About Sasha Zarubina and Not Only about Her

Only the laze didn't write about six-year Portuguese girl Sandre being for some unknown reason transformed into the Russian girl Sasha. As to our blog sphere passions here started ceasing only now.

It happened so that I followed those discussions closely enough and quite often participated in them. That's why one particular feature inherent almost in all conversations about Sasha-Sandre attracted my attention. Practically always dispute began from the talking about the right of the child - which, however, soon by some magic way turned to be the rights for the child. Very soon debaters forgot about girl's desires, where she can grow and develop in the best conditions. All blue in the face try find out who has more right for Sasha: her native mother, father, grandmother, adoptive parents or someone else.

By the way, almost all supporters of Natalia Zarubina use the one and only argument: she gave birth to the girl, it means she has the right one her. It is not important that Sasha was born and grown up in Portugal, that she got used to call other woman mother, that without knowledge of the Russian language she won't be able to go to school or kindergarten for long ... Rights of parents (biological parents) are above all.

I will hardly be strongly mistaken, if I will tell that exactly the case of Sasha Zarubina highlighted absurd of existing nowadays family laws - not only in Russia, certainly, but in all western countries. Let's say fairly, whether you don't consider the mere concept of the right for child absurd? How is it possible in general to have the right for someone? Child is not a thing, it's alive person, though very small but - a member of society. For example, you, reading these lines, would you be pleased, if the law assigned to someone the right for you? It already smells slavery.

Well, formally the child also has rights, at that extensive ones. But in practice the rights of parents for some reason always appear beyond and weighty. Though nobody says it aloud, the child is considered, as a matter of fact, as property of biological parents. Only this way the decision to give the girl to Natalia Zarubina looks justified. She wants to take away Sasha from habitual family and to take her to the other end of the world, where nobody speaks Portuguese? Well, she is mother, she has the right.

Here you are, by the way, an example - small but indicative. Let's assume that some spouses get divorced. Children in overwhelming majority of cases stay with mother but father has the right to see them. What about the right of children to see father? Silence.

We are proud of being civilized - say, we are not some savages. However in this very question we are very near to ancient principle "My son - is my property: I'll do as I wish - I can sell him or eat him". Yes, this principle has acquired numerous restrictions - but still remained. All laws about family (and about the rights of children too) are strung on it, as on a skewer.

Ancient Rome was even by present measures highly-organized society but there the power of the father over children (including adults) was absolute. Father could put them to death on the own free will, without any court. One shouldn't think that it was only mere formality - such cases in the Roman history were noted. For example, in 63 B.C. (not some wild antiquity - epoch of Caesar and Pompeian, Lucretius and Cicero) senator Fulvy put his son to death for attempt to adjoin army of Catilin. Neither law, nor someone else had questions to Fulvy. His son - his right.

Meanwhile, the Roman right even today is the basis for legislation of the western states including Russia. Here they are, birthmarks. The child - though being a man, is not like him a bit. At least, he extremely seldom is considered as the subject of the right - only as object. While outside - twenty first century.

Let's return to Sasha Zarubina. Whether she has rights? Formally - the whole heap and still a little bit (the West in general pays great attention to protection of the rights of children). While in practice nothing prevented some undesirable woman take away the girl from family and to bring her to unfamiliar country. Only because this woman gave her birth in due time and consequently has the right for her. Sasha's numerous rights are infringed because of the concept of parental rights. It is possible not to ask for the girl's consent - it is also possible to ask, receive the answer and to make as you wish. The law, however!

Perhaps, it's high time now to recognize: existing principle of parental rights does not meet present level of development of our society and it is time to get rid of this wildness. In my opinion, it is necessary to recognize that the status of the parent does not give any special rights, it only imposes certain duties. The rights of child should become central point of the family legislation.

Why? The matter is in the dual status of children. On the one hand, they - members of society and as those possess certain rights. On the other hand, they are incapable to protect independently their rights. Hence, this problem should be solved by society - in person of the state and other institutions.

Eventually, legislation needs to be brought into accord with life requirements and not vise versa.

Send by mail

Print