Today’s assertion by the fpa (formerly the Family Planning Association) that it is out of step with social changes over the past two decades to say that parents are the best judges of a child’s welfare shows the extent to which the organisation has been blinded by its own ideology to the strength of public opinion.
In her intervention on behalf of the fpa in response to Sue Axon’s High Court challenge to the government’s policy of preserving the confidentiality of under-16s seeking an abortion, Nathalie Lieven held that, ‘children have autonomous rights that must be protected by the courts’ and dismissed as ‘paternalistic’ the generally-held view that parents are best placed to judge what is in the best interests of their own children.
Director of the Family Education Trust, Norman Wells, commented:
“The fpa is lending its support to a radical children’s rights agenda that views children as autonomous individuals rather than members of a family and, as a result, parental responsibilities are being usurped by those whose interest in them is professional rather than personal. Parents are the primary protectors of their children, yet they are being sidelined in the name of the so-called ‘right’ of the child to confidentiality.
“The family unit is the basic building-block that lies at the foundation of a stable society. At a time when we are facing escalating social problems as a direct result of family breakdown, it is extraordinary that the fpa should be seeking to drive a further wedge between parents and their children. The way to address the growth in antisocial behaviour among young people, drug abuse, underage sexual activity and the spiralling rates of sexually transmitted infections is to show parents proper respect and encourage them to take their responsibilities seriously, not to remove them from the equation.”