State vs. Family in Child Protection
Introduction
From the presented case in the state of Texas involving the custody of a seven-year-old son and whether there were intentions regarding gender reassignment surgery by the mother, it is worth to note that the law in the state of Texas should not have allowed the custody to the mother in the first place. The reason is that the child remains the responsibility of both the parents. Hence, there should be a clear and vivid procedure in carrying out the process, which was not ensured since the father had complaints regarding the safety of the child[1]. The fact that the child was under eighteen years of age disallowed him or the parents from making decisions that impacted his future life. This paper discusses whether it is the state’s right to prevent, that of the parents to guide and counsel the children, the children’s self-assertion rights, or the right of the state to prevent and protect the young one from mutilation.
I confer with the Texas state government in their initiation of legislation that disallowed the parents from promoting any surgery on the child who happens to be 18 years of age and below. The reason is that in many states, including Texas, it is the state’s right to prevent such issues because the children are underage, have not attained the adult age of eighteen years, and thus not capable of making their own decisions[2]. The fact that the mother to the child won permanent custody is a very big concern to both the children and the parents. The young one at a tender age of seven is not capable of making sound decisions regarding what his parents could subject him to. It is therefore advisable for the father who was denied custody of the child to appeal to deny the mother custody since her intentions and motives are not yet known to the court, and hence the claims by the father that the plans by his spouse to conduct a gender reassignment surgery in the form of castration can never be ruled out or ignored.
Moreover, it is the parents’ role to determine whatever is appropriate for their children regarding custody, which should be done through an understanding, if not in a court of law. The fact that both parents disagree on their young one’s care indicates that the two are not on the same terms of the agreement, which poses a huge threat to the young one. The state has the sole responsibility of preventing such instances that involve a child from happening. The reason is that such a surgery which will affect the child’s gender, sexuality, and family, thereby impacting her in his future life. Because of such reasons and matters of concern, the parents should not be supposed to make decisions regarding the gender or sexuality of their children and hence a requirement by the state of Texas and others to ensure that before such cases are carried out, then the involved parties must be adults who can make decisions regarding their life choices and children. The reason is that forcing such an exercise to an underage, particularly a seven-year-old, is punishable by the law.
In the case presented, it is worth noting that the right to prevail and win is that of the state to ensure the protection of the children from mutilation. Such is because the state government is tasked with the sole responsibility of providing all the residents, including children, to get the best protection from harm by both the government officials, the public, and family members. Allowing the parents to take control of their children and their decisions will thus be a huge flaw in the state laws. Such government should only represent such people as their spokesman in handling critical issues[3]. The reason is that at such a tender age, the children remain state property, implying that they should be cared for, protected from harm and provided with whatever they need to ensure their safety from dangerous people.
Conclusion
It is worth noting that since the parents are not in good terms, they should never be allowed to determine their child’s future as such a move will only add more problems to the issue, risking the life and well-being of the young child. The self-assertion of the seven-year-old can never be depended upon as the young one never has the conscience besides the lack of his ability to make concrete decisions. Therefore, in such a scenario, it will be appropriate for the government to ensure the children are protected from abuses such as gender reassignment surgery inform of castration as these young individuals never have self-assertion rights for them to be depended on. By so doing, therefore, the government will both be providing the young one together with the people around him with safety until they reach adult age. At this time, they will be capable of making their own decisions.
Bibliography
Archard, David William. Children, family, and the state. Routledge, 2018.
Kilkelly, Ursula. “Effective Protection of Children’s Rights in Family Cases: An International Approach.” Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 12 (2015): 335.
[1] Archard, David William. Children, family, and the state. Routledge, 2018.
[2] Kilkelly, Ursula. “Effective Protection of Children’s Rights in Family Cases: An International Approach.” Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 12 (2015): 335.
[3] Archard, David William. Children, family, and the state. Routledge, 2018.