Okay lawyers, I wanna know who's right

[ConHog]

How many ways does it need to be explained to you Conho? How many people have to tell you? How many lawyers or such like have to explain it to you BEFORE you grow up and accept it?

Seriously, you tried every way you could to twist what we say, what others say, all in an ignorant attempt to appear right....

George told you flat out the more he looks at it the more he decides there is no cause for what you claim nor the statute you try and associate with it, and yet here you are pretending the opposite....

You gonna cry all night again?

Actually quite the opposite is true.

Lying again?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2445516-post89.html


I guess you missed this...................

BUT - consider THIS:

CH's federal statute sets forth a crime when parents allow a child to engage in something that involves imminent danger of injury or death. We have seen that "imminent" means "immediate" or "just about to happen."

I had commented that there is no "imminent" danger when a presumably competent sailor sets out to sail solo around the world. There is danger that might come up along the way, but there is nothing "imminent" and, in fact, the sailor may make it safely around the world with no problems at all.

But what if the parental consent is for something that most certainly will result in serious injury or death - but at a later time, i.e., the danger is not "imminent" when the parental consent is given? Take this sailing example. There is certainly a great risk involved in what this young girl attempted to do. The parental consent was given at the start of the trip, when nothing was "imminent." But does the fact that the real danger won't come up until the girl is well into the actual voyage, remove the parents from the purview of this statute?

If life-threatening danger is a given, then what difference does it make when the parental consent is given relative to the time when the life-threatening danger occurs? Isn't parental consent for an activity that will be life-threatening for the child a violation of the statute, regardless of when the danger arises - just so long as it is foreseeable that it could arise?

Child wants to walk to the zoo, jump into the lion cage and feed the lions by hand. Parents give the child consent. It could be argued that it takes two hours to walk to the zoo and, therefore, the danger is not "imminent" when the consent is given. Think that would pass muster for avoiding prosecution under the statute? I don't.

If something terrible had in fact happened to the 16-year-old sailor in this case, I think the parents could have been prosecuted under the first part of the federal statute, which criminalizes serious injury or death when it has actually happened. ("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.")

The act also criminalizes parental consent where such consent might result in harm to the child. ("An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm")

Since no actual harm occurred, then the only possible proscution would be under the second part of the statute. I guess what I am very long windedly saying here is, that I don't think analyzing this type of situation on the basis of "imminence" of the potential harm is proper. Rather, I think it should be analyzed on the basis of degree of risk.

Analyzing it in this manner makes it a much closer call as to whether the parents could come under the purview of the second part of the statute. I'm not saying they would, but it becomes a much closer call.

Wooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

 

[gslack]

Actually quite the opposite is true.

Lying again?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2445516-post89.html


I guess you missed this...................

BUT - consider THIS:

CH's federal statute sets forth a crime when parents allow a child to engage in something that involves imminent danger of injury or death. We have seen that "imminent" means "immediate" or "just about to happen."

I had commented that there is no "imminent" danger when a presumably competent sailor sets out to sail solo around the world. There is danger that might come up along the way, but there is nothing "imminent" and, in fact, the sailor may make it safely around the world with no problems at all.

But what if the parental consent is for something that most certainly will result in serious injury or death - but at a later time, i.e., the danger is not "imminent" when the parental consent is given? Take this sailing example. There is certainly a great risk involved in what this young girl attempted to do. The parental consent was given at the start of the trip, when nothing was "imminent." But does the fact that the real danger won't come up until the girl is well into the actual voyage, remove the parents from the purview of this statute?

If life-threatening danger is a given, then what difference does it make when the parental consent is given relative to the time when the life-threatening danger occurs? Isn't parental consent for an activity that will be life-threatening for the child a violation of the statute, regardless of when the danger arises - just so long as it is foreseeable that it could arise?

Child wants to walk to the zoo, jump into the lion cage and feed the lions by hand. Parents give the child consent. It could be argued that it takes two hours to walk to the zoo and, therefore, the danger is not "imminent" when the consent is given. Think that would pass muster for avoiding prosecution under the statute? I don't.

If something terrible had in fact happened to the 16-year-old sailor in this case, I think the parents could have been prosecuted under the first part of the federal statute, which criminalizes serious injury or death when it has actually happened. ("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.")

The act also criminalizes parental consent where such consent might result in harm to the child. ("An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm")

Since no actual harm occurred, then the only possible proscution would be under the second part of the statute. I guess what I am very long windedly saying here is, that I don't think analyzing this type of situation on the basis of "imminence" of the potential harm is proper. Rather, I think it should be analyzed on the basis of degree of risk.

Analyzing it in this manner makes it a much closer call as to whether the parents could come under the purview of the second part of the statute. I'm not saying they would, but it becomes a much closer call.

Wooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

Am much closer call is not advocating your claim nor is it changing the legality... Look moron all you have done is look fro any possible excuse you can to cover your ass on this and its not happening....

You cant change the meaning to suit you retard...

 

[ConHog]

Lying again?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2445516-post89.html


I guess you missed this...................

Am much closer call is not advocating your claim nor is it changing the legality... Look moron all you have done is look fro any possible excuse you can to cover your ass on this and its not happening....

You cant change the meaning to suit you retard...

Your such a drooling moron.

You made the claim that george had said that the more he looked at it the more obvious it was that there was no neglect. I PROVED to you that in fact he actually said that the more he looks at it the closer call it is. JUST AS I SAID.

You can't read English any better than your dip shit friend Syrenn

 

[gslack]

Am much closer call is not advocating your claim nor is it changing the legality... Look moron all you have done is look fro any possible excuse you can to cover your ass on this and its not happening....

You cant change the meaning to suit you retard...

Your such a drooling moron.

You made the claim that george had said that the more he looked at it the more obvious it was that there was no neglect. I PROVED to you that in fact he actually said that the more he looks at it the closer call it is. JUST AS I SAID.

You can't read English any better than your dip shit friend Syrenn

Well, thats funny i quoted him... Matter of fact I nearly duplicated what he said in my previous post as well..

now you quote him and then try and interpret what "much closer call" means....

See the difference yet? yeah i quoted and showed what he said, you quoted and tried to tell us what it meant....

Thats called lying....

 

[gslack]

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......

When are you going to actually respond to the points in my post i quoted above? You ran from it for several pages now.... The post addressed your BS case from every aspect you still cry about...

 

[ConHog]

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......

When are you going to actually respond to the points in my post i quoted above? You ran from it for several pages now.... The post addressed your BS case from every aspect you still cry about...

I addressed all of that in various parts of the various threads, if you missed it, which you did because it was before you decided to be captain save a ho, that's not my problem. Do your own research.

 

[gslack]

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......

When are you going to actually respond to the points in my post i quoted above? You ran from it for several pages now.... The post addressed your BS case from every aspect you still cry about...

I addressed all of that in various parts of the various threads, if you missed it, which you did because it was before you decided to be captain save a ho, that's not my problem. Do your own research.

Bullshit you liar you have run from it non-stop.. Every time i post it you play pretend its not there and go on rambling...

Now man up for a change and face it..

 

[ConHog]

Hey George for those who apparently can't understand the quoted law and insist on using the wrong word, can you clarify the difference between an inherent risk and an imminent risk

Once again I will post the 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.

This definition of child abuse and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers. A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is under the age of 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/can/defining/federal.cfm AND I gave you the statute number.

 

[gslack]

Hey George for those who apparently can't understand the quoted law and insist on using the wrong word, can you clarify the difference between an inherent risk and an imminent risk

Once again I will post the 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.

This definition of child abuse and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers. A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is under the age of 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.

Dance boy dance... You ran form the post last night, and then ran from the post in the other thread... you do this every time you get busted moron...

your new name is dancin bear..

BTW link to the statute ....

 

[George Costanza]

Hey George for those who apparently can't understand the quoted law and insist on using the wrong word, can you clarify the difference between an inherent risk and an imminent risk

Once again I will post the 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.

This definition of child abuse and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers. A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is under the age of 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.

Sure. I already have done this in a prior post on this thread, but let's go through it again.

"Imminent" means "immediate" or "about to happen with virtually no delay."

"Inherent" means "built in" or "included as an essential characteristic or constituent."

An "inherent" risk is one that "comes with the package," a risk that cannot be avoided if one is going to engage in the activity involved. Falling on one's ass is an inherent risk with the sport of ice skating or roller skating.

A risk of "imminent" danger is a risk of danger that is immediate, that is about to happen with virtually no delay. If you walk out into the fast lane of traffic on a street filled with fast-moving cars, you have an imminent risk of danger. If you are trying to walk along a narrow, 10th floor balcony railing while drunk, you have an imminent risk of danger.

Let's take up these two concepts in the context of our youthful, female sailor. I doubt that anyone will have a problem with the idea that sailing solo around the world contains the inherent risk of danger. Impossible to do that without running the risk of serious injury or death. That is not to say that it is inevitable that something like that will happen - only that it is an inescapable fact that it might.

What about the risk of "imminent" injury or death? This one gets a little tricky. It depends on when you are asking the question. Obviously, there is no "imminent" threat of injury or death during the planning stages of the voyage. Likewise, when our young sailorette is sailing out of the harbor, there is no "imminent" threat, because she is in no danger whatsoever at that point. Even when she reaches the high seas and is in open water, if the sea is calm and it's a nice, sunny day, there would be no "imminent" threat of death or injury. Things could change, however - and the worse conditions get, the more "imminent" danger becomes.

You feel that Syrenn has said that baseball and solo sailing around the world are equally potentially dangerous. If she said that, she is wrong. I'm not sure she ever said that, but if she did, she is wrong. But here again - it depends upon your point of reference. If you are talking about "inherent" danger, then I suppose it could be argued that the danger of injury or death is inherent to both activities. It is more likely that serious injury or death would occur in the sailing scenario than in a baseball game, but, technically, serious injury or death could occur in either.

But your statute never mentions the risk of "inherent" danger - it only mentions the risk of "imminent" danger. Now, if you are going to adopt the dictionary definition of "imminent" (which means "immediate" or "about to happen"), I don't see how parents giving their daughter consent to take off on an around the world solo sailing trip, would qualify because, when the consent is given, there is no "imminent" risk of danger at all.

I am beginning to think that "imminent" is a poor choice of word for the statute. I would prefer the term "highly likely" instead. If "highly likely" was the test, it is much more probable that the parents of the female sailor would be in violation of the statute, regardless of when they gave their consent.

If "highly likely" was the test, it becomes immediately apparent that comparing baseball to solo sailing around the world would be ridiculous - obviously, the sailing trip has much more potential danger than does baseball, football or just about any other sport.

But "highly likely" is not the standard. "Imminent" is the standard. And, under that standard, I am still of the opinion that the parents have not violated the law. What you need here is some "activist judge" to solve the problem for you.

 

[ConHog]

Hey George for those who apparently can't understand the quoted law and insist on using the wrong word, can you clarify the difference between an inherent risk and an imminent risk

Once again I will post the 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.

This definition of child abuse and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers. A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is under the age of 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.

Sure. I already have done this in a prior post on this thread, but let's go through it again.

"Imminent" means "immediate" or "about to happen with virtually no delay."

"Inherent" means "built in" or "included as an essential characteristic or constituent."

An "inherent" risk is one that "comes with the package," a risk that cannot be avoided if one is going to engage in the activity involved. Falling on one's ass is an inherent risk with the sport of ice skating or roller skating.

A risk of "imminent" danger is a risk of danger that is immediate, that is about to happen with virtually no delay. If you walk out into the fast lane of traffic on a street filled with fast-moving cars, you have an imminent risk of danger. If you are trying to walk along a narrow, 10th floor balcony railing while drunk, you have an imminent risk of danger.

Let's take up these two concepts in the context of our youthful, female sailor. I doubt that anyone will have a problem with the idea that sailing solo around the world contains the inherent risk of danger. Impossible to do that without running the risk of serious injury or death. That is not to say that it is inevitable that something like that will happen - only that it is an inescapable fact that it might.

What about the risk of "imminent" injury or death? This one gets a little tricky. It depends on when you are asking the question. Obviously, there is no "imminent" threat of injury or death during the planning stages of the voyage. Likewise, when our young sailorette is sailing out of the harbor, there is no "imminent" threat, because she is in no danger whatsoever at that point. Even when she reaches the high seas and is in open water, if the sea is calm and it's a nice, sunny day, there would be no "imminent" threat of death or injury. Things could change, however - and the worse conditions get, the more "imminent" danger becomes.

You feel that Syrenn has said that baseball and solo sailing around the world are equally potentially dangerous. If she said that, she is wrong. I'm not sure she ever said that, but if she did, she is wrong. But here again - it depends upon your point of reference. If you are talking about "inherent" danger, then I suppose it could be argued that the danger of injury or death is inherent to both activities. It is more likely that serious injury or death would occur in the sailing scenario than in a baseball game, but, technically, serious injury or death could occur in either.

But your statute never mentions the risk of "inherent" danger - it only mentions the risk of "imminent" danger. Now, if you are going to adopt the dictionary definition of "imminent" (which means "immediate" or "about to happen"), I don't see how parents giving their daughter consent to take off on an around the world solo sailing trip, would qualify because, when the consent is given, there is no "imminent" risk of danger at all.

I am beginning to think that "imminent" is a poor choice of word for the statute. I would prefer the therm "highly likely" instead. If "highly likely" was the test, it is much more probable that the parents of the female sailor would be in violation of the statute, regardless of when they gave their consent.

If "highly likely" was the test, it becomes immediately apparent that comparing baseball to solo sailing around the world would be ridiculous - obviously, the sailing trip has much more potential danger than does baseball, football or just about any other sport.

But "highly likely" is not the standard. "Imminent" is the standard. And, under that standard, I am still of the opinion that the parents have not violated the law. What you need here is some "activist judge" to solve the problem for you.

This will never go to court, and that wasn't what this entire thread was about. I simply wanted you to clarify the law.

Your opinion is no case, however I'm sure you admit that many cases either get prosecuted or not based on the OPINION of the DA involved and that this case COULD be prosecuted. Validating that my OPINION is correct? Yes?

This thread was about does the state have the right to say "no you can't let your child do anything that you personally deem to be safe" I haven't seen you comment on that yet? IMO the law makes it clear that you alone can't decide what is safe and what is not.

 

[ConHog]

Actually George, I just looked up the CA statute for neglect, and I think it's clear, these parents neglected their child under CA law.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemw...e/index.cfm?event=stateStatutes.processSearch

Neglect
Citation: Welf. & Inst. Code § 300

A child may be considered dependent when:

* The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of:
o The failure or inability of the parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child
o The willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left
o The willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment
o The inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's or guardian's mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse
* The child's sibling has been abused or neglected, and there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected. The court shall consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the age and gender of each child, the nature of the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental condition of the parent or guardian, and any other factors the court considers probative in determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child.





The state statue is MUCH clearer than the federal law

The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of:

* The failure or inability of the parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child

Prosecute that ass

 

[Yurt]

george and i are usually on the opposite ends of the political spectrum....but i want to give george kudos here for wiping the floor with conhog's head

well said GC

 

[George Costanza]

Actually George, I just looked up the CA statute for neglect, and I think it's clear, these parents neglected their child under CA law.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemw...e/index.cfm?event=stateStatutes.processSearch

Neglect
Citation: Welf. & Inst. Code § 300

A child may be considered dependent when:

* The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of:
o The failure or inability of the parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child
o The willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left
o The willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment
o The inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's or guardian's mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse
* The child's sibling has been abused or neglected, and there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected. The court shall consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the age and gender of each child, the nature of the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental condition of the parent or guardian, and any other factors the court considers probative in determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child.





The state statue is MUCH clearer than the federal law

The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of:

* The failure or inability of the parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child

Prosecute that ass

Well, the Welfare and Institutions Code does not contain the California child endangerment statute. That's in the Penal Code. I'm not sure what this statute is about. It starts out purporting to define when a child is a dependent - oh, now I see it. This is the statutory guidance setting up a standard for when a court will be allowed to remove the child from the care of parent and put the child in a foster home. This is a child neglect statute, not the child endangerment statute. The statute you quote here does not provide for any criminal sanctions against the parent.

The California child endangerment statute is PC 273a(a). I regularly handle cases involving this charge. Under this statute, a crime occurs when an individual either (1) places a child in a dangerous situation, or (2) allows a child to be placed in a dangerous situation without taking steps to protect the child.

This is a pretty wide open statute, and some pretty bogus filings come down because of that. Under this statute, no actual harm has to occur - just the potential for actual harm.

Looks like the parents of our little female sailor might be in some potential trouble if the kid had sailed out of Long Beach harbor.

 

[George Costanza]

Your opinion is no case, however I'm sure you admit that many cases either get prosecuted or not based on the OPINION of the DA involved and that this case COULD be prosecuted.

I never said this case could or would never be prosecuted. Different filing DA's have different standards. This case could WELL be filed, given a filing DA who thought he had a chance to win it. It's just that, in my opinion, he wouldn't win it.

Validating that my OPINION is correct? Yes?

No, this does NOT validate that your opinion is correct. It merely validates your statement that this case could be prosecuted based on the opinion of the DA involved. I disagree with your opinion that this case comes within the statute you quote.

This thread was about does the state have the right to say "no you can't let your child do anything that you personally deem to be safe" I haven't seen you comment on that yet? IMO the law makes it clear that you alone can't decide what is safe and what is not.

I have commented on this at least three times in this thread. You are totally correct. Your ability to let your child do something stops where the child endangerment laws begin. And, by the way (because I know where you are heading with this), Syrenn expressly agreed with this several times, by inserting the phrase, "as long as no law is broken" in qualification of what she felt parents could allow their children to do.

This is exhausting. I am playing in a golf tournament tomorrow, have to get up early and so . . . good night.

 

[ConHog]

Your opinion is no case, however I'm sure you admit that many cases either get prosecuted or not based on the OPINION of the DA involved and that this case COULD be prosecuted.

I never said this case could or would never be prosecuted. Different filing DA's have different standards. This case could WELL be filed, given a filing DA who thought he had a chance to win it. It's just that, in my opinion, he wouldn't win it.

Validating that my OPINION is correct? Yes?

No, this does NOT validate that your opinion is correct. It merely validates your statement that this case could be prosecuted based on the opinion of the DA involved. I disagree with your opinion that this case comes within the statute you quote.

This thread was about does the state have the right to say "no you can't let your child do anything that you personally deem to be safe" I haven't seen you comment on that yet? IMO the law makes it clear that you alone can't decide what is safe and what is not.

I have commented on this at least three times in this thread. You are totally correct. Your ability to let your child do something stops where the child endangerment laws begin. And, by the way (because I know where you are heading with this), Syrenn expressly agreed with this several times, by inserting the phrase, "as long as no law is broken" in qualification of what she felt parents could allow their children to do.

This is exhausting. I am playing in a golf tournament tomorrow, have to get up early and so . . . good night.

I told you to stop bragging about golf, I can't play right now

As for validation. I meant validation that my opinion was possible, not right

And yes she left from Marina Del Ray, so you agree that her parents COULD be in trouble. Thank you.

 

[gslack]

LOL, 3 posts of conho kissing up and begging to be called right somehow, any way he will take it he isnt picky just say hes right some how....

LOL, conho have some dignity already..

 

[ConHog]

LOL, 3 posts of conho kissing up and begging to be called right somehow, any way he will take it he isnt picky just say hes right some how....

LOL, conho have some dignity already..

You have some

George's latest post clearly says that under California law, the parents COULD be in some trouble.

 

[gslack]

LOL, 3 posts of conho kissing up and begging to be called right somehow, any way he will take it he isnt picky just say hes right some how....

LOL, conho have some dignity already..

You have some

George's latest post clearly says that under California law, the parents COULD be in some trouble.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! dude you just begged him to give you SOME kind of concession.. You went from is illegal, and is child abuse, and IS neglect; to maybe considered any of those things by some one somewhere else....

WTF?????

You on crack?

 

[syrenn]

I never said this case could or would never be prosecuted. Different filing DA's have different standards. This case could WELL be filed, given a filing DA who thought he had a chance to win it. It's just that, in my opinion, he wouldn't win it.


No, this does NOT validate that your opinion is correct. It merely validates your statement that this case could be prosecuted based on the opinion of the DA involved. I disagree with your opinion that this case comes within the statute you quote.



I have commented on this at least three times in this thread. You are totally correct. Your ability to let your child do something stops where the child endangerment laws begin. And, by the way (because I know where you are heading with this), Syrenn expressly agreed with this several times, by inserting the phrase, "as long as no law is broken" in qualification of what she felt parents could allow their children to do.

This is exhausting. I am playing in a golf tournament tomorrow, have to get up early and so . . . good night.

George you have the patients of a SAINT! I am so flying down there and having a drink with you!

Have a great game.