This lengthy article will not be transcribed into electronic form. CIRP refers those who care to examine it to the printed version. Conclusion Consideration of judicial interpretations of rights in numerous contexts has revealed that the notion of parental rights is inconsistent with well-established legal principles. Rights protect only a right-holder's own person and property. No one should possess a right to control the life of another person no matter what reasons, religious or otherwise, he might have for wanting to do so.
Children are persons, intimately bound up with but nevertheless distinct from their parents.
Supposed justification for parents' rights based on the interest of children, on the interests of parents, or on the interests of society simply do not withstand scrutiny. These findings compel the conclusion that parental child-rearing rights are illegitimate. A better regime would simply grant parents a legal privilege to care for and make decisions on behalf of their children in ways that are not contrary to the children's temporal interests. Children themselves should possess whatever rights are necessary to protect their fundamental interest in an intimate, continuous relationship with their parents. This includes the right to be insulated from any state interference that is not in the children's interests.