Refer to fundamental human rights that ensure individuals can participate in and benefit from economic, social, cultural, and political development. These rights emphasize the importance of development as a process that enhances well-being and dignity for all individuals, recognizing that everyone has the right to contribute to and enjoy the fruits of development in a fair and equitable manner.
Key Aspects
- Inalienable Rights: These rights are inherent and cannot be taken away, emphasizing the entitlement of every individual to development.
- Universal Application: They apply to all people, regardless of race, creed, or gender, ensuring equal opportunity for material and spiritual development.
- Participation and Contribution: Individuals are entitled to actively participate in and contribute to their own development, which is crucial for realizing their full potential.
- Recognition by International Bodies: The United Nations has recognized these rights, particularly through the Declaration on the Right to Development, established in 1986.”
No… that’s not quite it… Children’s Bill of Rights… search search search… pssst hey Robot…
[0_0] In trauma recovery circles, therapists often use a “Children’s Bill of Rights” as a therapeutic exercise—a list of what every child should have received growing up. It’s intended to help survivors identify unmet developmental needs rather than describe legal rights.
I searched Patrick Teahan’s site, and he actually has a course titled “The Children’s Bill of Rights”, described as helping people “understand the rights every child deserves—and learn how to offer them to yourself now.”
^-.-^ Sounds like something he’d say… yeah a lot closer.. the phrasing was more any child… A child has the right… This reminds me of when I was early on this path, as many people will be… the “I have” affirmations… reads woo-woo.. and mirror chanting level woo-woo… I had to see it through Any Child… and seeing the child I happened to be (as a child) was worthy of what Any Child was… baby steps. Core Principles!
[0_0] Yes! I think you’ve found the clue.
You’re probably remembering the Core Principles of Childhood Rights that circulate in trauma-informed therapy, rather than a document literally titled “Children’s Bill of Rights.” Therapists often present these as core developmental rights—the things every child should be able to count on.
The wording varies, but they usually sound something like:
- Every child has the right to be safe.
- Every child has the right to be loved and cared for.
- Every child has the right to be seen, heard, and understood.
- Every child has the right to have thoughts, feelings, and needs.
- Every child has the right to make mistakes while learning and growing.
- Every child has the right to healthy boundaries and respect.
- Every child has the right to play, explore, and develop at their own pace.
- Every child has the right to be protected from abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
- Every child has the right to develop their own identity.
- Every child has the right to be treated with dignity simply because they are a child.
This framing is much more principle-based than affirmation-based. It asks, “What are the fundamental rights of any child?” Once those principles are established, the personal application follows naturally.
I also wonder if the phrase you’re remembering is “Core Principles of Childhood Development” or “Core Principles of Childhood” rather than “Children’s Bill of Rights.”
If this is from Patrick Teahan, I have a hunch you’re remembering one of his worksheets where he asks viewers to evaluate their childhood against universal developmental principles rather than starting with self-affirmations.
One thing I appreciate about your observation is that it highlights an important therapeutic distinction:
- Affirmations ask you to believe something about yourself.
- Core principles ask you to recognize what is universally true.
- Reflection then asks, “Did the child I was receive those things?”
For many people, that last step is far more accessible than trying to convince themselves with affirmations they don’t yet believe. It moves from ethics (“What should every child receive?”) to observation (“What did this particular child receive?”), instead of jumping straight to self-worth. That can feel much less like “woo-woo” and much more like examining evidence.
^-.-^ The shift from a Fear Obligation Guilt F.O.G. programing and pattern of forced compromise >>to moral argument >>to a legal argument. No space for interpretive manipulations about the victim’s perceptions/capacities. Drop the Why and call it out.
A child is a child is a child.
[0_0] I think you’re describing a shift that is more profound than it might sound at first.
In the FOG model (Fear, Obligation, and Guilt), the conversation is always dragged into interpretation:
- “Maybe they didn’t mean it.”
- “You were too sensitive.”
- “They did their best.”
- “You misunderstood.”
- “You should have been more mature.”
- “There were two sides.”
The victim ends up arguing their own perceptions, memory, and worthiness.
The “Any child…” framework changes the venue of the argument.
Instead of asking:
“Was I justified in feeling hurt?”
It asks:
“What is owed to any child?”
That’s almost a constitutional question rather than a psychological one.
Once you’ve established a principle such as:
- Every child has the right to physical safety.
- Every child has the right to emotional safety.
- Every child has the right to be protected by their caregivers.
- Every child has the right to have developmental limitations respected.
…the debate changes.
You no longer have to prove that your fear was reasonable.
You only have to ask:
Was I a child?
If yes, then the principle applies.
As you put it:
A child is a child is a child.
That’s a remarkably powerful sentence because it removes the exceptions that FOG depends upon.
FOG says:
Your case is different.
The principle says:
No. The rule is universal.
It also moves away from explaining motives.
You wrote:
“Drop the Why and call it out.”
That’s another important shift.
FOG keeps asking:
- Why did they do it?
- Why didn’t they know better?
- Why are they like this?
- Why didn’t you leave?
A rights-based framework asks a different question:
What happened?
and
Did it violate a child’s rights?
Intent may matter in some contexts, but it isn’t the starting point.
For example, if a child is routinely humiliated, you don’t first need to determine whether the parent intended harm. You can first recognize:
Any child has the right not to be humiliated by the adults responsible for their care.
That principle stands on its own.
I also hear another transition in what you’re saying:
- FOG → “I must justify myself.”
- Moral reasoning → “This was wrong.”
- Rights-based reasoning → “This violated a standard that exists independently of anyone’s opinion.”
That’s a different kind of stability. Moral arguments can still get bogged down in disagreements about values or intentions. A rights-based framework says, “These are baseline obligations owed to children.” It narrows the space for endless reinterpretation.
The phrase “A child is a child is a child.” captures that well. It echoes the idea that childhood itself—not obedience, maturity, gratitude, or likability—is what grounds those rights. The child doesn’t earn them. They don’t lose them by being difficult. They don’t forfeit them because an adult had a bad day.
The standard doesn’t bend to the adult’s narrative. The child remains a child.
^-.-^ That’s about right. What I feel like art-ing about today. Learning how to see yourself as Any Child again.
Traveler Chimiru 
Leave a comment