Thanks for the responses folks. It seems to me that you all conclude that parents have no rights at all. All we have is obligations and some conditional prerogatives that depend on our diligent fulfilment of our obligations. We retain our prerogatives only until some state authority decides we have failed to fulfil some obligation.

Would that be a reasonable summation of the collective view?

Dear Antiseptic,

No I don't agree with your summation.

The role of a parent is to protect their children
until they're old enough to make their own way in
the world. Parents do have rights regarding their
children which entail making
decisions about how they bring them up.
They have the right to make decisions about religion,
schooling, discipline, medical treatment and where
their child lives. The law allows parents pretty much
a free reign. It
allows parents the right to bring up their children according
to their own values and beliefs without interference - unless
the child's well being is at risk. Unless a child is being
mistreated, is not receiving education, is not allowed
medical treatment when it is needed and so on. Which is fair
enough. Every child deserves to be safe, to be treated
with affection, to be educated, to have medical care and
to be protected against cruelty and abuse. Parents do have
rights but let's not forget they also have responsibilities
to their children. It's part and parcel of being a parent.

.

Actually Anti, it's an interesting question.

The subject of education in the industrial world is doubly interesting as in the main "education" is not something that is handed down any longer from parents to children.
It may be seen as a right, for instance, to choose a school (and an obligation to oversee school attendance) but most parents wouldn't for a minute deem that they have a "right" to educate their children themselves. Of course, they do have that right - it's enshrined in state legislation. In my state, there are three categories of education legislated for - public, private and home education. Even so, I'm obliged to follow the state's curriculum and we have a visit from a moderator once a year (although it's no sweat as the curriculum comprises pretty well 'the bleedin' obvious" except it's couched in nebulous verbosity)

That would have to be one of the most black and white statements I have ever witnessed 579.

I have two questions 579.

Do you include alcohol in that ?.

And have you considered that there are people whom should never have parental rights or dominion over children, that has nothing whatsoever to do with drugs ?.

Religious extremists for example, or social interest lobbies.

Parental rights are a clouded area Anti, I for one am not exactly sure what they are these days.

Lexi:"They have the right to make decisions about religion,
schooling, discipline, medical treatment and where
their child lives."

Do they? Or do they simply have the choice of a few approved options?

If I were to decide to take my kids from school and go on the road would the state support me? It seems unlikely if the Qld education department website is any guide

http://education.qld.gov.au/everydaycounts/

"Every Day Counts promotes four key messages:

all children should be enrolled at school and attend on every school day
schools should monitor, communicate and implement strategies to improve regular school attendance
truanting can place a student in unsafe situations and impact on their future employability and life choices
attendance at school is the responsibility of everyone in the community."

What about discipline?

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs19/rs19.html

"The degree of physical punishment that a parent or carer can use with a child is subject to legal regulation in Australia. In most states and territories, corporal punishment by a parent or carer is lawful provided that it is carried out for the purpose of correction, control or discipline, and that it is "reasonable" having regard to:

the age of the child;
the method of punishment;
the child's capacity for reasoning (i.e., whether the child is able to comprehend correction/discipline); and
the harm caused to the child (Bourke, 1981).

Corporal punishment that results in bruising, marking or other injury lasting longer than a 24-hour period may be deemed to be "unreasonable" and thus classified as physical abuse."

Doesn't sound like there's any "right" there, just a list of proscriptions.

[cont]

Medical treatment?

http://www.kidslife.com.au/Page.aspx?ID=1047

"Recently a New Zealand couple was jailed for refusing medical treatment for their baby who ended up dying. Although an extreme situation, it has made many parents wonder exactly what their legal rights and responsibilities are.

As parents, our main duty is to meet our children's basic physical and emotional needs. Among other things this requires us to seek medical treatment for them when necessary.

Failure to do so can - in the most severe cases - lead to the child being taken into care and/or the parents being prosecuted."

No "rights" there as far as I can see.So, now to your last, where the child lives.

http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FLC/Home/Children%27s+Matters/Relocation+and+travel/

"Moving with the children to another town, state or country is known as relocation. If moving is going to limit the time the children live with or spend with a parent or another significant person in their lives, a court may not give permission."

No "right" there.

I don't dispute that children have some needs that have to be met, but I think parents are living in a fools paradise if they think they have any right to influence their child's upbrnging in any way that is unapproved by the State.

This, of course, is not a trend that is confined to parenting. Our lawmakers shy away from the unpredictable judgement of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" as a guide to reasonableness and are moving us toward heavy-handed regulation in all aspects of life. We are no longer free to do what is not prohibited, we are constrained to do only what is permitted.

That may suit you when what is permitted is in congruence with your desires, but what if a future regulation prohibits you from doing something you think important, or demands you do something you think will lead to a bad outcome? Will you be happy to defer to the demands of the State?