Joel Finberg was an American Political and Social philosopher well known for many of his books on topics such as Harm to others ‘the moral limits of the criminal law’, ‘Doing Philosophy’,‘Freedom and Fulfilment Philosophical Essays’that includes philosophy within education. For many years children were thought to have no rights they were considered to be their parent’s responsibility and property, however more recently this view has changed to the realization that not only have children rights in their present status but also have rights for their future. The following is a critique of Feinberg's theory of ‘The child’s right to an open future’ a chapter from Freedom and Fulfilment Philosophical Essaysand how A-rights, AC-rights and parental rights can narrow a child’s future how certain lifestyles/religion have effects in the narrowing that future with particular reference to the Amish community. The argument for children’s rights becomes a little problematic because children do not have the cognitive, emotional or physical abilities to develop their future selves. Feinberg addresses this area under “A child’s right to an open future” Joel explores many of the areas dealing with and surrounding child’s right to education. The child’s right to be educated, parents and stat right to bring a child up in the best interest of the child and how these rights-in-trust can cause libations on the child. How a child may have Autonomy but cannot be fully autonyms till they have reached a cretin age by that time they have already been influenced by others and how can their future be open if all of these have occurred. Adults and children have rights in common these rights are called A-C rights, many of rights only apply to adults known as A-rights the rights to vote consume alcohol and so on. There are children’s rights but these rights C-rights can apply to adults in carter circumstances. Children and adults who depend on others to provedbasic rights like shelter, food and protection. Feinberg further introduces the idea of children possessing “rights in Trust” These rights are equivalent to the rights adults exercise but as was already stated they do not have the understanding or ability or personal development to exercise them. (Feinberg 1980). For example one such right would be a child’s right to be part of a religion of his choosing. Children are too young to understand the depth and belief structure associated with most religions so can’t exercise their religious freedom until they develop in knowledge and understanding and desire to do so. This is a “Right in Trust”. Another example would be a child’s right to choose whatever career he wants. Obviously he cannot reflect and evaluate career choices or engage in one as he is underdeveloped and dependant so this is a “Right in Trust” Feinberg collectively termed all rights in trust, rights that a child cannot yet exercise but potentially will be able to d