Frequently Asked Questions

Why is a constitutional amendment necessary? Are there instances when parental rights are being violated? 
While parental rights are generally recognized and respected today, instances of unnecessary governmental intrusion in family life are on the rise. Moreover, shifting views within the Supreme Court – which has consistently preserved parental rights for over eighty years – are resulting in a quiet departure from the traditionally upheld parental rights doctrine.

If the Supreme Court has consistently supported parental rights, then why a constitutional amendment? 
The winds of change are blowing in the Supreme Court. Today, it is likely that a majority on the Supreme Court would not favor parental rights – not because they don’t believe in them, but because these rights are not explicitly protected in the text of the United States Constitution. In Troxel v. Granville (2000), the last major parental rights case heard by the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, a supporter of parental rights, voted to deny parental rights the status of an enforceable constitutional right. Why? Like others, Scalia cited a mounting belief that no right can be protected by the federal courts unless explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Would the Parental Rights Amendment provide parental protections even in situations of abuse or neglect? 
No. The language of the amendment was specifically written to preserve parental rights, while carefully protecting children who are in danger of abuse or neglect. By ensuring that the government can still intervene in family relationships to protect at-risk children by “demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order,” the Parental Rights Amendment secures the child-parent relationship while protecting children from abuse and neglect.

What is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)? 
An international treaty that empowers government to intrude upon the child-parent relationship, in what is purportedly the 'best interest of the child.'  In essence, the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents—when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause.

Why should we be concerned about it? 
This seemingly harmless treaty with dangerous implications for American families is quickly approaching possible ratification by the United States Senate.  Thus, preservation of Parental Rights will require a Constitutional Amendment fortifying Parental Rights.

What would happen if the Senate ratifies this treaty? How would it be applied? 
If this treaty is made binding upon our country, the government would have the power to intervene in any child's life to advance its definition of "the best interests of the child."  Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in "the best interest of the child."

Is this a partisan issue? 
Neither side has a monopoly on protecting families and ensuring that parents have the necessary resources to raise their children in a nurturing environment. The Parental Rights Amendment ensures that parental rights are protected now, and for future generations.