The Home School Legal Defense Association says that even though the US has never ratified the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child, the fact that US judges are now citing international law as precedent could lead the convention's provisions becoming binding.
According to a new "interpretation" of what is known as "customary international law," some U.S. judges have ruled that, even though the U.S. Senate and President have never ratified the Convention, it is still binding on American parents. "In the 2002 case of Beharry v. Reno, one federal court said that even though the Convention was never ratified, it still has an 'impact on American law'," Farris explained. "The fact that virtually every other nation in the world has adopted it has made it part of customary international law, and it means that it should be considered part of American jurisprudence."
And what does the convention say that could threaten parents' rights? Plenty, and it's not just home schooling being threatened.
Article 14 of the convention guarantees children "freedom of thought, conscience and religion," which means they have a legal right to object to all religious instruction or indoctrination. Article 15 gives them a "freedom of association," which could mean that parents are not allowed to forbid them from associating with bad influences. With regard to home schooling, the UK was deemed "out of compliance" with the convention for allowing parents to remove their children from public school sex-education classes without consulting the child."
The Supreme Court's precedent
politics, homeschooling, courts, precedent, United Nations, Supreme Court