Topic

children rights

11 petitions

Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Sam Brownback, Sam Brownback

STOP! L@@K! & LISTEN: Kansas make it against the law to leave a child in the car alone!

Wednesday January 25th 2017 around 7 p.m. Case #: 17C005650  A 3 year old boy was left alone with 2 of his siblings at the Jumpstart 1535 E. Pawnee Wichita Ks. The Father of said child left these 3 children in his vehicle to run inside the gas station to pay for gas. When he did the child climbed over the seat (they had locks on the back doors) to get out of the vehicle to run to his Father. As he was running through the parking lot a woman in an SUV came into the parking lot and accidentally hit the boy not being able to see him. The child died due to his injuries. This has clearly been investigated by the WPD and are declaring it a tragic/terrible accident. I believe that common sense and logic teaches us that if it's preventable it's not an accident. I have thought about this for 3 days now. If he would of taken his kid/s into the store with him this would of not happened. I believe the woman driving would of seen the Father and avoided the whole incident by seeing the Father and stopping the vehicle but she couldn't with him not present for he is taller and the boy was too short to be seen by her view over the hood of her truck. Anyone can say well this could of happened even if  he had taken him in with him, but then  that would have been an accident at least on the Father's end of it. This clearly is not an accident when the dad was negligent by not bringing his child into the store with him. And he knew his son would get out of the vehicle or at least open the doors by the story of them telling the news that they had installed special locks in the back of their mini van because of this behavior. Why not take the child in with him since he knows it's a possibility that the child could/would get out? I think at this point we need to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. We need to make it a law that if you leave your child alone in the car at a certain age determined by the State of Kansas legislatures (or have the people of Kansas vote on it) you will be charged with a crime set forth by the State of Kansas Legislatures.  I think it should be part of the Child endangerment laws that are already being enforced in the State of Kansas. Kansas Statute 21-5601 Article 56. - CRIMES AFFECTING FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND CHILDREN. I am in no way saying that this man that left his child is a bad person. I just think that anyone that is responsible for a child that is in their care at any said time shouldn't be left alone in a car for any amount of time and left to die in the heat, cold, or to get out and be ran over, kidnapped or any other tragic thing that could happen. That is not an accident and it is preventable. To our Kansas Legislatures please hear our voices and help save our Children in the future from negligence on the part of the parties responsible.    Sincerely, Kimberley Sloan and The People of Kansas

Kimberley Sloan
206 supporters
Update posted 3 weeks ago

Petition to Sigríður Ásthildur Andersen, Katrín Jakobsdóttir

Réttindi barna fædd á Íslandi: leyfum Ernu að njóta réttlátrar dómsmeðferðar!

(See English below) Í júlí 2017 hófst dómsmál sem búist er við að breyti gildandi framkvæmd með tilkomu nýs fordæmis. Málið snýst um  misnotkun á kennitölukerfi þjóðskrár þar sem börnum af erlendum uppruna sem fædd eru á Íslandi er mismunað með þeim afleiðingum að aðrar ríkisstofnanir mismuna þeim einnig og brjóta á réttindum þeirra. Skv. 1. gr. barnalaga nr. 76/2003 stendur að ekki skuli mismuna börnum:„Barn á rétt á að lifa, þroskast og njóta verndar, umönnunar og annarra réttinda í samræmi við aldur sinn og þroska og án mismununar af nokkru tagi. Óheimilt er að beita barn hvers kyns ofbeldi eða annarri vanvirðandi háttsemi.“Þetta er áréttað í 2. gr Barnasáttmála Sameinuðu þjóðanna:„Aðildarríki skulu virða og tryggja hverju barni innan lögsögu sinnar þau réttindi sem kveðið er á um í samningi þessum, án mismununar af nokkru tagi, án tillits til kynþáttar, litarháttar, kynferðis, tungu, trúarbragða, stjórnmálaskoðana eða annarra skoðana, uppruna með tilliti til þjóðernis, þjóðhátta eða félagslegrar stöðu, eigna, fötlunar, ætternis eða annarra aðstæðna þess eða foreldris þess eða lögráðamanns. “ Skv. 7.gr. barnalaga stendur jafnframt að börn fædd á Íslandi skuli vera skráð í þjóðskrá. Þjóðskrá hefur hinsvegar ákveðið að gefa sumum börnum kennitölu á utangarðsskrá. Það er kennitala ætluð fólki sem eiga fyrirtæki á Íslandi en búa ekki á landinu, eða a.m.k. ekki lengur en í 6 mánuði. (Sjá Um kerfiskennitölur ). Notkun þjóðskrár á þessari tegund kennitölu fyrir sum börn á Íslandi er handahófskennd, á sér engan lagalegan grundvöll og mismunar þessum börnum.Skv. 1. gr. laga nr. 215/1990 um lögheimili er hugtakið skýrt skilgreint:„Lögheimili manns er sá staður þar sem hann hefur fasta búsetu.        Maður telst hafa fasta búsetu á þeim stað þar sem hann hefur bækistöð sína, dvelst að jafnaði í tómstundum sínum, hefur heimilismuni sína og svefnstaður hans er þegar hann er ekki fjarverandi um stundarsakir vegna orlofs, vinnuferða, veikinda eða annarra hliðstæðra atvika.“ Þessar tæknilegu hliðar málsins eru mjög mikilvægar þar sem þær hafa áður orsakað brottvísun barna fæddum á Íslandi, sem þó hafa búið á landinu allt sitt líf. Nýlegt dæmi um slíkt mál er mál Shiroki fjölskyldunnar sem var vísað úr landi sumarið 2017 þrátt fyrir að dætur þeirra tvær, þriggja og eins árs, hafi báðar fæðst á Íslandi. Ólíkt því sem tíðkast í mörgum öðrum löndum, öðlast börn af erlendum uppruna sem fædd eru á Íslandi ekki ríkisborgararétt. Þó ætti 102. gr. laga nr. 8016/2016 um útlendinga að koma í veg fyrir brottvísun erlendra barna fæddum á Íslandi sem hafa haft átt óslitið fasta búsetu á landinu samkvæmt þjóðskrá:„Útlendingi sem fæddur er hér á landi er óheimilt að vísa frá eða úr landi hafi hann frá fæðingu átt hér óslitið fasta búsetu samkvæmt þjóðskrá.“Það er einmitt hér sem minniháttar tæknilegt atriði og ögn af mismunun getur haft feiknarleg áhrif á líf barnsins. Erna Reka fæddist á Íslandi í apríl 2017. Foreldrar hennar höfðu verið við vinnu hérlendis og reynt að endurnýja atvinnuleyfi sitt en fengið neitun rétt fyrir fæðingu hennar. Þjóðskrá gaf henni kennitölu á utangarðsskrá, en þó með heimilisfang á landinu. Lögmaður Ernu mótmælti notkun þessarar tegundar kennitölu og hefur lagt málið fyrir dóm. Þjóðskrá ákvað að breyta skráningu á heimilisfangi Ernu og flutti það úr landi án þess að upplýsa foreldra hennar eða lögmann um breytinguna. Þessi ákvörðun þjóðskrár breytti stöðu Ernu þannig hún hefur ekki lengur búsetu á landinu og er því búið að svipta hana öllum réttindum. Vegna þessarar ákvörðunar þjóðskrár hefur Útlendingastofnun lýst því yfir að Erna, sem aldrei hefur stigið fæti út fyrir landsteinana, búi ekki hérlendis og megi því vísa henni úr landi ásamt foreldrum hennar.Dómsmálið ögrar þeim forsendum (eða því forsenduleysi!) sem grundvalla á ákvörðunartöku þjóðskrár. Réttarhöldin hófust í desember síðastliðinn og eru komin vel á leið. Lögmaður Ernu hefur óskað eftir frestun brottvísunar á grundvelli 79. gr útlendingalaga þar sem spurningin um búsetu er lykilatriði í málinu. Einnig gæti brottvísun Ernu haft áhrif á málið hennar og komið í veg fyrir að hún njóti sanngjarnrar málsmeðferðar. Skv. 79. gr. laga um útlendinga („Dvalarleyfi á grundvelli lögmæts og sérstaks tilgangs.“), getur manneskja átt rétt á tímabundnu dvalarleyfi sé dómsmál í gangi. Þessari beiðni Ernu og foreldra hennar var synjað af ÚTL. Í ofanálag hafa þau verið bönnuð frá Íslandi í tvö ár. Málið mun hafa gríðarleg áhrif á málsvörn fyrir réttindi barna af erlendum uppruna fæddum á Íslandi, þar sem svo virðist sem Þjóðskrá leiki sér að kennitölum barna eins og málin standa í dag. Með hliðsjón af eldri ákvörðunum þessa umboðsaðila sem einnig virðast handahófskenndar, er auðveldlega hægt að ímynda sér að fjölskylda af erlendum uppruna með börn sem fædd eru hérlendis geti skyndilega verið neitað um áframhaldandi búsetu á Íslandi og heimilisfang þeirra fært erlendis á fullkomlega handahófskenndan hátt. (Hægt er að ímynda sér að fjölskyldan hafi búið á landinu í 6 ár, en skyndilega hafi annað foreldrið misst vinnuna.) Með slíkum athöfnum kemur þjóðskrá í veg fyrir að börnin fái notið þeirrar verndar sem 102. gr. laga um útlendinga veitir þeim og hægt væri að vísa þeim úr eina landinu sem þau þekkja. Við mótmælum ákvörðun ÚTL um að vísa Ernu Reka og foreldum hennar úr landi þegar það getur auðsjáanlega haft alvarleg áhrif á mál þeirra sem enn er í meðferð fyrir dómstólum. Við biðjum Sigríði Ásthildi Andersen, dómsmálaráðherra, og Katrínu Jakobsdóttur, forsætisráðherran, að skerast í leikinn og leyfa réttlætinu fram að ganga án frekari hindrana. Um Ernu á Stöð 2 ### ENGLISHIn July 2017 a court case started that is expected to set a legal precedent. At the center of it is the abusive use of the social security number system (kennitalakerfi) by the National Registry, leading to the discrimination of children of foreign origin born in Iceland and the violation of their rights by other state institutions. The law on children (Barnalög) states in article 1 that children should not be discriminated: "Barn á rétt á að lifa, þroskast og njóta verndar, umönnunar og annarra réttinda í samræmi við aldur sinn og þroska og án mismununar af nokkru tagi. Óheimilt er að beita barn hvers kyns ofbeldi eða annarri vanvirðandi háttsemi.", This is further emphasized in article 2 of the UN convention on the rights of the child: "Aðildarríki skulu virða og tryggja hverju barni innan lögsögu sinnar þau réttindi sem kveðið er á um í samningi þessum, án mismununar af nokkru tagi, án tillits til kynþáttar, litarháttar, kynferðis, tungu, trúarbragða, stjórnmálaskoðana eða annarra skoðana, uppruna með tilliti til þjóðernis, þjóðhátta eða félagslegrar stöðu, eigna, fötlunar, ætternis eða annarra aðstæðna þess eða foreldris þess eða lögráðamanns. ". The article 7 of the children law stipulates that children born in Iceland need to be registered on the national registry ("Barn skal skráð í þjóðskrá þegar eftir fæðingu þess."). However, the national registry has taken the liberty to attribute to some children a national security number out of registry (útangarðsskrá kennitala). This is a kennitala meant for people that have business with Iceland but do not reside there or no longer than 6 months (see about the national security number system, in Icelandic ). The use of this social number by the national registry for some children in Iceland is arbitrary and not supported by the law, and is discriminatory against these children. The law (lög um lögheimili) also defines clearly the legal address and stipulates that the legal address of a person is the place where that person has permanent residency, where they live and sleep when not traveling for work, health of vacation purposes : "Lögheimili manns er sá staður þar sem hann hefur fasta búsetu.   Maður telst hafa fasta búsetu á þeim stað þar sem hann hefur bækistöð sína, dvelst að jafnaði í tómstundum sínum, hefur heimilismuni sína og svefnstaður hans er þegar hann er ekki fjarverandi um stundarsakir vegna orlofs, vinnuferða, veikinda eða annarra hliðstæðra atvika. ". These technical aspects are highly important as they have resulted in the past to the deportation of children born in Iceland and that have lived their whole life here. A recent example is the case of the Shiroki family that was deported last summer (2017) even though their two daughters, 3 and 1 years old were both born in Iceland. Unlike in many countries, children born in Iceland do not obtain nationality automatically, however the article 102 of the Immigration Act (Lög um útlendinga) prevents the deportation of foreign nationals born in Iceland that have had continuous residency in the country, according to the National Registry (!!). „Útlendingi sem fæddur er hér á landi er óheimilt að vísa frá eða úr landi hafi hann frá fæðingu átt hér óslitið fasta búsetu samkvæmt þjóðskrá.“ This is why this minor technical detail and small discrimination can have a tremendous impact on the life of a child. Erna Reka was born in Iceland in April 2017, her parents had been working in the country and tried to renew their work permit and got a denial just before her birth. The National Registry gave her a social security number out of registry, but linked to an address in the country. The lawyer of Erna challenged the use of this social security number and started filing for court. The National Registry decided, without informing either Erna’s parents or her lawyer, to modify her address and locate it abroad, making her a non-resident of this country and depriving her of any rights. Because of these decisions of the National Registry the Immigration Office declares absurdly that Erna, which has never stepped out of the country, does not live here and therefore can be deported along with her parents. The court case challenges the grounds (or absence of grounds) of the administrative decisions of the National Registry and the hearings started in December and are well on their way. Her lawyer has been asking for a freezing of the deportation decision by the Immigration Office. Article 79 of the Immigration Act permits this freezing because the question of the residency is such a crucial point in the case, and the deportation of Erna could impact her case and prevent her from getting a fair trial. Under Article 79 of the Immigration Act (“Dvalarleyfi á grundvelli lögmæts og sérstaks tilgangs.”) , persons may have the right to get a residency permit, if there is a court case going on. This application by Erna and her parents was rejected by the UTL and in addition it moved that they be banned from Iceland for 2 years. The case will have a tremendous impact on the defense of the rights of children of foreign origins born in Iceland, as it appears that the National Registry takes the liberty of playing with the national security number of children. Considering the past arbitrary decisions of this agency, we can easily imagine that a family of foreign origins with children born here could suddenly get denied further residency in Iceland (If say, they have stayed here for 6 years, but suddenly one of the parent lost their job) and their address would be arbitrarily moved abroad. By doing so the National Registry would prevent the children from benefiting from the protections provided by article 102 of the foreigners law and could suddenly deported out of the only country they know. We protest the decision of proceeding with the deportation of Erna Reka and her parents as it could clearly affect the case that is presently in court and we ask Sigríður Ásthildur Andersen (Minister of Justice) and Katrín Jakobsdóttir (Prime minister) to intervene and allow justice to proceed without interference.Morgane Priet-MahéoDavid Tong LiAron Örn BrynjólfssonÍvar Þór HilmarssonYlfa Dögg ÁrnadóttirHallfríður María PálsdóttirEnzo RinaldiPétur Valur PéturssonArnor Vikar ArnorssonHelga ArnardóttirSigríđur Jóna HannesdóttirHenný Sif Bjarnadóttir  

Morgane Priet-Mahéo
1,941 supporters
Update posted 3 weeks ago

Petition to New York Governor, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Andrew Cuomo, David I Weprin, Kirsten Gillibrand, James Clayborne, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Jose Serrano, Ellen Jaffee, Carmen E Arroyo, Maritza Davila

Enact Zoey's Law - Create a law to prevent Parental Alienation

Zoenika Humphreys is not the first child to commit suicide as a result of the inadequate investigation of parental alienation claims, but she must be the last. We need a Zoey’s Law to honor the memory of children who were failed by the system and to prevent the same thing from happening to another child because it will unless we act now.  Zoenika Humphreys, a 15-year-old girl from Swansea, Illinois committed suicide on August 25, 2013. She never received the help she needed, regardless of letters written to the courts on her behalf. One out of five children is going through parental alienation; this is a form of abuse. Parental alienation (or Hostile Aggressive Parenting) is a group of behaviors that are damaging to children's mental and emotional well-being and can interfere with a relationship of a child and either parent. These behaviors most often accompany high conflict marriages, separation or divorce. These behaviors whether verbal or non-verbal, cause a child to be mentally manipulated or bullied into believing a loving parent is the cause of all their problems, and the enemy, to be feared, hated, disrespected and avoided. Parental alienation and hostile, aggressive parenting deprive children of their right to be loved by and showing love for both of their parents. The destructive actions by an alienating parent or other third person (like another family member, or even a well-meaning mental health care worker) can become abusive to the child - as the alienating behaviors are disturbing, confusing and often frightening, to the child, and can rob the child of their sense of security and safety leading to maladaptive emotional or psychiatric reactions. There were over five reports of abuse and letters written to family court judges but yet she was allowed to remain with her grandmother, and none of the reports were adequately investigated. To create a statutory presumption of joint custody for all minor children whose parents are no longer together, so that both parents can continue to share in the responsibilities and duties of the children's upbringing.  When a noncustodial parent has been granted visitation rights and those rights are denied or otherwise interfered with by the custodial parent or guardian, the noncustodial parent may file with the court clerk a motion to enforcement of visitation rights. The motion shall be filed on a form provided by the court clerk. Upon submitting the motion, the court shall immediately schedule a court date, should be no more than 14 days after the motion been filed. If the court finds that visitation rights of the noncustodial parent have been unreasonably denied or otherwise interfered with by the custodial parent, the court shall enter an order providing for one or more of the following: 1. A specific visitation schedule; 2. Compensating visitation time for the visitation denied or otherwise interfered with, which time shall be of the same type (e.g. holiday, weekday, weekend, summer) as the visitation denied or otherwise interfered with, and shall be at the convenience of the noncustodial parent; 3. Posting of a bond, either cash or with sufficient sureties, conditioned upon compliance with the order granting visitation rights 4. Assessment of reasonable attorney fees, mediation costs, and court costs to enforce visitation rights against the custodial parent; 5. Attendance of one or both parents at counseling or educational sessions which focus on the impact of visitation disputes on children; 6.  Supervised visitation; or 7. Any other remedy the court considers appropriate, which may include an order which modifies a prior order granting child custody.  

Tamika Mapp
508 supporters