Canada

Ahh, no wonder I never heard of this...

From Wikipedia:

The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it. It has been claimed that American opposition to the convention stems primarily from political and religious conservatives.

😔

Most notably, at the time several states permitted the execution and life imprisonment of juvenile offenders, a direct contravention of Article 37 of the convention.

😔😔

During his 2008 campaign for President, Senator Barack Obama described the failure to ratify the convention as "embarrassing" and promised to review the issue but, as President, he never did. No President of the United States has submitted the treaty to the United States Senate requesting its advice and consent to ratification since the US signed it in 1995.

😔😔😔

This would make me feel very alone as a child to know this... 😢

Edit: Been reading more and kinda sad child marriage isn't part of it. Also corporal punishment should go away too.

Tried to look up where you were referring, and the first few results all come up for where I live...

Juevenile Law Center

Pennsylvania is one of only 13 states with no limit on how young a juvenile can be tried in adult court and exposed to adult jails and prisons. In Lawrence County in 2009, for example, 11-year-old Jordan Brown was charged in adult court for the fatal shooting of his father’s fiancee. He was too young to shave but faced a mandatory life sentence.

I think mainly because they don't have the same means to seek help or protection the way adults do.

Kids can't drive, they don't have money, they don't have the education to know their rights or research laws. The world is built for adults.

Asking parents to be that advocate for the child can be a conflict of interest if the parent is the one causing the issue. It seems like when the police investigate their own conduct.

We make different rules to protect people due to physical or mental disparity, and children and typically less physically and mentally able than most adults. And they have no financial means on top of that.

Does everything need to change? No. But adults don't need to worry about forced marriage, genital mutilation, or being beat up for me misbehaving or if someone is just in a bad mood near as much as kids need to, and again, their current first line and sometimes only line of protection may be the one doing that to them.

There's limits to this. If someone's philosophy/religion says you should abuse your children then the state should intervene. We shouldn't accept parents rights to beat, bully, stone, drug, cripple, deprive them an education, deprive them of social interactions etc. Many of these things are represented in literature related to many major religions.

I shouldn’t get to say what the nut jobs believe it what they tell their children

Verbal abuse and other forms of damage parents can enact by just "saying what they believe" are a mental health hazards. We as a society came to an agreement that parents don't have the "liberty" of aggravating health issues on their kids. No one is forbidding parents from teaching kids to be creationists, but a kid suffering with gender dysphoria needs care and parents don't have the right to deny that care.

So the "(to a point)" is the crucial bit here, and it's exactly that point where this discussion is centered.

The challenge with this is that kids are, for lack of a better term, fucking stupid. Children intrinsically reject all sorts of ideas and values that a functioning adult is expected to have. For instance, sharing, patience, kindness, and virtue. These have to be taught to a child, sometimes through a long and difficult process.

It also doesn't help that these are vague ideas. For many people, virtue and religion are tied together as one. At what point does a child become autonomous enough to make their own decisions about their values?

I'm all for limiting the idea of overbearing parents, but defining terms and details is going to be nearly impossible.

Parents have all kinds of rights simply because they are the parents and not just because of general rights like freedom of expression. Obviously. If you disagree I'll happily choose the name of your next kid. Because, you know, parents have no rights besides those everyone has anyways.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-35/february-2016/parental-rights-cases-to-know/

I get that the article is trying to make a point for children's rights, I fully support that, but the choice for a headline is really, really bad. If you care about the matter you should not defend that headline because it makes the "pro child rights" side look silly. As if the only way for children to have rights was denying the existence of rights of parents. That does not help anyone.

Parents should always have the right to remove their child from a situation they do not agree with.

At some point, the child would start thinking for themselves and their decisions should be given value too, as long as it isn't illegal or detrimental. Far too often, we hear of children wanting vaccine shots but parents not allowing them to.