2026-03-03
The age old presumption that a child's parents are the best people to care for their children is overturned.
It has already been overturned in cases where the parents are shown to be incapable or unable to keep their children safe - that is what the family courts were introduced for. Unhappily as the family courts tend to sit in closed session, the old maxim that 'justice must be seen to be done" has given way to "the people involved must not be publicly embarrassed", which in my view ought to carry very significantly less weight, if only because it makes miscarriages of justice very much harder to identify investigate and to correct.
"Being a parent is a privilege, not a right: the only right which matters is a child’s right to safety"
One might superficially agree with that, but a moment's thought will dispel the notion. A child needs a consistent loving caring environment that prioritises the needs of the child in which to flourish, not merely a safe environment. Parents provide both. Institutions of the State will inevitably prioritise the needs of the State. Therefore, the state should interfere only when the child's safety is under significant threat.
Now, there are of course copious shades of grey in any family relationship, and one might argue that parents are unsuitable on any number of grounds, but given the state of the family courts currently I would rather argue that no child should ever be taken from their parents unless the case has been tried in public by a jury of their peers.
Temporary embarrassment seems to me to be infinitely preferable to miscarriage of justice in such matters.
TCW report on the latest shift toward untrammelled State control.
