Should the legal rights of children be expanded?
By Kenneth Jost

Introduction

Hillary Rodham Clinton kindled sharp partisan debate last year when critics accused her of supporting the right of children to sue their parents. And the riveting Gregory Kingsley case in Florida stirred fears that children would go to court to divorce their parents. Children's advocates applauded Clinton's views and the Florida ruling, arguing that children often need independent representation and a greater voice in legal proceedings affecting their interests. But conservatives warned that greater legal rights for children threatened parental authority and traditional family values. Now, with Bill Clinton in the White House and Hillary Clinton at his side, conservatives worry that government involvement in family issues will expand. They are pressing for a return to traditional values as the best remedy for the ills besetting America's children.



Overview

Twenty years ago, an up-and-coming children's advocate called children's rights a slogan in search of definition. Revisiting the subject six years later, the Arkansas lawyer-activist saw significant progress in defining and achieving children's rights. But she called for still broader action, including a greater voice for children in court and a comprehensive national policy on children and families.
Today, Hillary Rodham Clinton is in a position to turn her writings from the early days of the children's rights movement into reality. As first lady, Clinton is the country's most prominent advocate of harnessing government in support of children's rights. Her influence is already being felt in the beginnings of a multifaceted children's initiative by the Clinton administration (see p. 354).

But Hillary Clinton's views have also touched off a sharp debate over the relationship between the government on the one hand and children and families on the other. Political and social conservatives see in Clinton's emphasis on children's rights a threat to parental authority and traditional family values. They say her views invite children to sue parents over such issues as bedtime, allowances or household chores. More broadly, they argue that the government's increased intervention in family affairs has harmed rather than helped children by contributing to the disintegration of social controls and traditional morality.

The debate over Clinton's views flared as Bill Clinton campaigned for the presidency last summer and fall. President George Bush and other Republican figures depicted her as out of the political and legal mainstream. Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have a right to sue their parents, Patrick J. Buchanan told the GOP national convention in Houston Aug. 17. And Hillary has compared marriage and the family as institutions to slavery and life on an Indian reservation. Her defenders responded that Clinton's views were neither radical nor anti-family. Anyone who fairly reads what Hillary Clinton wrote, in the context of her work over the last 20 years on behalf of children, would see how outrageous it is to suggest that she is a ‘kiddie-libber' hellbent on destroying the American family or encouraging crackpot suits by kids against their parents, said Robert Mnookin, a children's law expert at Stanford Law School.

Last July, a widely publicized court case in Florida gave shape to the critics' fears. A 12-year-old boy named Gregory Kingsley -- identified in court papers as Gregory K. -- sought and won permission to bring a lawsuit to divorce his biological parents and to be adopted by the foster parents who had cared for him for the previous nine months. In September, state Circuit Judge Thomas S. Kirk in Orlando granted the boy's wish, terminating his natural parents' rights and approving the adoption.
We hope it will not set a legal precedent in allowing children to sue their parents, said Caia Mockaitis, a spokeswoman for the conservative group Concerned Women for America. 2

Children's rights advocates responded to criticism of the case with two somewhat contradictory arguments. Many contended the case was not especially unusual. Transitional foster care followed by adoption, they said, is a common -- and intended -- outcome after children have been removed from their natural parents because of abuse or neglect. But some children's advocates also hailed the judge's ruling as an important precedent for giving greater attention and greater weight to children's views in such proceedings. People are much too ready to equate a child's interests with the interests of biological parents, said Elizabeth Bartholet, a professor of law at Harvard University. This case is likely to advance thinking about that.

With Bill Clinton in the White House and Hillary Clinton at his side, children's rights advocates had much to celebrate as the new year began. But they also faced the harsh reality of increased child poverty, family breakdowns and social tensions at a time when government programs to aid children were being pinched by budgetary constraints. The daunting task for children's rights advocates was to translate the widely shared rhetorical commitment to children into workable and effective policies to improve their lives.

Meanwhile, conservatives prepared to press their case for resisting government involvement in family issues and to urge a renewed emphasis on traditional values -- such as stable two-parent families -- as the best remedy for the ills besetting America's children.
Here are some of the major issues in the debate over children's legal rights: Have courts and legislatures in the U.S. gone too far -- or not far enough -- in recognizing legal rights for children?

Children's rights issues arise in an array of settings ranging from school desegregation and abortions for minors to juvenile justice and abuse and neglect cases. Since the late 1960s, the recognition of legally enforceable rights for children has advanced in the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal and state courts as well as in Congress and state legislatures (see p. 344).