Who owns your children? To "own" means, rightfully to control - not merely to possess. Someone steals a car, they both possess and control it for a period - but not rightfully. Or you do rightfully possess a car, but some third party prevents you controlling it, without its license or permission; in both these cases your ownership has been forcibly prevented. Now apply this to children.

Simplify it: assume both parents are in full agreement about the kids. This is not a question about whether the father or mother has the greater right, in the case of dispute. Assume there is no dispute. Let's also dodge questions about teenage rebellion by assuming that all the children are in single digits. We're discussing young kids. Who owns them?

Probable answer, from any parent: we do! We gave them birth, we nurtured them, love them, guide them, protect them... who else could possibly say they have any right to possess or control them? They are our children!

Surprise: in the US (and elsewhere?) the government does not agree. They say that they, the State, ultimately owns your children. I will now prove that they say so.

No, we don't find that claim anywhere in the Constitution; nor, I think, in that of any State. It's not made quite that openly. But it is stated by government's courts, and as we know from the Marbury vs Madison case, the Judicial Department does "say what the Law is." Here are some citations to prove that they do make this claim; they are drawn from a finely researched article by the late Carl Watner (see his must-have book "I Must Speak Out" in the ZG Book Store.)

Mercein v. People Ex Rel Barry, 25 Wendell 64, December 1840 (NY)

"The moment the child is born, it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government."

So even as early as 1840, a newborn baby "owes allegiance to the government." Y-u-c-k.

State v. Bailley, 157 Ind. 324, October 29, 1901

"The natural rights of a parent to the custody and control of his infant child are subordinate to the power of the state, and may be restricted and regulated by municipal laws.... If he neglects to perform it or willfully refuses to do so, he may be coerced by law to execute such civil obligation."

State v. Shorey, 48 Or. 396, September 11, 1906

This Oregon case was about child labor laws.

"They [minors] are wards of the state and subject to its control. As to them the state stands in the position of parens patriae and may exercise unlimited supervision and control."

Allison et al v Bryan, 21 Oklahoma 557, June 25th 1908

"A child is primarily a ward of the state. The sovereign has the inherent power to... place it with either parent at will, or take it from both parents and to place it elsewhere... The rights of the parent in his child are just such rights as the law gives him; no more, no less."

Ex Parte Powell, 6 Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals 495, January 11, 1912.

"...the fundamental doctrine upon which governmental intervention in all such [juvenile] cases is based is that the moment a child is born he owes allegiance to the government..."

Carl Watner's book continues with other citations; but these suffice to prove that in its repugnant arrogance, government claims ownership of all children, from the moment of their birth - and so, incidentally, of all adults too. For example it "allows" them to draft boys of 18 into one of their wars; perhaps that will soon apply to girls also, on some fatuous principle such as "equality." But if you expect that "equality" will ever move the State to repeal its power to draft boys so as to make them equal to girls, don't hold your breath.

The foregoing shows that government certainly claims to own your children. Is the claim valid? - of course it isn't! For as long as government continues to exist it will be enforcible, but valid? - no way. Why not? because self ownership is an axiom; it is impossible to refute. And therefore, both the State's arrogant claim and the parents' much more reasonable claim are completely invalid: the child is his or her own owner. And that's radical, unique to the anarchist world-view.

So while the State certainly has no right to own your children, you don't have an unlimited right to do so either. Instead, you're holding (and cherishing!) them on a temporary basis, in trust. Details of this are spelled out in the "Children" page of The Anarchist Alternative. Worth a read, now.