The English law going by the policy of 'best interest of the child' in deciding matters concerning children and their welfare. The policy has been in place following the abuse of parents and guardians of their own wards and hence seeks to protect the children from any and every sort of abuse. However, the recent deaths of two infants in a span of one year, which also generated a lot of debate in the media and in real life, hint at a loophole in this otherwise efficient policy.
The question one needs to ask when seeking the best interests of the child is, who decides what is best for the child? Unfortunately this is where the law falters. It certainly does not consider the child itself as the best 'interpretor' of its own welfare. So who is the ultimate adjudicator? The law 'assumes' that it is the one. However, this self-claim is not without a double-face. In reality it takes on this role only in 'controversial cases'. Any normal person will understand that the parents of the child are the ones who'd be the first in interpreting what is best for the child. Hence this right is of the parents. The law should intervene only and only in cases where the parents have repeatedly proved themselves incapable of making sound judgements towards the wellbeing of their child. Not once in a way mistakes but repeated lapses.
If parents are not awarded this right to be the primary interpretors of the best interests of the child then the law should take it upon itself the welfare of every child; each and every one, not just one stray or 'controversial' case. Thus the law should makes sure the child gets the best education - that would imply there that there is only one school in the whole neighbourhood - only the best. Because it cannot be partial to some by sending them to some lesser standard source of education and favourable to others by getting them into some 'grammar school'. So too in each and every decision involving the well being of the child, the law should have a say - not the parents.
(In the English culture, that the child itself is not considered capable of making 'right' decisions for itself, is not a surprising fact... but the fact that it gradually is given the skills to learn the criteria and that potential respected, is better placed than in some other parts of the world.)
The question one needs to ask when seeking the best interests of the child is, who decides what is best for the child? Unfortunately this is where the law falters. It certainly does not consider the child itself as the best 'interpretor' of its own welfare. So who is the ultimate adjudicator? The law 'assumes' that it is the one. However, this self-claim is not without a double-face. In reality it takes on this role only in 'controversial cases'. Any normal person will understand that the parents of the child are the ones who'd be the first in interpreting what is best for the child. Hence this right is of the parents. The law should intervene only and only in cases where the parents have repeatedly proved themselves incapable of making sound judgements towards the wellbeing of their child. Not once in a way mistakes but repeated lapses.
If parents are not awarded this right to be the primary interpretors of the best interests of the child then the law should take it upon itself the welfare of every child; each and every one, not just one stray or 'controversial' case. Thus the law should makes sure the child gets the best education - that would imply there that there is only one school in the whole neighbourhood - only the best. Because it cannot be partial to some by sending them to some lesser standard source of education and favourable to others by getting them into some 'grammar school'. So too in each and every decision involving the well being of the child, the law should have a say - not the parents.
(In the English culture, that the child itself is not considered capable of making 'right' decisions for itself, is not a surprising fact... but the fact that it gradually is given the skills to learn the criteria and that potential respected, is better placed than in some other parts of the world.)
No comments:
Post a Comment