IA ruling others should watch.............

[Kitty C.]

Just read this and found it very interesting..............

Iowa Court Says Child's Health Records Protected
Originally printed at http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/43226427.html
DES MOINES (AP) - In a decision that child advocates say extends new privacy rights to children, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that a child's mental health records can be kept private from a parent.
The court's decision on Friday was in the case of a divorced North Liberty woman who claimed she was entitled to her children's records. A counselor objected, saying the records should be kept private.
The woman has joint custody of her three children but is not their primary caregiver.
The court ruled that the law does not compel the release of the records and then when joint legal custodians disagree over treatment of a child, the court must step in and decide what is in the child's best interest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This just allows the courts to have more say-so in how parents care for their children.  All the more reason to get legislation passed that takes the adversarial atmosphere out of custody disputes.  You would think that parents who realize the courts will take over their decision-making rights regarding their children would at least try to make an effort to come to some agreement so that wouldn't happen.  You would think.........

[Davy]

and ....
Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.

The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.

Critics say the treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.

Boxer has made clear her intent to revive the ratification process under the Obama administration, which may be amenable to the move.  Boxer said she considers it "a humiliation" that the U.S. is refusing to become party to the agreement, while 193 other nations have led the way.
.
Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.

I think this means that it does not matter what Iowa or any state laws are passed.  Should we be concerned with "change" ?

[Kitty C.]

The difference is that it has NOT been ratified.  And it's been 14 years?  Unless and until it's been ratifed, it's a moot point.  So the job now is to make sure it doesn't.  Someone needs to educate Barbara Boxer on parental rights.....good luck..........I never liked her 20 years ago even when I lived in CA.  She's another one of those bureaucrats who's completely out of touch with reality.