America and Somalia are the only two countries in the world who have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (unable to post link, I'm a newbie). I had not made it past the third article and could see two nonsense reasons why it can't be taken seriously. Article one assumes the age eighteen determines the difference between child and adult, as if an adult can not be young, or that all adolescences are children. The definition is overly vague and their purposes are certainly unscientific. Here is the exact wording: Instead, adulthood should be based upon emancipation, because emancipation is a concept based on the ability of a person to care for one self independently without the need of a parent. This commonly happens between the ages of 12-16 (unless there exists intellectual disabilities) but doesn't spontaneously appear suddenly after 18 rotations around the sun, as the language of the article assumes. The next piece of nonsense I found (and then quit reading further) was the first part of Article 3: What could possibly be wrong with this some may say? Well, using the "the best interests of the child" has proven to be the biggest exploitative philosophy for the family court system in America. In America, "the best interests of the child" has been used to allow prejudice, preference and discrimination of one parent's way of life or values against another parent to justify the selling of custody of a child to biological parents, aka, "child human trafficing". It is human trafficing because of the fact: A parent's right to parent does not exist in America until the parent purchases their child from the courts. The only thing that should ever change a 50% natural right to parent is a serious crime. But, if you are gay, a stripper, a yeller, dirty house keeper, atheist or theist, pot smoker, owe parking tickets, work as a manager at taco bell, you can be directly or indirectly discriminated against and loose your 50% right to parent. If you remove anything that is non-criminal from a custody dispute, then we'd have a lot of broke family lawyers and lot's of parents who would not need to purchase their children. Most parents who do interfere now, do interfere only because it's legal to kidnap and lawyers make money because the other parent must then purchase their child (not only child trafficing comes to mind but ransom does to). If prejudice and preference couldn't be used ("what they actual use as the "best interests") then parental kidnapping would finally become a felony. And felonies under a reasonable non-preference, non-prejudiced system would be allowable as reasons to change 50% custody. Most parents would not play a game and the child and parent wins, and the money can go to the family, not scurrilous lawyers in a time of crisis, when families are the ones who really need it most. America uses nonsense, prejudice and preference so they can sell the rights any old arbitrary way and the determine what "the child's best interests" are, although no crime exists. We don't need to ratify more exploitation of children in the name of "the best interests of the child" It raises taxes and has bastardized many children in America. This not only costs the family, but it's very expensive for the nation. Taxes are raised, productivity goes down and social problems and child abuse increases. So no to ratification, American already is bad enough to children. Here is a link (change the xx to tt, I am restricted from posting links until I make 20 posts) hxxp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
