Abstract
This article analyzes the complex balancing exercise between parents' rights and the progressive autonomy of children in the Chilean Constitution and how, in the end, there is a conflict between parents and the Government, and not parents and their children. The Chilean Constitution establishes that "Parents have the preferential right and duty to educate their children. [and that] it shall be the responsibility of the Government to grant special protection to exercise this right." However, the Bill that created the System of Guarantees and Rights of Children attempted to allow the Government's intervention in the face of discrepancies between parents and children regarding the limitations by parents on the requirements of a child for less direction and guidance, or directly, to act alone to participate in assemblies or peaceful protests, as well as to convene them, without the consent of their parents. To fulfill this purpose, the Bill established that conflicts that arose should be settled by applying the principle of progressive autonomy and all the other fundamental rights –including the preferential right and duty of parents to educate their children– should always be interpreted restrictively, in favor of the autonomy of the child. Filed a claim, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that the "preference" enjoyed by the right of parents to educate their children is part of the minimum core of parental rights and that Bill, in practice, was reversing that preference materially in favor of the Government, which at the end, was called upon to resolve a conflict between parents and children.