if this was my 11 yr old.....

[DiveCon]

We can and do. It's one reason CPS exists, syrenn. But this set of circumstances, whatever the facts may actually be, seem to lie within the range every parent has to raise their children as they see fit.

I just wonder sometimes if that range ain't a tad too wide.

There is nothing here that CPS would be involved in.

but that doesnt mean we cant comment on how fucked up her parents are

YMMV

 

[ConHog]

Get over it.

Get over what? You having inconsistent views? No, I won't . Explain to me how it is that YOU get to decide what is and what isn't proper for someone else to teach their children?

I am NOT deciding what they do with THEIR child. I am giving MY opinion of the situation.

See the difference? I am not saying MY opinion is right for THEIR daughter. Nor am i saying THAT I HAVE A RIGHT TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. Obviously what i think is best is not what THEY think is best for THEIR child.

It is not inconsistent. Your still obsessed. Get over it and stop twisting shit to suit your agenda.

Oh what the fuck ever dishonest Syrenn, there is no difference between what you just did and what i did in the thread about the sailor. You're just insane, and dishonest.

For the record, I believe this parent should be charged with child endangerment, just as I thought the other parent should have been.

 

[Charles_Main]

Who the hell lets an 11 year old girl wear makeup? Not only online, but on national tv???????

Her dad's nuts too.

If my kids were being hassled on the internet I'd shut it down.

Are you kidding me, every single celebrity with an 11 year girl, has Makeup on them, and shows them on TV.

What planet do you live on.

 

[chanel]

Exactly Charles. And take a walk through any middle school. Sixth graders with thongs showing.

 

[Yukon.]

CornHole,

Does an eleven year old girl wearing makeup bother you? Get help my son, get help. Also, stop using your disgusting language to Syrenne you pig.

 

[Madeline]

Exactly Charles. And take a walk through any middle school. Sixth graders with thongs showing.

Yikes! That sure was not the case when mine was in the sixth grade. I still wouldn't allow it, no matter what. I sometimes watch a few minutes of "Toddlers and Tiaras" and my skin absolutely crawls. Sexualizing young children is perverse.

 

[syrenn]

We can and do. It's one reason CPS exists, syrenn. But this set of circumstances, whatever the facts may actually be, seem to lie within the range every parent has to raise their children as they see fit.

I just wonder sometimes if that range ain't a tad too wide.

There is nothing here that CPS would be involved in.

but that doesnt mean we cant comment on how fucked up her parents are

YMMV

I agree. I have opinions about it too. But Madeline is implying that CPS should be involved.

 

[Madeline]

Not exactly, syrenn. I'm suggesting mebbe it is time to discuss an emotional abuse standard for remedial action, mebbe including losing custody. I'm frustrated as hell by parents who do such things and wish there were a legal way to intervene.

I'm mostly just bitching, I guess. I know nothing can be done.

 

[syrenn]

Get over what? You having inconsistent views? No, I won't . Explain to me how it is that YOU get to decide what is and what isn't proper for someone else to teach their children?

I am NOT deciding what they do with THEIR child. I am giving MY opinion of the situation.

See the difference? I am not saying MY opinion is right for THEIR daughter. Nor am i saying THAT I HAVE A RIGHT TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. Obviously what i think is best is not what THEY think is best for THEIR child.

It is not inconsistent. Your still obsessed. Get over it and stop twisting shit to suit your agenda.

Oh what the fuck ever dishonest Syrenn, there is no difference between what you just did and what i did in the thread about the sailor. You're just insane, and dishonest.

For the record, I believe this parent should be charged with child endangerment, just as I thought the other parent should have been.

You still don't get it do you? Big difference in what you do and what i do. I do not go around INSISTING i am right and stopping around when someone challenges my opinions. And your still obsessed. Get over it.



Charged with child endangerment for what? The inherent dangers of the internet?

All activities have inherent risks and dangers. You weigh the maturity of your child to participate in any activity.

IN MY OPINION....this child does not have that maturity.

 

[syrenn]

Not exactly, syrenn. I'm suggesting mebbe it is time to discuss an emotional abuse standard for remedial action, mebbe including losing custody. I'm frustrated as hell by parents who do such things and wish there were a legal way to intervene.

I'm mostly just bitching, I guess. I know nothing can be done.

I agree. I want to smack other parents around all the damn time for the stupid shit that they do. However we have no right to interfere with what other parents think is right for their children.

You can legally intervene when the law is broken. Other then that all there is left is to bitch about it.

 

[DiveCon]

Not exactly, syrenn. I'm suggesting mebbe it is time to discuss an emotional abuse standard for remedial action, mebbe including losing custody. I'm frustrated as hell by parents who do such things and wish there were a legal way to intervene.

I'm mostly just bitching, I guess. I know nothing can be done.

I agree. I want to smack other parents around all the damn time for the stupid shit that they do. However we have no right to interfere with what other parents think is right for their children.

You can legally intervene when the law is broken. Other then that all there is left is to bitch about it.

dang
you have such a violent streak

 

[syrenn]

Not exactly, syrenn. I'm suggesting mebbe it is time to discuss an emotional abuse standard for remedial action, mebbe including losing custody. I'm frustrated as hell by parents who do such things and wish there were a legal way to intervene.

I'm mostly just bitching, I guess. I know nothing can be done.

I agree. I want to smack other parents around all the damn time for the stupid shit that they do. However we have no right to interfere with what other parents think is right for their children.

You can legally intervene when the law is broken. Other then that all there is left is to bitch about it.

dang
you have such a violent streak

now now, i didn't say i was going to crop them ya know.

 

[ConHog]

There is nothing here that CPS would be involved in.

but that doesnt mean we cant comment on how fucked up her parents are

YMMV

I agree. I have opinions about it too. But Madeline is implying that CPS should be involved.

And they shoiuld be, just as they should have been in the other case. You keep mumbling about not getting involved unless the law is broken, but the issue is you didn't understand the law then, and you don't understand the law NOW.

Here is the FEDERAL law, which is the minimum each state much have

The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g

* 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.

Definitions in Federal Law

I would say these parents are allowing their child to be emotionally harmed by letting her talk about killing people and such.

In the other case, obviously the girl was at imminent risk of serious harm by being in a broken down boat in a dangerous seas,, but that is another matter.

If you would like to get more specific to THIS case. You can Check the Florida law

Oh I did. Sections 39.202, 205; 39.201; 39.01(2) apply here and they read, in part.

Willful or threatened act resulting in physical, mental, or sexual injury or harm, causing or likely to cause impairment of physical, mental, or emotional health

Florida Child Abuse Laws - FL Child Abuse Laws - State Laws, Codes

Again, CLEARLY this girl is suffering from some emotional harm caused by her parents allowing her to behave the way she behaves.

Once again, you are wrong on this issue. The state CAN step in. Please learn the law.

 

[ConHog]

PS I would like to add soemthing off topic here. Why is that the federal government has a federal child abuse law, but doesn't go after all 50 states for having and enforcing their own state abuse laws, in fact they insist that each state have such. Just something to make you go hmmm.

 

[syrenn]

but that doesnt mean we cant comment on how fucked up her parents are

YMMV

I agree. I have opinions about it too. But Madeline is implying that CPS should be involved.

And they shoiuld be, just as they should have been in the other case. You keep mumbling about not getting involved unless the law is broken, but the issue is you didn't understand the law then, and you don't understand the law NOW.

Here is the FEDERAL law, which is the minimum each state much have

The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g

* 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.

Definitions in Federal Law

I would say these parents are allowing their child to be emotionally harmed by letting her talk about killing people and such.

In the other case, obviously the girl was at imminent risk of serious harm by being in a broken down boat in a dangerous seas,, but that is another matter.

If you would like to get more specific to THIS case. You can Check the Florida law

Oh I did. Sections 39.202, 205; 39.201; 39.01(2) apply here and they read, in part.

Willful or threatened act resulting in physical, mental, or sexual injury or harm, causing or likely to cause impairment of physical, mental, or emotional health

Florida Child Abuse Laws - FL Child Abuse Laws - State Laws, Codes

Again, CLEARLY this girl is suffering from some emotional harm caused by her parents allowing her to behave the way she behaves.

Once again, you are wrong on this issue. The state CAN step in. Please learn the law.

Please feel free to call CPS on every parent who lets their child have tantrums, every parent who allowed their child to have a computer, on every parent who allows their child to join social networks and of course every parent who doesn't do what you like or has a differing opinion of what is right for THEIR child..

 

[ConHog]

I agree. I have opinions about it too. But Madeline is implying that CPS should be involved.

And they shoiuld be, just as they should have been in the other case. You keep mumbling about not getting involved unless the law is broken, but the issue is you didn't understand the law then, and you don't understand the law NOW.

Here is the FEDERAL law, which is the minimum each state much have

The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g

* 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.

Definitions in Federal Law

I would say these parents are allowing their child to be emotionally harmed by letting her talk about killing people and such.

In the other case, obviously the girl was at imminent risk of serious harm by being in a broken down boat in a dangerous seas,, but that is another matter.

If you would like to get more specific to THIS case. You can Check the Florida law

Oh I did. Sections 39.202, 205; 39.201; 39.01(2) apply here and they read, in part.

Willful or threatened act resulting in physical, mental, or sexual injury or harm, causing or likely to cause impairment of physical, mental, or emotional health

Florida Child Abuse Laws - FL Child Abuse Laws - State Laws, Codes

Again, CLEARLY this girl is suffering from some emotional harm caused by her parents allowing her to behave the way she behaves.

Once again, you are wrong on this issue. The state CAN step in. Please learn the law.

Please feel free to call CPS on every parent who lets their child have tantrums, every parent who allowed their child to have a computer, on every parent who allows their child to join social networks and of course every parent who doesn't do what you like or has a differing opinion of what is right for THEIR child..

Yes, um that isn't what I said at all, and you know it, just like you know that in the other thread you did the same thing.

An analogy to what you just suggested is if I stated that the law says you can't speed so police should ticket those who speed and you responded with well damn why don't you just call the police on everyone who drives?

Of course it's obvious why you do this, because you didn't then, and you won't now address the substantive policies of the law. The laws are clear. If by your actions , or inaction a child is LIKELY to come to harm you are guilty of abuse. It's a law that in not enforced often enough, and people are not educated about , and those two factors are exactly why we have some of the situations we have today.

You do NOT get to just do with your children whatever you wish. No matter how many times you scream it, it will NEVER be true.

Now should this child be removed? I personally don't think so. Parenting classes, and mandated supervision of child when she's on the computer for sure, but I don't think a parent should lose their child the first time over something like this; BUT that doesn't mean a law hasn't been broken.

 

[syrenn]

No parent thinks their child will come to psychical or emotional harm by being on the internet or a social network. Does it happen yes, and that means that it is LIKELY to happen even when parents are vigilant about monitoring. So if that is the case then every parent is wrong and should be charge with abuse for allowing their children access to the internet.

No parent thinks their child will be emotionally or psychically harmed when they send them to school. Does it occur, yes ,all the time, so it is LIKELY to happen. Again all parents by your assertion should be charged with abuse for sending their child to school if LIKELY is the measure.

Anything is LIKELY to happen in every thing you do.

 

[ConHog]

No parent thinks their child will come to psychical or emotional harm by being on the internet or a social network. Does it happen yes, and that means that it is LIKELY to happen even when parents are vigilant about monitoring. So if that is the case then every parent is wrong and should be charge with abuse for allowing their children access to the internet.

No parent thinks their child will be emotionally or psychically harmed when they send them to school. Does it occur, yes ,all the time, so it is LIKELY to happen. Again all parents by your assertion should be charged with abuse for sending their child to school if LIKELY is the measure.

Anything is LIKELY to happen in every thing you do.

The act of being on the internet or of going to school isn't likely in of itself to cause harm. the act of being on the internet and talking about killing people is. The act of going to school and being a bully is also likely to cause harm.

The act of driving does not make one a speeder, the act of SPEEDING makes one a speeder.

Pretty simple concept, I am not surprised it's beyond your grasp.

 

[syrenn]

No parent thinks their child will come to psychical or emotional harm by being on the internet or a social network. Does it happen yes, and that means that it is LIKELY to happen even when parents are vigilant about monitoring. So if that is the case then every parent is wrong and should be charge with abuse for allowing their children access to the internet.

No parent thinks their child will be emotionally or psychically harmed when they send them to school. Does it occur, yes ,all the time, so it is LIKELY to happen. Again all parents by your assertion should be charged with abuse for sending their child to school if LIKELY is the measure.

Anything is LIKELY to happen in every thing you do.

The act of being on the internet or of going to school isn't likely in of itself to cause harm. the act of being on the internet and talking about killing people is. The act of going to school and being a bully is also likely to cause harm.

The act of driving does not make one a speeder, the act of SPEEDING makes one a speeder.

Pretty simple concept, I am not surprised it's beyond your grasp.

LMAO i get it but, it certainly seems to be beyond your grasp though.

 

[ConHog]

No parent thinks their child will come to psychical or emotional harm by being on the internet or a social network. Does it happen yes, and that means that it is LIKELY to happen even when parents are vigilant about monitoring. So if that is the case then every parent is wrong and should be charge with abuse for allowing their children access to the internet.

No parent thinks their child will be emotionally or psychically harmed when they send them to school. Does it occur, yes ,all the time, so it is LIKELY to happen. Again all parents by your assertion should be charged with abuse for sending their child to school if LIKELY is the measure.

Anything is LIKELY to happen in every thing you do.

The act of being on the internet or of going to school isn't likely in of itself to cause harm. the act of being on the internet and talking about killing people is. The act of going to school and being a bully is also likely to cause harm.

The act of driving does not make one a speeder, the act of SPEEDING makes one a speeder.

Pretty simple concept, I am not surprised it's beyond your grasp.

It certainly seems to be beyond your grasp though.

You're the one too stupid to differentiate allowing your child to be on the internet, from allowing your child to talk about killing people on the internet.

Fucking pitiful.