It's morning, it's raining. You're getting junior ready for playschool when battle commences: you want her to wear sensible jumper and dungarees this winter day, she desperately wants to wear a bathing suit with the tutu over it. Do you (a) shout her down, (b) give in or (c) negotiate - and compromise?

The right answer (I think) is three. But what has that got to do with a big issue, like children's human rights? The answer is that children, from the earliest possible age, should be treated as separate individuals, not as appendages of their parents - in this case, with a right to voice an opinion and have it taken into account.

The UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child is the much younger offspring of the Convention on Human Rights created 50 years ago. The "Rights of the Child" document, just 10 years old, sets out to promote the best interests of children, from the right to a family (and access to both parents), the right of access to healthcare services, the right to education, the right to protection from all forms of physical or mental violence and sexual abuse, through to the right to freedom of expression, "in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child".

No problem, you say. Children's rights, like adults', are obviously A Good Thing. But just as it's easier to see how foreign countries infringe human rights than how Ireland might do so itself, it's hard for us to accept that we might not be so hot at safeguarding our own children's rights.

Fionnuala Kilfeather of the National Parents Council (Primary), a champion of parents' and children's right, points out, for example, that the UN article providing for a child's right to information and freedom of expression "has profound implications for Irish families and schools, which have traditionally not held that view".

Not many Irish schools, for example, have a forum where students can express their opinions to the people who run the school - though that will change when new legislation provides for schools to establish student councils. And how many parents routinely have the kind of family meetings (recommended in parenting courses) to discuss issues affecting the whole family?

There's little point, says Kilfeather, "teaching children about democracy if it's not mirrored in the home and in the school". She argues that children can be given rights - and responsibilities - appropriate to their age from as young as three and four upwards. "Even quite young children can, for example, be given responsibility for turning the TV on and off, after viewing times have been agreed. They have to be used to taking personal responsibility for themselves long before, say, taking responsibility for drinking or not drinking at Junior Cert level."

The National Parents' Council (Primary) actually puts its message - that children are people with rights that should be respected - into practice. It has a policy that individual parents' associations should try to involve children in making decisions on issues that affect them.

And at its own last conference, the council held a workshop for children aged seven to 12, looking at the issues of "rights" and "wants", and found they were well able to distinguish between the two.

Most of us are only dimly aware of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but most of us probably already believe implicitly in the notion of children's rights - it's in the air we breathe - and don't treat children like chattels who must do our bidding. If parents err, it's likely to be on the side of inconsistency - being too permissive one moment, too dictatorial the next.

One way or another, there are changes coming, the next likely step being the appointment of a children's ombudsman. "Children are a voiceless and vulnerable minority group in society, possessing inadequate political and legal powers," says family law lecturer Frank Martin, writing in the just-launched Irish Journal of Family Law. And Martin argues that it is time to follow the example of other countries and establish an independent children's ombudsman.

The National Parents' Council supports such a move, as does the Children's Rights Alliance, an umbrella group representing 60 different children's welfare groups, which published a research study on an ombudsman for children in Ireland two years ago.

Countries like Norway and New Zealand have already established such a position, which Martin argues in his article "is a manifest expression of society's authentic commitment to recognising and prioritising children's rights". The headline on his article - "Children's Ombudsman: Champion of Children's Rights or Unnecessary Interloper?" - recognises that many adults may fear giving children an independent spokesperson. A Unicef pamphlet, "Questions Parents Ask in relation to the Convention", also addresses parents' concerns. Judging by the tone of the questions, Unicef is aware that parents can be a suspicious, fearful lot, anxious about outsiders interfering in the intimate parent-child relationship.

But the Convention itself is at pains to point out that its aim is to support parents and families. And once you've accepted the basic premise - "the image of a child as an emerging and developing autonomous citizen", as Martin puts it - it would be difficult to argue against the need for an ombudsman.

"This evolving status requires to be promoted and protected," Martin concludes. "What better than the vigilance of a children's ombudsman to facilitate this new citizenship?"