Okay lawyers, I wanna know who's right

[George Costanza]

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.

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.

 

[syrenn]

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.

Do parents have the right to consent to allow their children to participate in dangerous sports?

 

[ConHog]

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.

Do parents have the right to consent to allow their children to participate in dangerous sports?

Just admit defeat and move on

 

[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?


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?

 

[syrenn]

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.

Do parents have the right to consent to allow their children to participate in dangerous sports?

Just admit defeat and move on

Why? Because you continually misinterpret and misrepresent what what I am saying. Parents have the right to give consent for their children to participate in dangerous sports. You and I cannot make decisions for other peoples children.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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?

No. Its a waste of taxpayer dollars to prosecute a case that would be tried in the media well before it went to a jury. The case would be contingent on family members testimony and if the girl testifies in favor of dad, then the case is shot. If you cannot pick a jury loaded with soccer moms, the case is shot. I wouldn't touch this case unless ordered to, then I would try to pass t off as quickly as possible. Too many unknowns to prosecute effectively.

 

[George Costanza]

Do parents have the right to consent to allow their children to participate in dangerous sports?

Just admit defeat and move on

Why? Because you continually misinterpret and misrepresent what what I am saying. Parents have the right to give consent for their children to participate in dangerous sports. You and I cannot make decisions for other peoples children.

I think it depends on what the "dangerous sport" is. Contact sports such as football, rugby, boxing, etc., can kill participants, yet I think it is obvious that parents can certainly permit their minor children to participate in such activities without fear of being prosecuted if the child turns up injured or worse.

Rock climbing is a dangerous sport. SCUBA diving in shark-infested waters is certainly a sport and it certainly is potentially dangerous. Getting into the ring with the heavyweight champion of the world is a dangerous sport. I think if a parent were to allow their 12-year-old child to engage in anything like this, and the child was injured or killed, it would be an entirely different matter.

What do you mean by "You and I cannot make decisions for other people's children"? Are you referring to the child abuse law quoted earlier in this thread? If you are, then the answer is most certainly yes, "you and I" (i.e., society, through the enactment of laws) most certainly CAN make decisions for other people's children when it comes to such things as parents who are unwilling to do so with their own children.

Child is dying of a fever. Parents are religious nuts who do not believe in doctors or hospitals. Children's Services and the police will whisk that child out of there in a second and get the child to a hospital.

 

[gslack]

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.

Oh for crying out loud... Ya know I have seen quite a few fuss budgets in my day but you take the proverbial cake man...

And you told me you didn't browbeat.... uh-huh.... LOL, why no you wouldn't do that would you..... Much..... All the time......

Seriously dude, go take a nap.. you have been on this for over 24 hours straight now... I did some work, took a nap, cooked, cleaned, and even practiced baseball and guitar with my son today... And all you seemed to do was sit there on your ass griping at people who disagree with you....

Grow up man.... Seriously....

As I told you before Mr. Grand Poobah and omnipotent stomper of all things... YOU do not get to dictate to the rest of us how live our lives or raise our kids... Maybe you are the end all be all in your house, maybe anyone who disagrees with you there gets a tongue lashing or a beating, but here you are nobody... Got it?

you are not the boss, you do not rule, and you certainly are not always right as you tried to claim previously...

Of all the nitpicking little OCD suffering would be dictators on this forum you are the most trifling little pion I have met ....LOL

 

[George Costanza]

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?

You are asking the wrong guy - I have been a defense attorney for decades. If charges were filed, and I was called upon to defend, off the top of my head, the factor I would be emphasizing most strongly would be the girl's age and sailing experience.

The factors you mention are pretty bad, however. Dad looks like a bad actor. That part about her not wanting to continue but he urged her on nonetheless, "maybe to the point of coercion," would probably tip the scale in favor of filing - especially if the girl turned up seriously injured or dead.

 

[syrenn]

Just admit defeat and move on

Why? Because you continually misinterpret and misrepresent what what I am saying. Parents have the right to give consent for their children to participate in dangerous sports. You and I cannot make decisions for other peoples children.

I think it depends on what the "dangerous sport" is. Contact sports such as football, rugby, boxing, etc., can kill participants, yet I think it is obvious that parents can certainly permit their minor children to participate in such activities without fear of being prosecuted if the child turns up injured or worse.

Rock climbing is a dangerous sport. SCUBA diving in shark-infested waters is certainly a sport and it certainly is potentially dangerous. Getting into the ring with the heavyweight champion of the world is a dangerous sport. I think if a parent were to allow their 12-year-old child to engage in anything like this, and the child was injured or killed, it would be an entirely different matter.

What do you mean by "You and I cannot make decisions for other people's children"? Are you referring to the child abuse law quoted earlier in this thread? If you are, then the answer is most certainly yes, "you and I" (i.e., society, through the enactment of laws) most certainly CAN make decisions for other people's children when it comes to such things as parents who are unwilling to do so with their own children.

Child is dying of a fever. Parents are religious nuts who do not believe in doctors or hospitals. Children's Services and the police will whisk that child out of there in a second and get the child to a hospital.

LOL...no conhog and i have been going rounds in a different thread about 16 year old sailor. And if her parents had the right to let her go or not. This is his way of trying to gain support.

For example, can I tell you that your son may not play in football because he may be hurt, because it is not something that I will allow as a parent? Or any other sport for that matter.

I am not speaking about child abuse. conhog is. I have maintained that parents have the right to give consent for their children to participate in dangerous activities if NO LAWS are broken. And no matter what you or I as parents think, has no bearing on what parents decide for their children.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Oh for crying out loud... Ya know I have seen quite a few fuss budgets in my day but you take the proverbial cake man...

And you told me you didn't browbeat.... uh-huh.... LOL, why no you wouldn't do that would you..... Much..... All the time......

Seriously dude, go take a nap.. you have been on this for over 24 hours straight now... I did some work, took a nap, cooked, cleaned, and even practiced baseball and guitar with my son today... And all you seemed to do was sit there on your ass griping at people who disagree with you....

Grow up man.... Seriously....

As I told you before Mr. Grand Poobah and omnipotent stomper of all things... YOU do not get to dictate to the rest of us how live our lives or raise our kids... Maybe you are the end all be all in your house, maybe anyone who disagrees with you there gets a tongue lashing or a beating, but here you are nobody... Got it?

you are not the boss, you do not rule, and you certainly are not always right as you tried to claim previously...

Of all the nitpicking little OCD suffering would be dictators on this forum you are the most trifling little pion I have met ....LOL

Thank you for that insightful analysis of the issue.

 

[Madeline]

The whole question of child abuse and neglect is hard as hell. We can all agree that burning a kidlet is abusive, but we have a harder time agreeing on what should be done when parents allow/encourage their kidlets to take risks that seem nutty but perhaps not illegal.

In the past year or so, some idijit dad set his family on fire using protective gear like a Hollywood stuntman would, to attract a reality show producer.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g97BTrdqVVY]YouTube - Canadian Family Sets Themselves On Fire! In Hope Of Getting Reality TV Show[/ame]

Another set of parents allowed their 13 year old son to climb Mt Everest. I can't see where a reality show as the motive, but doubtless there was some pressure to become the youngest.

13-year-old American climbs Mount Everest | Deseret News

There've been horror movies with child actors so disturbing, I wondered who would allow a child to even read the script. When the parent claims the possible gain, fame or accolades are so significant -- to the child of course; these parents never admit to be being stage parents -- does that offset the risks as a matter of law?

Personally, I think if these hoaxes and stunts continue, eventually a child will be killed -- and then we will see some new law.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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?

You are asking the wrong guy - I have been a defense attorney for decades. If charges were filed, and I was called upon to defend, off the top of my head, the factor I would be emphasizing most strongly would be the girl's age and sailing experience.

The factors you mention are pretty bad, however. Dad looks like a bad actor. That part about her not wanting to continue but he urged her on nonetheless, "maybe to the point of coercion," would probably tip the scale in favor of filing - especially if the girl turned up seriously injured or dead.

You would have an easy case. The girl on stand, uninjured, talking about her love of sailing and her strong desire to complete the journey, despite her father's "coercion" would easily scare me off. If I was handed the indictment and told to prosecute it, the first thing I would do is call you with a plea deal. No way I would let this anywhere near a courtroom.

 

[George Costanza]

Why? Because you continually misinterpret and misrepresent what what I am saying. Parents have the right to give consent for their children to participate in dangerous sports. You and I cannot make decisions for other peoples children.

I think it depends on what the "dangerous sport" is. Contact sports such as football, rugby, boxing, etc., can kill participants, yet I think it is obvious that parents can certainly permit their minor children to participate in such activities without fear of being prosecuted if the child turns up injured or worse.

Rock climbing is a dangerous sport. SCUBA diving in shark-infested waters is certainly a sport and it certainly is potentially dangerous. Getting into the ring with the heavyweight champion of the world is a dangerous sport. I think if a parent were to allow their 12-year-old child to engage in anything like this, and the child was injured or killed, it would be an entirely different matter.

What do you mean by "You and I cannot make decisions for other people's children"? Are you referring to the child abuse law quoted earlier in this thread? If you are, then the answer is most certainly yes, "you and I" (i.e., society, through the enactment of laws) most certainly CAN make decisions for other people's children when it comes to such things as parents who are unwilling to do so with their own children.

Child is dying of a fever. Parents are religious nuts who do not believe in doctors or hospitals. Children's Services and the police will whisk that child out of there in a second and get the child to a hospital.

LOL...no conhog and i have been going rounds in a different thread about 16 year old sailor. And if her parents had the right to let her go or not. This is his way of trying to gain support.

For example, can I tell you that your son may not play in football because he may be hurt, because it is not something that I will allow as a parent? Or any other sport for that matter.

I am not speaking about child abuse. conhog is. I have maintained that parents have the right to give consent for their children to participate in dangerous activities if NO LAWS are broken. And no matter what you or I a parents think, has no bearing on what parents decide for their children.

Well, I think you are both right. Conhog is just saying that, in his opinion, in the 16-year old sailor case, a law WAS broken. You seem to be saying that, in your opinion, this situation did not come under the child abuse laws and the parents were not breaking any law to let their child go.

What you have is a difference of OPINION as to whether the facts of that case constitute child abuse under the law - that's all.

Now let's have a big, group hug, OK?

(Kumbaya, my lord, Kumbaya . . . . )

 

[syrenn]

I think it depends on what the "dangerous sport" is. Contact sports such as football, rugby, boxing, etc., can kill participants, yet I think it is obvious that parents can certainly permit their minor children to participate in such activities without fear of being prosecuted if the child turns up injured or worse.

Rock climbing is a dangerous sport. SCUBA diving in shark-infested waters is certainly a sport and it certainly is potentially dangerous. Getting into the ring with the heavyweight champion of the world is a dangerous sport. I think if a parent were to allow their 12-year-old child to engage in anything like this, and the child was injured or killed, it would be an entirely different matter.

What do you mean by "You and I cannot make decisions for other people's children"? Are you referring to the child abuse law quoted earlier in this thread? If you are, then the answer is most certainly yes, "you and I" (i.e., society, through the enactment of laws) most certainly CAN make decisions for other people's children when it comes to such things as parents who are unwilling to do so with their own children.

Child is dying of a fever. Parents are religious nuts who do not believe in doctors or hospitals. Children's Services and the police will whisk that child out of there in a second and get the child to a hospital.

LOL...no conhog and i have been going rounds in a different thread about 16 year old sailor. And if her parents had the right to let her go or not. This is his way of trying to gain support.

For example, can I tell you that your son may not play in football because he may be hurt, because it is not something that I will allow as a parent? Or any other sport for that matter.

I am not speaking about child abuse. conhog is. I have maintained that parents have the right to give consent for their children to participate in dangerous activities if NO LAWS are broken. And no matter what you or I a parents think, has no bearing on what parents decide for their children.

Well, I think you are both right. Conhog is just saying that, in his opinion, in the 16-year old sailor case, a law WAS broken. You seem to be saying that, in your opinion, this situation did not come under the child abuse laws and the parents were not breaking any law to let their child go.

What you have is a difference of OPINION as to whether the facts of that case constitute child abuse under the law - that's all.

Now let's have a big, group hug, OK?

(Kumbaya, my lord, Kumbaya . . . . )

Thank you, I love you, big hug! Please tell him that. We have been trying to tell him the concept of

I my opinion

for quite some time now and he just does not get it.

 

[Madeline]

Out of curiosity, donca need a license to sail a boat?

 

[George Costanza]

Out of curiosity, donca need a license to sail a boat?

Yes, you do. It is called a Boat License.

Thank you very much.

 

[gslack]

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......

 

[gslack]

Wow it got quiet now.....LOL...

What? yall didn't think I could post like that when I want to?

LOL

 

[Modbert]

I'm not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Motel 6 last night. Does that sound?