract and, from the abstract, in any instant case, and that definition must hold for all persons equally.
4. It must not be able to be removed from a person except after conviction for a criminal offense.

The last is critically important. For a right to be a right, and not a privilege or a duty, it must be something you are entitled to unless you violate one or more of someone else's rights. In fact, the Constitution and Declaration of Independance, along with the Federalist Papers and other writings of the time, enumerate many of these rights and make clear the distinction between a right, a privilege, and a duty.

The Declaration of Indpendance and Federalist papers do not have the force of law - but in this case they DO NOT HAVE TO, since rights do not flow from the force of law - they flow from our creator.

As such a government may only RECOGNIZE rights. It cannot bestow them. It also cannot, in an ethical and moral government, remove them UNLESS it can show beyond a reasonable doubt that you violated someone else's rights, and that removal constitutes part, or all of the punishment meted out to you for that offense after due process of law has been applied.

This is the entire foundation upon which our country rests. If we abdicate this foundation, we simply are no longer a free society. We will not be the government, or the people, that our forefathers fought and died for.

We are less.

We are a mockery of the guiding light that has led to the most successful nation in the history of the world, and its time that you, I, and the rest of the decent people in this land put a stop to it. 220 years ago the founders of our country fought with swords, guns and knives over this very issue. They DIED over this very issue.

The British government at the time refused to recognize several of the rights that we hold to be precious and emdowed from our creator - including the right to have, maintain, and utilize the work product from our own hands as WE deem fit - not as someone else deems fit.

The UN today, along with others, recognize a basic human right to food, shelter and clothing. They recognize a more tenuous basic human right to "education", which is, unfortunately, too nebulous to nail down (Elementary education? Secondary? Doctoral?) and therefore void upon the basic principles above. Some day one would hope that agreement on what "education" means will be forthcoming and we can add that one to the list (I would argue that it is the basics of literacy, but they may have something more in mind.)

However, the basic human right to food, shelter and clothing is recognized. That's the standard known as "basic needs". Since a child is present through the actions of their parents, the duty to protect that child's rights falls upon the parents first - and society only if the parents are UNABLE to fulfill their obligation. This is the basis upon which AFDC, WIC, and other similar programs rest (that child have basic human rights), and for that reason these programs, while unpopular with some, are sound. It is also the basis upon which a government may impose "child support" requirements upon a parent who attempts to flee his or her own direct obligation of support - to attempt to insure that the child's RIGHTS are not abrogated.

However, note that a just government is required to protect these rights EVEN IF THE PARENTS DISAPPEAR OR DIE, and as such the imposition of the duty against the will of one or both parents is a remedial, and not a protective, step.

This leads to the next point - these rights DO NOT EVAPORATE AT AGE 18! That is, if you are UNABLE to support yourself with basic food, shelter and clothing, society STILL has an obligation to help you out.

What society does NOT have an obligation to do is make you comfortable, especially when the definition of "comfort" rests with someone else rather than objective criteria.

Society further has the right to expect of you your contribution to society in exchange for the protection of your rights, since it is upon that contribution that your protection rests (without it, you have no protection, as there is no society if everyone abdicates on their responsibility to help fund or otherwise provide for it).

Thus, to impose a requirement that you assist, to your ability, in some way the betterment of society (ie: picking up trash along the roadside) to obtain that food, clothing and shelter is reasonable. To insure that you actually GET food, clothing and shelter (as opposed to money, which you could then spend on booze, drugs, lotto tickets) is also reasonable, as your rights do not extend to booze, drugs and lotto tickets.

Now, how does all this fit into the current mess? Simple - you can't assess "child support" for other than these same basic needs. That is, you can't decree that one child is entitled to more than another as a matter of law, because doing so violates the principle that in protecting one person's rights, you cannot violate another's - EXCEPT as remediation for a prior violation by the party you are imposing the penalty against. It is further impermissible in that a child from a wealthy set of parents is entitled to, as a matter of human rights, no more or less than a child from poor parents!

Further, you can't assess child support at all unless you can show and prove that it really is, in fact being spent on the needs of the children. The first time the recipient buys a lotto ticket, a six pack of beer, or a new BMW for themself, they have abrogated their duty to society - their sacred duty - of protecting the children in their care.

None of this means that you can't spend more on your kids. Lots of people do, and for tht they should be applauded. However, it DOES mean that to COMPEL you to spend more is flatly unconstitutional, in that it is a bald-faced violation of the PARENT'S inalienable human rights to confiscate the fruits of their minds and hands for nothing other than punitive reasons - when no crime has first been committed.

In the days of fault divorce this might have been justifyable, in that the person who did the wrong, and was adjudicated to have done so, could presumably be punished for their transgression.

However, in the world of no-fault today, divorce SPECIFICALLY disclaims wrong-doing - and as such, you can't "fine" someone when they haven't first committed a crime!