Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Want to be part of the group hug?
Want to be part of the group hug?
Want to be part of the group hug?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA]YouTube - Kumbaya My Lord[/ame]
So to be clear, a parent does NOT have the right to neglect their child?
As far as proving your case, that does not equal a law being broken.
and no Syrenn, you haven't won, not a single lawyer has disputed my claim that under the federal guidelines for child abuse you have do NOT have the absolute right to decide what is too dangerous for your child to do.
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.
If this is the operative law, then allowing a child to do something which presents an imminent risk of harm would be a violation of that law. The action that would violate the law would be the failure of the parent to to prevent the child from doing the dangerous act.
Of course, each case turns on its facts, and no prosecutor is going to file if they think they don't have a reasonable chance to get a conviction. Much depends on the age of the child, the experience of the child and the risk of the particular activity.
Understood that of course each case is different. But given some facts that we know
A) Experts sailors from that part of the world are on record saying that NO sailor should have been sailing that ocean solo this time of year
B) Family members are telling people that her boat was inadequately repaired from a mechanical problem earlier in the journey
C) The world organization that keeps track of sailing records has dropped their youngest category due to the danger
D) Family members are testifying that the father urged maybe to the point of coercion this girl continue when she wanted to stop after her boat broke down the first time
E) It turns out that the father had made a deal with a reality TV show contingent on her completing the trip before she left
Now given those facts to begin with would you as a prosecutor file charges?
sorry... 3zip you loose. Nor do the claim that abbys parents did not have the right to allow her to sail solo.
deal with it.
sorry... 3zip you loose. Nor do the claim that abbys parents did not have the right to allow her to sail solo.
deal with it.
you better go reread the thread my dear, George, for example, was very clear . IF what the parents allowed her to do can be proven to be an IMMINENT threat of harm, then the parents are violating the law if they CHOOSE to let her do it anyway.
I really think this is just a case of you not being smart enough to decipher the law.
So to be clear, a parent does NOT have the right to neglect their child?
As far as proving your case, that does not equal a law being broken.
and no Syrenn, you haven't won, not a single lawyer has disputed my claim that under the federal guidelines for child abuse you have do NOT have the absolute right to decide what is too dangerous for your child to do.
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.
If this is the operative law, then allowing a child to do something which presents an imminent risk of harm would be a violation of that law. The action that would violate the law would be the failure of the parent to to prevent the child from doing the dangerous act.
Of course, each case turns on its facts, and no prosecutor is going to file if they think they don't have a reasonable chance to get a conviction. Much depends on the age of the child, the experience of the child and the risk of the particular activity.
Understood that of course each case is different. But given some facts that we know
A) Experts sailors from that part of the world are on record saying that NO sailor should have been sailing that ocean solo this time of year
B) Family members are telling people that her boat was inadequately repaired from a mechanical problem earlier in the journey
C) The world organization that keeps track of sailing records has dropped their youngest category due to the danger
D) Family members are testifying that the father urged maybe to the point of coercion this girl continue when she wanted to stop after her boat broke down the first time
E) It turns out that the father had made a deal with a reality TV show contingent on her completing the trip before she left
Now given those facts to begin with would you as a prosecutor file charges?
sorry... 3zip you loose. Nor do the claim that abbys parents did not have the right to allow her to sail solo.
deal with it.
you better go reread the thread my dear, George, for example, was very clear . IF what the parents allowed her to do can be proven to be an IMMINENT threat of harm, then the parents are violating the law if they CHOOSE to let her do it anyway.
I really think this is just a case of you not being smart enough to decipher the law.
sorry... 3zip you loose. Nor do the claim that abbys parents did not have the right to allow her to sail solo.
deal with it.
you better go reread the thread my dear, George, for example, was very clear . IF what the parents allowed her to do can be proven to be an IMMINENT threat of harm, then the parents are violating the law if they CHOOSE to let her do it anyway.
I really think this is just a case of you not being smart enough to decipher the law.
Again I will say it.
Sailing has inherent risk. Sailing solo around the world is not putting her in imminent danger.
George also talks about other sports having inherent risk. So again sailing and sports are equal on the idea of inherent risk.
you better go reread the thread my dear, George, for example, was very clear . IF what the parents allowed her to do can be proven to be an IMMINENT threat of harm, then the parents are violating the law if they CHOOSE to let her do it anyway.
I really think this is just a case of you not being smart enough to decipher the law.
Again I will say it.
Sailing has inherent risk. Sailing solo around the world is not putting her in imminent danger.
George also talks about other sports having inherent risk. So again sailing and sports are equal on the idea of inherent risk.
You're beyond fucking stupid. I'm tired of attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who is so fucking retarded they are trying to make the claim that sailing around the world so solo is no more dangerous than playing football.
I pray to God that you NEVER have children, you are without a doubt one of the most ignorant fucking persons I have ever come across and NO child deserves you as a mother. Please stay on some form of birth control.
You're beyond fucking stupid. I'm tired of attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who is so fucking retarded they are trying to make the claim that sailing around the world so solo is no more dangerous than playing football.you better go reread the thread my dear, George, for example, was very clear . IF what the parents allowed her to do can be proven to be an IMMINENT threat of harm, then the parents are violating the law if they CHOOSE to let her do it anyway.
I really think this is just a case of you not being smart enough to decipher the law.
Again I will say it.
Sailing has inherent risk. Sailing solo around the world is not putting her in imminent danger.
George also talks about other sports having inherent risk. So again sailing and sports are equal on the idea of inherent risk.
I pray to God that you NEVER have children, you are without a doubt one of the most ignorant fucking persons I have ever come across and NO child deserves you as a mother. Please stay on some form of birth control.
you better go reread the thread my dear, George, for example, was very clear . IF what the parents allowed her to do can be proven to be an IMMINENT threat of harm, then the parents are violating the law if they CHOOSE to let her do it anyway.
I really think this is just a case of you not being smart enough to decipher the law.
Again I will say it.
Sailing has inherent risk. Sailing solo around the world is not putting her in imminent danger.
George also talks about other sports having inherent risk. So again sailing and sports are equal on the idea of inherent risk.
You're beyond fucking stupid. I'm tired of attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who is so fucking retarded they are trying to make the claim that sailing around the world so solo is no more dangerous than playing football.
I pray to God that you NEVER have children, you are without a doubt one of the most ignorant fucking persons I have ever come across and NO child deserves you as a mother. Please stay on some form of birth control.
Again I will say it.
Sailing has inherent risk. Sailing solo around the world is not putting her in imminent danger.
George also talks about other sports having inherent risk. So again sailing and sports are equal on the idea of inherent risk.
You're beyond fucking stupid. I'm tired of attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who is so fucking retarded they are trying to make the claim that sailing around the world so solo is no more dangerous than playing football.
I pray to God that you NEVER have children, you are without a doubt one of the most ignorant fucking persons I have ever come across and NO child deserves you as a mother. Please stay on some form of birth control.
A couple of thoughts on this point. First off, I don't think I saw your newest best friend ever saying that sailing around the world solo was no more dangerous than playing football. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Also, in a prior post, you contend that Syrenn is arguing that once a parent makes a decision about what their child can be allowed to do, the state has no say so. Here is what you contend she is saying: "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."
She never said that. Here is what she said on that point: "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."
Pretty clear there, wouldn't you say? IN SITUATIONS WHERE NO LAWS ARE BROKEN, i.e., parents can let their kids do whatever they please unless and until a law is broken. Then the state steps in.
Now, on the main point of this thread - you feel that allowing a 16-year-old girl to sail around the world on her own violates the Federal law you quote. Syrenn feels that it does not. In point of fact, it is a close call and could go either way, hence, you are both correct and your are both incorrect. Simple as that.
Some 16-year-olds are much more competent to do dangerous things than others. I doubt that your 15-year-old daughter would do very well on center court at Wimbledon, but there are 15-year-old girls who would do quite well there. True, tennis is not dangerous, but I trust you see my point.
I know that I said earlier that I would probably lean toward going ahead with a prosecution of the girl's parents under the circumstances of the sailing case. On thinking further on the point, I don't know. Jillian said it fairly well - she might think the parents here acted wrongly, but she was quick to say that she is an overly protective mother, i.e., other, reasonable minds, might differ.
I find myself thinking, what would I do if confronted with the choice? If I had a 15-year-old daughter, I doubt that I would give the OK. But you have to remember one very important thing - the young girl here was an accomplished and experienced sailor. It wasn't like they were putting a novice out there. There is also the pride in knowing your child accomplished something like this - something you genuinely feel she has the ability to accomplish. If I had a daughter like that, I might well let her go.
So it isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is. The law has an expression: "Reasonable minds can differ" on many points. I think this is one of them.
Again I will say it.
Sailing has inherent risk. Sailing solo around the world is not putting her in imminent danger.
George also talks about other sports having inherent risk. So again sailing and sports are equal on the idea of inherent risk.
You're beyond fucking stupid. I'm tired of attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who is so fucking retarded they are trying to make the claim that sailing around the world so solo is no more dangerous than playing football.
I pray to God that you NEVER have children, you are without a doubt one of the most ignorant fucking persons I have ever come across and NO child deserves you as a mother. Please stay on some form of birth control.
A couple of thoughts on this point. First off, I don't think I saw your newest best friend ever saying that sailing around the world solo was no more dangerous than playing football. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Also, in a prior post, you contend that Syrenn is arguing that once a parent makes a decision about what their child can be allowed to do, the state has no say so. Here is what you contend she is saying: "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."
She never said that. Here is what she said on that point: "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."
Pretty clear there, wouldn't you say? IN SITUATIONS WHERE NO LAWS ARE BROKEN, i.e., parents can let their kids do whatever they please unless and until a law is broken. Then the state steps in.
Now, on the main point of this thread - you feel that allowing a 16-year-old girl to sail around the world on her own violates the Federal law you quote. Syrenn feels that it does not. In point of fact, it is a close call and could go either way, hence, you are both correct and your are both incorrect. Simple as that.
Some 16-year-olds are much more competent to do dangerous things than others. I doubt that your 15-year-old daughter would do very well on center court at Wimbledon, but there are 15-year-old girls who would do quite well there. True, tennis is not dangerous, but I trust you see my point.
I know that I said earlier that I would probably lean toward going ahead with a prosecution of the girl's parents under the circumstances of the sailing case. On thinking further on the point, I don't know. Jillian said it fairly well - she might think the parents here acted wrongly, but she was quick to say that she is an overly protective mother, i.e., other, reasonable minds, might differ.
I find myself thinking, what would I do if confronted with the choice? If I had a 15-year-old daughter, I doubt that I would give the OK. But you have to remember one very important thing - the young girl here was an accomplished and experienced sailor. It wasn't like they were putting a novice out there. There is also the pride in knowing your child accomplished something like this - something you genuinely feel she has the ability to accomplish. If I had a daughter like that, I might well let her go.
So it isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is. The law has an expression: "Reasonable minds can differ" on many points. I think this is one of them.
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.
If this is the operative law, then allowing a child to do something which presents an imminent risk of harm would be a violation of that law. The action that would violate the law would be the failure of the parent to to prevent the child from doing the dangerous act.
Of course, each case turns on its facts, and no prosecutor is going to file if they think they don't have a reasonable chance to get a conviction. Much depends on the age of the child, the experience of the child and the risk of the particular activity.
Understood that of course each case is different. But given some facts that we know
A) Experts sailors from that part of the world are on record saying that NO sailor should have been sailing that ocean solo this time of year
B) Family members are telling people that her boat was inadequately repaired from a mechanical problem earlier in the journey
C) The world organization that keeps track of sailing records has dropped their youngest category due to the danger
D) Family members are testifying that the father urged maybe to the point of coercion this girl continue when she wanted to stop after her boat broke down the first time
E) It turns out that the father had made a deal with a reality TV show contingent on her completing the trip before she left
Now given those facts to begin with would you as a prosecutor file charges?