A (Rant?) about animal rights and children's rights

Wellman seems vehemently opposed to bestowing legal and/or "alleged moral rights" onto children. He had also written that animal rights are problematic. With the latter opinion, I think I agree (to some extent - I don't know that animals have "rights" though I don't think we should treat them cruelly and I think humane slaughter is important) but with the former, I find myself torn. I understand Wellman's argument that children are not independent persons with the ability to make decisions for themselves or the ability to understand their rights. However, in reading the Declaration (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/25.htm), it seems that it is not so much a laundry list of outlandish rights of which the child must be cognizant to receive, but rather it is a list of responsibilities the state holds to each and every child regardless of race, sex, creed, disability, or bubble gum flavor. They are basic human needs or things that will ensure the wellbeing, health, and happiness of the child. The Declaration includes statements that underline the importance of the family. Wellman's claim that "what children really need is nt to be liberated and empowered... as much as to receive loving care and nurture by their parents or guardians" (5). Yes! The UN agrees, and goes on to say that the state needs to help parents to ensure the child receives an education, food, water, and that she is not put in harms way through employment, war, or abuse. So what is Wellman arguing against? Merely the language of rights being applied to children? Do we lack rights as a child but gain them when we become conscious of ourselves, or perhaps when we are no longer dependent on our parents, or maybe when we reach the arbitrary age of 18? I do not think states should remove children from their caregivers willy-nilly, but there are circumstances in which, for the wellbeing and safety of the child, this must occur. Wellman says that "Child abuse and neglect are all too common and grave moral wrongs, but they can be effectively addressed only by defining and insisting upon the moral responsibility of children's caregivers" (6). Really? Last time I checked, the probability that an abusive or neglectful parent will successfully reform and be able to adequately care for a child is slim to none. Abusers very rarely have the ability (and perhaps this is judgmental, but they also seem very rarely to have the will) to change, even if their "rights" as a parent are taken away. Obviously there are instances in which some education can change everything, but these cases are not the norm. So what does Wellman propose now? Do Children really not have rights?

As a note, I think it is interesting that in this country, animal "rights" came before children's rights. Here is some food for thought:

"Child protection cases in the United States were first brought pursuant to animal abuse laws. Henry Bergh founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“ASPCA”) in 1866. In 1874, Bergh and Elbridge Gery, an attorney for the ASPCA, successfully petitioned to have eight-year-old Mary Ellen Wilson removed from her abusive home. Several months later, the first meeting of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was held at the ASPCA's office" (http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus30sepcololaw29.htm).

I hope that made sense.
(sorry it's late)