Okay lawyers, I wanna know who's right

[syrenn]

Want to be part of the group hug?

 

[Modbert]

Want to be part of the group hug?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA]YouTube - Kumbaya My Lord[/ame]

 

[gslack]

Want to be part of the group hug?

Woohoo... Its all i really needed...*sniff*....

 

[kurtsprincess]

Whew ...... glad that's finally settled!!!

 

[George Costanza]

Want to be part of the group hug?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA]YouTube - Kumbaya My Lord[/ame]

And who is singing this? (I know. Just want to see if y'all know.)

 

[ConHog]

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.

 

[gslack]

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.

Yeah right so now you are going to change the meaning of the word "dispute".. Nice... Real mature buddy....

You had several people on here tell you over and again how you would not have a case, and somehow you still claim no one disputed it.... Gimme a break already... Get over yourself psycho, you have no case... I pointed out why in a very thorough manner, and nearly everyone on here came to the same conclusion that you had no case and there is no legal precedence..

If that is not disputing your claim I have no idea waht you would consider such.. I can only decide you are an idiot who will call himself right no matter what...

Here is my previous post on this which you ignored and no one challenged so far...

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?

This is the very last time i bother giving a legitimate and thoughtful response to you conhog.... Don't make me regret it again....

A) What experts? Who said they were experts, what makes them experts? All of those things are required BEFORE assessing a legal case or causality for anything even resembling child abuse by wealthy and otherwise responsible parents... Just taking whats on the news and going with it is not a legal process, nor is it evidence...

B) What family members? how well do they know the child and the family? How are they related? How often have they been in close contact? What are the family particulars which could prove negative to their testimony? And are they sailing or boating/sailboat experts? Are they qualified to judge who is and who is not able to take such a risk in particular the point of sailing open seas?... And again simply taking the media at its word on this is not evidence nor is it legal precedence.. Any such charges regarding the potential removal of a child from a family or charges of abuse or neglect, require the utmost care and careful consideration of ALL the actual facts and particulars... The legal system and courts know this all too well, and no one wants to be labeled a home wrecker....

C) The world organization on sailing sets their age limits by their own system and guidelines using their own reasoning. They are not a legal Representative or represent in any fashion the legal system, the government, or the health and human services agencies. And further, they did not set their guidelines to the standard of qualifications this girl has, but rather the qualifications of general competitors or members... Most people do not have her expertise, and I dare say few adult sailors would as well...

D) Again I refer you to my previous points raised in section B) above.... All those questions raised apply here as well as the following.... Do you have hard and real evidence of this other than from the news or media? If not, are the media you cite or reference and/or the claimed "witnesses" ready to testify to this in court and under oath? Also we have the problem of proving "coercion" which in its own right is a daunting task to prove with merely the claims of people who have shown a desire to appear in the media or give their voice inappropriately and out of turn to a source given to dramatization and exaggeration.

E) Did HE make the deal alone and or without her consent? Or was it an attempt to capitalize on the trip and make the most of her journey? I understand, despite the claims of some media the deal was made while she was home and BEFORE the trip, in fact I believe they went together and worked the deal.. if that IS the case, than one cannot very well establish a solo attempt to elicit funds for selfish gain at her expense and without her knowledge.. And most importantly this does not establish anything legally.... It does not establish abuse at all, in fact it would lend to the belief he was trying to get as much money for her as he could which would appear the opposite of abuse. In fact when we realize the very risks she is undertaking even in your own posting here, we can very easily see how any funds she can get are well deserved baring some illegal actions...

Now, all the legalese aside..... You need to take a nap... you have just made an ass of yourself in two threads now... Enough is enough, you are wrong.. Wrong from a legal standpoint, wrong from a common sense standpoint, and wrong in the fact YOU do not get to be the boss of the rest of the world... And YOU do not have the right to tell anyone else how to raise their child simply because you don't like it......

 

[syrenn]

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.

 

[ConHog]

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.

 

[gslack]

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.

As long as you continue to lie I am going to repost this.... you can ignore it and pretend its not there all you want but the rest of us can read it and see the truth.....

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.

Yeah right so now you are going to change the meaning of the word "dispute".. Nice... Real mature buddy....

You had several people on here tell you over and again how you would not have a case, and somehow you still claim no one disputed it.... Gimme a break already... Get over yourself psycho, you have no case... I pointed out why in a very thorough manner, and nearly everyone on here came to the same conclusion that you had no case and there is no legal precedence..

If that is not disputing your claim I have no idea waht you would consider such.. I can only decide you are an idiot who will call himself right no matter what...

Here is my previous post on this which you ignored and no one challenged so far...

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?

This is the very last time i bother giving a legitimate and thoughtful response to you conhog.... Don't make me regret it again....

A) What experts? Who said they were experts, what makes them experts? All of those things are required BEFORE assessing a legal case or causality for anything even resembling child abuse by wealthy and otherwise responsible parents... Just taking whats on the news and going with it is not a legal process, nor is it evidence...

B) What family members? how well do they know the child and the family? How are they related? How often have they been in close contact? What are the family particulars which could prove negative to their testimony? And are they sailing or boating/sailboat experts? Are they qualified to judge who is and who is not able to take such a risk in particular the point of sailing open seas?... And again simply taking the media at its word on this is not evidence nor is it legal precedence.. Any such charges regarding the potential removal of a child from a family or charges of abuse or neglect, require the utmost care and careful consideration of ALL the actual facts and particulars... The legal system and courts know this all too well, and no one wants to be labeled a home wrecker....

C) The world organization on sailing sets their age limits by their own system and guidelines using their own reasoning. They are not a legal Representative or represent in any fashion the legal system, the government, or the health and human services agencies. And further, they did not set their guidelines to the standard of qualifications this girl has, but rather the qualifications of general competitors or members... Most people do not have her expertise, and I dare say few adult sailors would as well...

D) Again I refer you to my previous points raised in section B) above.... All those questions raised apply here as well as the following.... Do you have hard and real evidence of this other than from the news or media? If not, are the media you cite or reference and/or the claimed "witnesses" ready to testify to this in court and under oath? Also we have the problem of proving "coercion" which in its own right is a daunting task to prove with merely the claims of people who have shown a desire to appear in the media or give their voice inappropriately and out of turn to a source given to dramatization and exaggeration.

E) Did HE make the deal alone and or without her consent? Or was it an attempt to capitalize on the trip and make the most of her journey? I understand, despite the claims of some media the deal was made while she was home and BEFORE the trip, in fact I believe they went together and worked the deal.. if that IS the case, than one cannot very well establish a solo attempt to elicit funds for selfish gain at her expense and without her knowledge.. And most importantly this does not establish anything legally.... It does not establish abuse at all, in fact it would lend to the belief he was trying to get as much money for her as he could which would appear the opposite of abuse. In fact when we realize the very risks she is undertaking even in your own posting here, we can very easily see how any funds she can get are well deserved baring some illegal actions...

Now, all the legalese aside..... You need to take a nap... you have just made an ass of yourself in two threads now... Enough is enough, you are wrong.. Wrong from a legal standpoint, wrong from a common sense standpoint, and wrong in the fact YOU do not get to be the boss of the rest of the world... And YOU do not have the right to tell anyone else how to raise their child simply because you don't like it......

 

[syrenn]

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.

 

[ConHog]

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'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.

 

[gslack]

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.

Stop lying about what she and I said .....No one claimed any such thing... What we said repeatedly was that there are risks in both and sometimes those risks include death.. You are trying to be dishonest again, and frankly I am tired of it...

You can ignore my post, you pretend its all just as you see it regardless of evidence and how many people tell you the exact same things. But you will not lie about what we say or said and get no response ....

I know its tough but you claim to be an adult, so act like one now....

 

[syrenn]

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 do realize everyone is laughing at you? Please stop whining it is unbecoming.

All sports have dangers. That includes football and it includes sailing. All sports have danger. Danger is danger, risk is risk, injury is injury and death is death. It makes no difference how it happens. Parental consent is involved in all of them.

Again 3 zip that has not changed.

 

[William Joyce]

My prediction is that any action against the parents -- civil, criminal or administrative -- would fail.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

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.

 

[Yurt]

and crimson white said he would not prosecute unless ordered as the case is weak and he is a prosecutor

 

[ConHog]

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.

Yes I asked you the wrong question when I asked if you would prosecute. What I should have asked was could you make a case for prosecuting, because as you said, it's a judgment call, it's just one that I would error in favor of protecting children on..

 

[syrenn]

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.

Thank you George for such a well though out opinion. I am very happy to see that your opinion on the issue is now more black and white and less up for, shall we say ... interpretation of your opinions.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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?

How about a link to all those so-called facts.