This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
en:argentina:inicio [2019/07/23 14:53] yaco |
en:argentina:inicio [2019/07/23 15:01] (current) ara [Case of 2019 in Salta] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| Although the mother explains that it is not a case of abandonment of the child, because she understand that his right education is guaranteed by a different alternative to traditional education, the Court doesn’t accept that, because it believes that this alternative it is not recognized by The State. | Although the mother explains that it is not a case of abandonment of the child, because she understand that his right education is guaranteed by a different alternative to traditional education, the Court doesn’t accept that, because it believes that this alternative it is not recognized by The State. | ||
| - | Explains that the alternative education model proposed by the moder “won't allow the child to have an official certification or degree that allows him to get a job that requires it, continue university studies and it doesn’t guaranteed the socialization of the child with their peers, neither the contents and learning axes nessesary for him devolpment.” | + | Explains that the alternative education model proposed by the mother “won't allow the child to have an official certification or degree that allows him to get a job that requires it, continue university studies and it doesn’t guaranteed the socialization of the child with their peers, neither the contents and learning axes nessesary for him devolpment.” |
| The Court dismiss the educational alternative propussed by the mother, because it considers that it hasn’t been demostrated that aternative satisfy the curricular contents required by the current school system in this country, neither “guaranteed the aspects that are central in the formation of a person”. That alternative also doesn’t satisfy the socialization requirement. The Court understand all these issues are guaranteed by the formal education system. | The Court dismiss the educational alternative propussed by the mother, because it considers that it hasn’t been demostrated that aternative satisfy the curricular contents required by the current school system in this country, neither “guaranteed the aspects that are central in the formation of a person”. That alternative also doesn’t satisfy the socialization requirement. The Court understand all these issues are guaranteed by the formal education system. | ||
| Because of the disagreement of the parents between each other (they are divorced, the mother conducts the rise of the child and the father disagree with homeschooling), The Court understands that it’s the Justice that must resolve this controversy, and in that resolution the best interest of the child must be consider. In that sense undserstand that of all the options, the one that mostly conforms to the protection of that interest, it’s the “compulsory schooling in the formal education system”, arguing in favor of this option that “education is the best way to facilitate the inclusion of young people in the labor market and is a leveling tool that favors equality”. | Because of the disagreement of the parents between each other (they are divorced, the mother conducts the rise of the child and the father disagree with homeschooling), The Court understands that it’s the Justice that must resolve this controversy, and in that resolution the best interest of the child must be consider. In that sense undserstand that of all the options, the one that mostly conforms to the protection of that interest, it’s the “compulsory schooling in the formal education system”, arguing in favor of this option that “education is the best way to facilitate the inclusion of young people in the labor market and is a leveling tool that favors equality”. | ||
| - | Finally, The Court cites, in favor of its arguments, the case “Defensoría de los Derechos de Niños, Niñas y Adolescentes c. B. J. s/ acción de amparo” (a previous case of 2008 in Argentina already explained before) del Tribunal Superior de Neuquen, making the exception that this judicial record is not assimilable to this case, because it was a claim of both parents, both parents agreed on deschooling. Based on the same previous case, the Court explained that "it was considered that the decision to exclude a child from school entails harmful consequences for the present and future of the child, who is a person different from that of his parents and should not bear the consequences of decisions that are based on personal choices". | + | Finally, The Court cites, in favor of its arguments, the case “Defensoría de los Derechos de Niños, Niñas y Adolescentes c. B. J. s/ acción de amparo” (a previous case of 2016 in Argentina already explained before) del Tribunal Superior de Neuquen, making the exception that this judicial record is not assimilable to this case, because it was a claim of both parents, both parents agreed on deschooling. Based on the same previous case, the Court explained that "it was considered that the decision to exclude a child from school entails harmful consequences for the present and future of the child, who is a person different from that of his parents and should not bear the consequences of decisions that are based on personal choices". |
| ## Assosiations, networks and groups | ## Assosiations, networks and groups | ||