Okay lawyers, I wanna know who's right

[ConHog]

in your legal opinions

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/120687-wouldnt-this-be-considered-child-abuse.html

I say the law says that an adult can't choose to endanger their child , and that a child can't choose to endanger herself. While Syrenna insists that it isn't neglect for a parent to allow their child to do something which poses an imminent danger. there also appears to be a disagreement about whether consenting to allow your child to become emancipated so that they may join the military constitutes neglect.

Please post opinions in that thread so that it will all tie together.
Thank you.

 

[jillian]

in your legal opinions

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/120687-wouldnt-this-be-considered-child-abuse.html

I say the law says that an adult can't choose to endanger their child , and that a child can't choose to endanger herself. While Syrenna insists that it isn't neglect for a parent to allow their child to do something which poses an imminent danger. there also appears to be a disagreement about whether consenting to allow your child to become emancipated so that they may join the military constitutes neglect.

Please post opinions in that thread so that it will all tie together.
Thank you.

i'd think you'd need to give a specific set of facts for consideration. is there an 'inherantly dangerous' activity you have in mind?

 

[syrenn]

in your legal opinions

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/120687-wouldnt-this-be-considered-child-abuse.html

I say the law says that an adult can't choose to endanger their child , and that a child can't choose to endanger herself. While Syrenna insists that it isn't neglect for a parent to allow their child to do something which poses an imminent danger. there also appears to be a disagreement about whether consenting to allow your child to become emancipated so that they may join the military constitutes neglect.

Please post opinions in that thread so that it will all tie together.
Thank you.

i'd think you'd need to give a specific set of facts for consideration. is there an 'inherantly dangerous' activity you have in mind?[/qoute]

Jillian: conhog is speaking about the 16 year old sailor.

Careful conhog. Do not misstate my stance. No one is saying your military decision at 16 is neglect, but it is about parental consent of letting you participate in dangerous activities.

My opinion has all along been that parents have the right to give consent for THEIR child to participate in situations where no laws are broken.

 

[ConHog]

in your legal opinions

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/120687-wouldnt-this-be-considered-child-abuse.html

I say the law says that an adult can't choose to endanger their child , and that a child can't choose to endanger herself. While Syrenna insists that it isn't neglect for a parent to allow their child to do something which poses an imminent danger. there also appears to be a disagreement about whether consenting to allow your child to become emancipated so that they may join the military constitutes neglect.

Please post opinions in that thread so that it will all tie together.
Thank you.

i'd think you'd need to give a specific set of facts for consideration. is there an 'inherantly dangerous' activity you have in mind?

Yes Jilian we are discussing the child who attempted to sail around the world , or more accurately her father chose for her to do so, alone and she she ended up being marooned . Also take into account that experts have testified that the sea she was in when her boat became debris is way TOO dangerous this time of year for anyone to be attempting to sail it solo this time of year and that family members have told a member of the media that they were told the boat was not properly repaired from it's last mechanical problem before she headed out.

 

[ConHog]

in your legal opinions

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/120687-wouldnt-this-be-considered-child-abuse.html

I say the law says that an adult can't choose to endanger their child , and that a child can't choose to endanger herself. While Syrenna insists that it isn't neglect for a parent to allow their child to do something which poses an imminent danger. there also appears to be a disagreement about whether consenting to allow your child to become emancipated so that they may join the military constitutes neglect.

Please post opinions in that thread so that it will all tie together.
Thank you.

i'd think you'd need to give a specific set of facts for consideration. is there an 'inherantly dangerous' activity you have in mind?[/qoute]

Jillian: conhog is speaking about the 16 year old sailor.

Careful conhog. Do not misstate my stance. No one is saying your military decision at 16 is neglect, but it is about parental consent of letting you participate in dangerous activities.

My opinion has all along been that parents have the right to give consent for THEIR child to participate in situations where no laws are broken.

and my position is that a law WAS broken.

 

[jillian]

in your legal opinions

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/120687-wouldnt-this-be-considered-child-abuse.html

I say the law says that an adult can't choose to endanger their child , and that a child can't choose to endanger herself. While Syrenna insists that it isn't neglect for a parent to allow their child to do something which poses an imminent danger. there also appears to be a disagreement about whether consenting to allow your child to become emancipated so that they may join the military constitutes neglect.

Please post opinions in that thread so that it will all tie together.
Thank you.

i'd think you'd need to give a specific set of facts for consideration. is there an 'inherantly dangerous' activity you have in mind?

Yes Jilian we are discussing the child who attempted to sail around the world , or more accurately her father chose for her to do so, alone and she she ended up being marooned . Also take into account that experts have testified that the sea she was in when her boat became debris is way TOO dangerous this time of year for anyone to be attempting to sail it solo this time of year and that family members have told a member of the media that they were told the boat was not properly repaired from it's last mechanical problem before she headed out.

i figured that's what you were referring to, but didn't want to assume. i don't think i'd have allowed it, but you're talking to a mom who has to fight her inclincation to be over protective.

it's an interesting question. personally, i think it's neglectful. but where do we draw the line as to what is inherantly dangerous. is skiing? white water rafting? etc...

 

[ConHog]

i'd think you'd need to give a specific set of facts for consideration. is there an 'inherantly dangerous' activity you have in mind?

Yes Jilian we are discussing the child who attempted to sail around the world , or more accurately her father chose for her to do so, alone and she she ended up being marooned . Also take into account that experts have testified that the sea she was in when her boat became debris is way TOO dangerous this time of year for anyone to be attempting to sail it solo this time of year and that family members have told a member of the media that they were told the boat was not properly repaired from it's last mechanical problem before she headed out.

i figured that's what you were referring to, but didn't want to assume. i don't think i'd have allowed it, but you're talking to a mom who has to fight her inclincation to be over protective.

it's an interesting question. personally, i think it's neglectful. but where do we draw the line as to what is inherantly dangerous. is skiing? white water rafting? etc...

Well, let's start with this.

Syrenn believes that if a parent gives consent then that means the parent has decided it's not imminent risk of harm and the state has no say so

I say the law is specifically written so that the state can step in and say no you do NOT have the right to decide what constitutes an imminent risk , we do.....

from a lawyers standpoint what do you say?

 

[syrenn]

i figured that's what you were referring to, but didn't want to assume. i don't think i'd have allowed it, but you're talking to a mom who has to fight her inclincation to be over protective.

it's an interesting question. personally, i think it's neglectful. but where do we draw the line as to what is inherantly dangerous. is skiing? white water rafting? etc...

Exactly.

The next question is regardless of what we think, do parents have the right to decide for their own children what is and is not allowed, or what they can and cannot participate in, so long no laws are broken?

 

[jillian]

i figured that's what you were referring to, but didn't want to assume. i don't think i'd have allowed it, but you're talking to a mom who has to fight her inclincation to be over protective.

it's an interesting question. personally, i think it's neglectful. but where do we draw the line as to what is inherantly dangerous. is skiing? white water rafting? etc...

Exactly.

The next question is regardless of what we think, do parents have the right to decide for their own children what is and is not allowed, or what they can and cannot participate in, so long no laws are broken?

at 16? absolutely parents have the right.

 

[syrenn]

Yes Jilian we are discussing the child who attempted to sail around the world , or more accurately her father chose for her to do so, alone and she she ended up being marooned . Also take into account that experts have testified that the sea she was in when her boat became debris is way TOO dangerous this time of year for anyone to be attempting to sail it solo this time of year and that family members have told a member of the media that they were told the boat was not properly repaired from it's last mechanical problem before she headed out.

i figured that's what you were referring to, but didn't want to assume. i don't think i'd have allowed it, but you're talking to a mom who has to fight her inclincation to be over protective.

it's an interesting question. personally, i think it's neglectful. but where do we draw the line as to what is inherantly dangerous. is skiing? white water rafting? etc...

Well, let's start with this.

Syrenn believes that if a parent gives consent then that means the parent has decided it's not imminent risk of harm and the state has no say so

I say the law is specifically written so that the state can step in and say no you do NOT have the right to decide what constitutes an imminent risk , we do.....

from a lawyers standpoint what do you say?

Do not speak for me you presumptions idiot.

Unless you are Syrenn keep your mouth SHUT about what Syrenn believes or doesn't believe.

 

[syrenn]

i figured that's what you were referring to, but didn't want to assume. i don't think i'd have allowed it, but you're talking to a mom who has to fight her inclincation to be over protective.

it's an interesting question. personally, i think it's neglectful. but where do we draw the line as to what is inherantly dangerous. is skiing? white water rafting? etc...

Exactly.

The next question is regardless of what we think, do parents have the right to decide for their own children what is and is not allowed, or what they can and cannot participate in, so long no laws are broken?

at 16? absolutely parents have the right.

thank you.

 

[ConHog]

i figured that's what you were referring to, but didn't want to assume. i don't think i'd have allowed it, but you're talking to a mom who has to fight her inclincation to be over protective.

it's an interesting question. personally, i think it's neglectful. but where do we draw the line as to what is inherantly dangerous. is skiing? white water rafting? etc...

Exactly.

The next question is regardless of what we think, do parents have the right to decide for their own children what is and is not allowed, or what they can and cannot participate in, so long no laws are broken?

at 16? absolutely parents have the right.

No, Syrenn doesn't get off that easily, she just mislead you with the question. IF something poses an imminent risk and a parent allows their child to do it anyway, that is breaking the law. yes or no?


by the way I posted the law in the other thread, but I will do sere as well


Definitions in Federal Law

Federal legislation provides a foundation for States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

* Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or

* An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

 

[syrenn]

Exactly.

The next question is regardless of what we think, do parents have the right to decide for their own children what is and is not allowed, or what they can and cannot participate in, so long no laws are broken?

at 16? absolutely parents have the right.

No, Syrenn doesn't get off that easily, she just mislead you with the question. IF something poses an imminent risk and a parent allows their child to do it anyway, that is breaking the law. yes or no?

So is this about Syrenn or what Abby and her parents or you being worng?

 

[ConHog]

at 16? absolutely parents have the right.

No, Syrenn doesn't get off that easily, she just mislead you with the question. IF something poses an imminent risk and a parent allows their child to do it anyway, that is breaking the law. yes or no?

So is this about Syrenn or what Abby and her parents or you being worng?

Nice try.............. I care about this particular girl about as much as you do. I care very much however about seeing that children in general are protected by the law.

 

[syrenn]

No, Syrenn doesn't get off that easily, she just mislead you with the question. IF something poses an imminent risk and a parent allows their child to do it anyway, that is breaking the law. yes or no?

So is this about Syrenn or what Abby and her parents or you being worng?

Nice try.............. I care about this particular girl about as much as you do. I care very much however about seeing that children in general are protected by the law.

Nice try. That is not how most will read your hissie fit.

How about we let the lawyers have a say in regards to your "leading" OP shall we?

 

[ConHog]

So is this about Syrenn or what Abby and her parents or you being worng?

Nice try.............. I care about this particular girl about as much as you do. I care very much however about seeing that children in general are protected by the law.

Nice try. That is not how most will read your hissie fit.

How about we let the lawyers have a say in regards to your "leading" OP shall we?

Hey, you're the one trying to mislead them by asking about legal things, when we are talking about what is illegal and what is legal. And I AM the one who brought the question in here.

 

[jillian]

Nice try.............. I care about this particular girl about as much as you do. I care very much however about seeing that children in general are protected by the law.

Nice try. That is not how most will read your hissie fit.

How about we let the lawyers have a say in regards to your "leading" OP shall we?

Hey, you're the one trying to mislead them by asking about legal things, when we are talking about what is illegal and what is legal. And I AM the one who brought the question in here.

oh... she didn't mislead. it's just that there are two separate inquiries. when i said parents have a right to govern their children't behavior, i was pointing out that the minor doesn't get to make their own decisions.

that is separate from the inquiry of whether allowing a child to do something is reasonable or neglectful even if the activity is otherwise legal.

 

[ConHog]

Nice try. That is not how most will read your hissie fit.

How about we let the lawyers have a say in regards to your "leading" OP shall we?

Hey, you're the one trying to mislead them by asking about legal things, when we are talking about what is illegal and what is legal. And I AM the one who brought the question in here.

oh... she didn't mislead. it's just that there are two separate inquiries. when i said parents have a right to govern their children't behavior, i was pointing out that the minor doesn't get to make their own decisions.

that is separate from the inquiry of whether allowing a child to do something is reasonable or neglectful even if the activity is otherwise legal.

Okay, so what is your opinion on that point? Because IMO the law is set up specifically for situation like this where a parent can't let their child do something that they themselves would be perfectly ok to do.

 

[jillian]

Hey, you're the one trying to mislead them by asking about legal things, when we are talking about what is illegal and what is legal. And I AM the one who brought the question in here.

oh... she didn't mislead. it's just that there are two separate inquiries. when i said parents have a right to govern their children't behavior, i was pointing out that the minor doesn't get to make their own decisions.

that is separate from the inquiry of whether allowing a child to do something is reasonable or neglectful even if the activity is otherwise legal.

Okay, so what is your opinion on that point? Because IMO the law is set up specifically for situation like this where a parent can't let their child do something that they themselves would be perfectly ok to do.

i have a question first. wasn't there some organization which kept records as to the ages of the people doing her type of journey?

 

[ConHog]

oh... she didn't mislead. it's just that there are two separate inquiries. when i said parents have a right to govern their children't behavior, i was pointing out that the minor doesn't get to make their own decisions.

that is separate from the inquiry of whether allowing a child to do something is reasonable or neglectful even if the activity is otherwise legal.

Okay, so what is your opinion on that point? Because IMO the law is set up specifically for situation like this where a parent can't let their child do something that they themselves would be perfectly ok to do.

i have a question first. wasn't there some organization which kept records as to the ages of the people doing her type of journey?

Interestingly enough I found this

World Speed Sailing Record Council but they discontinued their youngest category due to the controversy of should these children be doing these things.

Which I think absolutely bolsters my argument.

Urgent: 16-year-old solo sailor Abby Sunderland feared lost at sea - LA Daily News

And of course there is the Guinness Book of World Records





Syyrenn is on the ropes..............................................