Ariticle18Responsibility of parents

Article 18 pursues the concept of the “best interests of the child”, which appears frequently throughout the Convention. The framework of this article is based on the idea of placing importance on the family environment created by parents and the way they raise their children, while at the same time seeking to help the children's healthy growth and development as much as possible through the protection and support provided to the family by state agencies. The family environment created by parents and their children is considered to be of great importance and significance in the development of the child into a solid person, in the formation and development of a healthy spirit, and in the guarantee of cultural freedom including language, religion, and thought. In addition, since children themselves cannot choose the environment in which they are born, this article should be emphasized in the domestic family policies of States Parties from this perspective as well.

The two main themes of this Article are that the greatest responsibility for the upbringing of children rests with the parents and that the state should assist in ensuring that this responsibility is fulfilled. This Article is also closely related to Articles 3(2), 5, 14(2), and 27(2).

Paragraph 1

In the first paragraph, there are three key principles: first, that the child's parents have “primary responsibilities for upbringing and development of the child;” second, that “both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child;” and third, that the “best interests of the child” is “basic concerns.” Each of these is explained in detail below.

The first one implies that the child's parents have the greatest responsibility in the upbringing of the child. This “responsibility” is in the most serious sense, like obeying the law. It is forbidden, of course, for anyone other than the parents, state authorities, or government agencies to attempt to prevent or threaten the fulfillment of this “responsibility.” In addition, intervention without “justifiable and proper reasons” in any matter involving parental care is likewise strictly forbidden. In this context, it follows that States Parties are required to take measures to prevent intervention without “justifiable and proper reasons” (see Articles 8, 11, 16, 35, etc. for specific examples). However, as an exception to the above, if there is a “justifiable and proper reasons” (e.g., parents abandoning or abusing the child, or being unable to raise the child in the first place), an organization such as an administrative agency should intervene with state-level measures (Articles 3(2), 9(1), 19, 20, and 21 provide specific details for intervention in such cases.)

The second is that both parents have “common” responsibilities for the child's upbringing. Although from the perspective of “roles,” this does not necessarily mean that both parents need to play exactly the same role, from the perspective of “responsibility,” as mentioned above, it does mean that both parents need to bear exactly the same weight of “responsibility.” This responsibility is considered to be attached to both parents regardless of whether they are married or not at the time of raising the child.

And third, parents should basically focus on the “best interests of the child” in raising their children. This means that the “best interests of the child” principle (based on Article 3) should also be firmly taken into account by parents to the maximum extent possible.

Finally, fourth, the state has the responsibility to “use its best efforts” to ensure that the three things mentioned above are adequately fulfilled. This can be regarded as a somewhat weak expression. This is an indication that the relationship between the state and the family, which is the common space between parents and children, is complex and delicate, which means that strong expressions are not suitable for this purpose.

Paragraph 2 and 3

In Paragraphs 2 and 3, the “assistance for parenting, including childcare services and facilities” at the national level, such as administrative agencies and state institutions, are described.

The “appropriate assistance” in paragraph 2, for example, includes school education, childcare consultation services, and the provision of various services related to housework and childcare. In addition, the latter half of paragraph 2, “ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children” indicates that institutions and facilities for child care are not limited to public ones operated by government agencies, but also include those operated by private organizations and groups, and the Convention also recommends them.

Paragraph 3 provides that the State shall “take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care services and facilities for which they are eligible.” What is important here is the word “eligible”, which means that not all “children of working parents” have a universal right to use the services and facilities. This begs the question, then, what exactly is this “eligibility”? In reality, the definition of this term is currently left entirely to the judgment and attitudes of the States Parties to the Convention. Of course, the “best interests of the child” should be the most important factor in such judgments, which is the same as in other articles of the Convention. Also, “take all appropriate measures” is also an important idea for States Parties to the Convention.