Searching the origin of the word, we have that infancy drift of Latin ' ' infantia' ' , that it is formed by in (negation), would make more it (of speaking). Or either, that one that ' ' not fala' ' , it does not have voice. Thus, we can reflect on as it is common and easy to be in ' ' world oposto' ' , that is, in ' ' world of adulto' '! Without leaving our houses, when binding the television, or in them to connect the Internet, an entire world ' ' if abre' ' in it, what it is made thought next to the children? Thought about the real necessities of infancy? Even in the programs had as for this public, we attend, in the majority of the cases, clearly to a disrespect and indifference in relation to the interests and rights of the same ones. It has, constantly, a concern only in becoming them consuming and receiving. They ignore its capacity of decision, its gostos, its choices. Or they say them: ' ' The children are the future of our country! ' ' , they read ' ' diligent futures and trabalhadoras' ' , therefore it does not have as to deny that ' ' absence of voz' ' of decision on the part of the children must, many times, to the fact of them not to contribute economically with society. They are seen, most of the time, thus, from a incompletude vision, as others ' ' sem' ' , ' ' absentees de' ' , that we have in our society. We can think about the excluded ones, without lands, without-ceilings What the children are now does not count? What it is thought about the city, the streets, the spaces opened for them? Until the squares and schools that are seen places as ' ' of crianas' ' they are made as? With them, for them or only for they, from a vision of the other, in the case, of an adult? Some authors of the Sociology of Infancy, as Catherine Toms (2009), speak on the existing adultocntrica vision in the society and defend the necessity of if recognizing the children as actors social, capable to contribute in the taking of decisions, in the routes of the society.