This is a book about parents, power, and children and, in particular, the legitimacy of parents' power over their children. It takes seriously the challenge posed by moral pluralism, and considers the role of both theoretical rationality and practical judgement in resolving moral dilemmas associated with parental power. The book first examines the prevailing view about parental power: a certain form of paternalism, justified treatment of those who lack the qualities of an agent, and one that does not generate moral conflicts. It proposes an alternative, pluralist view of paternalism before showing that even paternalism properly understood is of limited application when we evaluate parental power. According to the caretaker thesis, parental power makes up for the deficits in children's agency, and for that reason children should be subjected to standard institutional paternalism. The liberation thesis stands at the other end of the spectrum concerning children's rights. The book then addresses the counter-argument that issues of legitimacy arise in the political domain and not in respect of parent-child relations. It also examines the 'right to parent' and whether parents should be licensed, monitored, or trained children's voluntariness and competence, and the right to provide informed consent for medical treatment and research participation. Finally, the book talks about parents' efforts to share a way of life with their children and the State's efforts to shape the values of future citizens through civic education. The overall approach taken has much more in common with the problem-driven political philosophy.
representatives of voluntary organisations. NSPCC inspectors helped administer the
Act, because they had experience in the field, and children rescued from abusive
homes were still often placed in voluntary institutions. It was one of many fields
of co-operative, complementary action between the state and the voluntary sector
in the years before 1914, in which the state built on the experience of the voluntary
sector in extending its own welfare responsibilities.22
Also concerning the care of children, voluntary organisations, mostly led by
women, such as the large, mainly
countries therefore agreed to take as many children as possible and to shelter them while their parents fought in the war. In January 1948 at the Youth Balkan Forum in Belgrade the participants coined the slogan “Save Our Children.” This was the beginning of a campaign to encourage the parents to send their childrenvoluntarily. A complicated operation was under way to organize the collection of the children and to transfer them across the borders (Danforth and Van Boeschoten 2012 , Kitanoski and Doneski 2003 ).
On 3 March 1948, the DSE announced
Maternity care, social welfare benefits and family allowances
privation on the nation’s children.
Voluntary women’s groups, increasingly concerned about the welfare
of women and children during wartime, put pressure on the government
to introduce the legislation necessary for the introduction of family
allowances. In October 1941, the NCW sent a declaration to the government urging that to ‘preserve the welfare of the children of the nation the
National Council of Women calls upon the Government to introduce a
universal scheme of Family Allowances, paid by the State at the rate of six
shillings per child, to be paid to the mother
mothers within the
Furthermore, the publication of Our Towns: A Close Up in 1943 had
highlighted in stark terms the effects that extreme poverty, unemployment and bad housing could have on the physical and moral welfare
of women and children. Members of WI, TG and other women’s societies had themselves witnessed at first hand the malnutrition, ill health
and unruly behaviour of some evacuees in their care. Rather than just
condemning working-class mothers for supposed failures in rearing their
children, voluntary women’s groups instead looked to the state to
’s nominal leadership remained to be felt.55 By February 1944, a national policy
was starting to emerge. Yet German reluctance to order large-scale evacuations meant that, however much French planning improved, actively
evacuating people remained dependent on the occupiers’ consent.
The German authorities prevented citizens leaving threatened towns
in the areas where they exerted direct military control, and even censored pubic discussion of evacuation.56 While some mayors could pressure parents to evacuate their childrenvoluntarily, this was impossible
in the Nord