Youngsters’ Lib

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32788, 13 December 1971, Page 16

Youngsters’ Lib

The Council for Civil Liberties is protesting against the Guardianship Amendment Bill, now before Parliament, which would enable a court to enforce the custody of a person up to the age of 18 years. Under the Guardianship Act of 1968 a court may not grant an application for custody against the wishes of a “ child ” who is 16 or older unless “ the child is under “ the age of 18 years and the court is satisfied that “his moral welfare so requires”. The proposed law removes the proviso about “moral welfare” and gives the court full discretion to return a child to its parent or guardian if the child is 18 or under. The same bill proposes that a child of 16 or older may ask a court to review a parental decision “on “an important matter” affecting him. There is obviously room for endless argument about the age at which the law should require young people to remain in the custody of their parents. It may be argued on the one hand—as it is argued by the Council for Civil Liberties—that recent years have seen an increased sophistication and maturity in youth. Hiis might be generally true; yet it is difficult to point to clear and indisputable evidence of this maturity. It may be argued, on the other hand, that the world in which youth has to live has become more complicated and more difficult to grapple with, and demands more training and preparation. It is easier to find evidence of this. Indeed, there is just as much talk about the need for more parental guidance, more training, and more protection for young people as there is about youth’s earlier maturity. Demands for protection from the ways of the world extend far beyond the needs of young people; and if young people are to be wholly responsible for their well-being at the age of, say, 16, the demand for more and more general legal protection will probably grow. It might be wise to raise the age for the legal custody of children. In the first place it does not have to be shown that there is a universal need for such a law; this kind of law is applied, in practice, only in exceptional instances. Its social value must be viewed in this light Second, the law should be consistent on the question of age and personal responsibility. If youngsters are to be legally free of parental control at 16, should not parents be legally free of responsibility for their children at the same age? In fact they are not; and if the law were changed accordingly many children—perhaps not nearly as mature as the council supposes —would be in a dangerously insecure position. Should such a law as the Minors’ Contracts Act be altered so that children of 16 or 17 bear full, adult responsibility? Should youngsters who are mature enough to commit crimes be regarded as mature enough to be sent to prison? Or is it better that the courts have the power to ensure longer parental control of children? Probably the only sound course to follow is to contrive that young people assume responsibilities gradually. The Guardianship Amendment Bill should be considered only as a fragment of a whole range of law that determines individual, parental, and community responsibilities.