Faith groups helping parents reclaim kids from gov’t?

Sunday, March 20, 2016
 | 
Michael F. Haverluck (OneNewsNow.com)

gavel with stethoscopeChristian organizations in Scotland are helping parents in a final courtroom battle in the United Kingdom Supreme Court to regain their children from the government’s control — which has been exercised over every child from birth to age 18.

This could be the last chance they have they have to stop the government in its tracks before the law hits the point of no return.

The law that has been enforced since last August was approved in 2014 in an alleged attempt to “streamline child welfare policies,” but parents see it as a blatant power grab over their authority to raise their children as they see fit without undue government interference.

Aiden O’Neil, who is serving as an attorney opposing the continued implementation of the law points out that “named person” assigned by the government as a child’s state guardian is essentially granted access to not only school records, but to legal and medical records, as well. 

To put the true nature of the law into perspective, O’Neil explained that the law requires a girl’s doctor who prescribes her birth control to tell the state’s “named person” — but not her parents.

Christian Institute Director Colin Hart contends that the problematic law leaves parents no choice.

"[The Children and Young People Act is] an insult to the fundamental rights of mums and dads to bring up their children the way they see fit,” Hart argues. “This is a compulsory scheme. There is no way for parents to opt [their children] out..."

Hart and other Christian organizations involved in the lawsuit, including CARE, the TYMES Trust, and the Family Education Trust, are appealing to do away with the act that undermines parental rights, arguing that it violates the existing privacy law for parents and takes away the constitutional rights of parents over their own children.

Help or hindrance?

However, a representative of the Scottish government claims that the state is not introducing unfamiliar faces into families’ lives and that the newly introduced person acts as a positive agent in a child’s life.

“The named person isn’t someone new or unknown,” the state’s spokesperson insisted, according to the Herald Scotland. “It is a person who is already working with the child and family, and simply strengthens that strong relationship.”

Such a reassurance has not changed most parents’ minds about the law, as Worldmag.com reports that a significant percentage of Scottish adults do not view the act in a positive light.

“A newspaper poll found that almost half of all Scots are opposed to the new law — less than a third support it,” the Christian publication revealed. “Implementation of the law is stalled until the Supreme Court rules in the next few months.”

Buttressing negative thoughts on the matter —alongside Christian groups, parents and about 50 percent of parents — is the No to Named Person (NNP) campaign, which highlights two main points against the intrusive law.

"There are two sinister ideas behind this — the first is that parents cannot raise children without professional help provided by the State — that for children to grow up to be successful Scottish adults, there must be early intervention by the government," a spokesperson from the campaign told LifeSiteNews. "The second and more sinister idea is that every parent is a potential child abuser, that there is much more abuse going on than ever gets made public, and the only way to prevent this is by this early intervention by the State."

Yet Social Work Scotland President Alistair Gaw argues that a “named person” is every child’s entitlement and that the controversial act focuses help on those who need it.

"Social work is a targeted service — not all children need it,” Gaw said, insisting that children are the responsibility of several different state agencies that need one person to tie information about the specified child together so that everyone’s on the same page.”

Not agreeing with the Scottish government’s justifications behind the law — which has been in effect for approximately half a year — campaigns opposing the state’s intrusion into family life believe that they will have the final word with the judges against the state’s defense of the act when the matter is resolved this summer by the U.K.’s highest court.

“[The Children and Young People Act] really drives a horse and carriage between parents and their children," the NNP spokesperson concluded, insisting that no government agency or outside person should be permitted to intervene — uninvited — in a sacred relationship that has been honored for millennia around the world.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

What would cause the most political damage in the first presidential debate Monday night?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Trump's unconventional debate prep skips mock debates
  Police: Shooting in Baltimore, 'multiple' people injured
Sex abuse, bullying probe roils US Merchant Marine Academy
  Latest: Pence praises Cruz's decision to back Trump

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Hunt on for gunman who killed 5, including 4 women, at Washington mall
Military leaders: No one asked our advice on Iranian hostage payment
Whoops! Hillary cancels planned trip to Charlotte after mayor begs her to stay home
Save North Korean Refugees Day: 24 Chinese embassies face protests for repatriating defectors to their death
Trump's debate strategy: Let Clinton talk

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day

REASON & COMPANY

NEXT STORY
Split court ruling favors unions - for now

lawsuit gavel with moneyLabor unions are celebrating a win at the U.S. Supreme Court but the teachers who lost the case may get another chance in the future.