THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS.
[To THE EDITOR 01 THE " SPECTLTOR."]
SIR, I am anxious through your columns to direct public attention to a matter which seems to me of grave importance and which has not, as far as I know, been recently the subject of sufficient discussion. I mean the supersession of parents in the bringing up of their children even where it is not alleged that the parent has been guilty of cruelty or other moral misconduct.
A remarkable case raising this issue occurred some months ago. It was the case of a child named Alice Carter. She was (I am informed) about eight years old and the child of poor but respectable parents. She suffered from a cleft palate, and this infirmity was with her so severe as to make her (it is said) almost unintelligible in speech except to those who were very familiar with her. Pursuing what is I believe its ordinary policy, and doubtless from the best and kindest motives, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children took up her case. They claim to have obtained the best medical advice, and this advice was to the effect that the child ought to be submitted to a surgical operation which was simple and without danger and would restore the child to clear speech. They represented to the father of the child the desirability of acting on this advice. But he was unwilling, and in spite of their efforts at persuasion be refused his con- sent to the operation.
I have not heard the case from the point of view of the father, but only from that of the Society. I do not know what were the motives that induced Carter to refuse to allow his child to be operated upon. But I am quite willing to assume that he was mistaken and even perverse, and that according to the best medical opinion the operation was a wise one and ought to have been performed. I do not therefore complain that the Society exerted themselves to obtain Carter's consent. Possibly it lay rather beyond their proper function, but it was so far a most natural and kindly effort.
But the society went further, and here, as it seems to me, went wrong. Having failed to persuade they attempted to coerce. They took proceedings under Sections 12 and 21 of the Children's Act, 1908, against Carter. The object of these proceedings was not to punish Carter but to obtain the custody of the child in order to have the operation performed in spite of Carter's veto. The magistrates before whom they came adopted their view, and a nominal fine of one shilling was imposed upon Carter. I suppose this conviction was under Section 12 for the offence of failing to provide medical aid for his child. A conviction having been thus recorded against him, it was possible under Section 21 to take away from him the custody of his child and to give it to the Society ; and the magistrates made an order to that effect. These proceedings seem to me a very serious straining and abuse of the law. Anyone who reads Section 12 will see that it is intended for the punishment of parents who from vice, cruelty, or callousness ill-treat or neglect their children. There is no sign that the law was ever intended to punish a parent who honestly and in good faith exercises his discretion in a foolish and mistaken manner. Again, the intention of Section 21 is only to deprive parents of the custody of their children in cases where by grave misconduct they have forfeited their parental rights. But it is clear that neither the Society nor the magi- `strates thought that Carter was guilty of wickedness. The fact that only a nominal penalty was imposed shows plainly that he was not thought a fit subject for punishment. But if he was not fit to be punished, it was certainly to abuse the law to deprive him of the custody of his child. What was done was to use the law ingeniously but in a way in which it was never
intended to be used, and to deprive a man of the custody of his child by what can only be described as legal jugglery. The criminal law ought certainly not to be so manipulated. It may be conjectured that doubts as to the legality of the proceed- ings arose; for I am informed that when the child was taken to the hospital further proceedings were threatened on Carter's behalf and the custody of the child was abandoned by the Society, who returned her to her father.
I think the law has been abused, and that it ought to be so altered as to make such abuse impossible. As long as a parent is acting honestly and without cruelty or negligence, and is trying in good faith to do his duty by his child, his discretion ought not to be interfered with. That means, I am aware, that a parent may, and doubtless sometimes will, do foolish, perverse, and injurious things to his child. But it is the essence of having a discretionary power that it shall be liable to be misused. If the State is to supersede the parent when- ever the parent makes a mistake, it is clear that the parent will have no discretion and will be only the agent of the State. This seems wrong in principle ; and I am sure it would work badly in practice. Although it may be true that in particular instances (as possibly in the case of Alice Carter) harm may be done to a child through the folly of a parent, on the whole it is safer to trust to the judgment of an affectionate father or mother than to that of a society or other public authority obsessed by expert advice and working by the harsh mechanism of the criminal courts.
Next I submit that, even if it is desirable to supersede by
State action the discretion of parents in these cases, such supersession is not the proper function for a society for the prevention of cruelty. I am assured that the words of the charter of the N.S.P.C.C. cover such interference. It may be so; but I am sure that nothing but mischief is done by confusing two things which are utterly distinct : the repression of the cruelty or negligence of a criminal parent, and the supersession of the discretion of an injudicious parent. If it be really desirable to supersede parents, the work might be undertaken by philanthropic individuals or by some public official to whom the work should be assigned. But in no case is it proper that the sympathy and support rightly excited by
the repression of cruelty should be used by the Society that enjoys such support for a purpose which many of those who loathe cruelty will regard with convinced disapproval.
My object in writing to you, Sir, about this matter is two- fold : I wish to invoke the assistance of public opinion against the supersession of parents acting honestly in their discretion, and I wish to invoke the opinion of subscribers to the N.S.P.C.O. in particular against the action of the Society in cases like that of Alice Carter. I hope that both members of the public and subscribers to the Society will use their influence to obtain an amendment of the law, and to keep the Society to its proper and most valuable work.—I am, Sir, &c., HUGH CECIL.
[Presuming that Lord Hugh Cecil has been accurately informed in regard to the details of this case, and that the Society has no additional facts to put forward which alter its complexion, we desire to express our hearty agreement with Lord Hugh's view of the transaction. We very greatly dread the destruction of parental responsibility, and hold that the principles of action apparently adopted in this instance might easily develop into a hideous tyranny. Medical science is not infallible, and is also apt to be affected by fashions. It might well be, then, that a father or mother would be in the right in forbidding an operation. In any case, to deprive a parent of the custody of his child by the use of a technicality is intolerable. Lord Hugh has performed a public service in directing attention to a matter of vital importance.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
