The rights of parents and children can best be understood, it is argued, if the law is seen as distributing power over children's lives. Three case studies that illustrate this thesis are discussed with reference to some changes to the law contained in the Community Welfare Bill 1981 (New South Wales). It is further argued that the legal principle that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration does not resolve legal disputes because litigants have different views of what constitutes the child's best interest. A list of some of the bases on which people claim power over children's lives is provided and its categories are discussed. Listed bases for claiming power over children are biological, associational, expertise, representative of the state, cultural identification, personal autonomy of children, and impartial arbitrator of other claims (the courts). It is concluded that attempts to enter propositions such as "children have a right to a secure home life" into law are dubious exercises that do not much advance the cause of law reform. Further, children's rights would be advanced if the law accorded the right weight to the various categories of claimants, and ensured that the various claims were properly examined before a decision was made in a particular case. (Author/RH)