Time for father, or water, or court-ordered visitation control? by Geezer

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What a shame.

I know that when adults contest custody cases, someone must decide, and it's up to family court to make that decision, but when they get it wrong young lives are at stake.

Unfortunately, there is no accurate test for who might become violent at any time. The best indicator of future violence is past violence. This man certainly had a history of people dying around him, but unless someone is convicted they are innocent in the eyes of the law.

And if this technically innocent man had been restricted to supervised custody, he probably would have claimed prejudice. If he had been presenting his side of the story here... as a father who has suffered grief and loss in the past, who only wants to "make things right" with his child, being prohibited by an intrusive court system which was meddling unjustly in his personal affairs and using past tragedies against him... some here (rappy) prolly would have swallowed the anti-government screed hook, line, and sinker.

And mother also had her doubts as to whether this man would hurt her child... if she was certain that the man posed a mortal threat, she would have used extra-legal means to protect her baby. But she ALSO wasn't sure; she weighed one thing against another and, like the courts, made a decision.

Until we have a near-100% way of determining who is lying (which might have caught this man up in previous investigations) or can determine with near 100% certainty who will become a danger in the near future, mistakes will be made by everyone involved.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 26, 2013 5:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And yet, if the state steps in, then everybody gets all upset about parents' rights... example, the FDLS.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 26, 2013 8:04 PM

Because they go swatting flies with sledgehammers.
It's like there's no middle ground with this, either they do utterly nothing and harm comes of it, or they come crashing in like a bull in a china shop and harm comes of it.

There needs to be a continuum, there needs to be proper training and funding, and folks need to address such matters in a reasoned, logical manner instead of jerking knees and crying crusade, which is one of the causes of such over the top responses.

And furthermore, there needs to be real, harsh consequences for when CPS blatantly and with malice aforethought oversteps their authority in a way that does measurable harm - I don't mean lawsuits, as they just kick that right back onto the taxpayers, I mean folks fired and/or prosecuted, like Mia Wenk (the worker behind the Godboldo mess), the Texas CPS personnel who decided to turn a religious grudge war into a media circus (FLDS) and the Wayne County CPS personnel who were rubber stamping a judges signature on paperwork/orders without even ever SHOWING them to the judge in question...
The latter really grinds my gears cause the whole POINT of requiring a judges signature is in hopes they'll at least pretend to READ the damn thing first and make sure it's valid.

Not that CPS cannot do good, but instead of hoping and wishing and getting it incompetently and accidently, we need to reconstruct and refine it instead of making it an unsalvageable train wreck like we have with education - when you require an education for a career that the wages will never properly compensate for you are guaranteed to get only desperate burnouts and crusaders with agendas in there.
We got all the resources and more for war, war, war, and none for taking care of our own ?
I find our priorities severely lacking.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I agree that CPS (by whatever name) and family court need a makeover. Caseloads? Waaaay too high.

Still, I have seen family court thread some really fine needles. They have to balance a child's needs, parent's rights (Is there such thing? Or is parenting all responsibilities and no rights?), and the practicalities of the system (foster/ adoption systems overwhelmed). I think, far too often, there are no good options, just "less bad" ones. You know... cases where the dad is a raging alcoholic, the mom is a drug addict, the children are neglected and possibly abused, there are no other family members (aunts or grandmas) able to step in, the children are too old and damaged to adopt out, and the foster care system is overwhelmed.

I think it's unfair to burden staff with punishing amount of work, withdraw necessary resources which make the job possible, tag them with failure and then vindictively withdraw even more funding. It's a typical knee-jerk right-wing response.

So, OOC Frem, ARE there such things as "parents' rights"? I have seen you come down hard on the idea of the authoritarian parent who insists that children are there to obey. You have said time and time again that children should have the same rights as parents. And yet, I have also seen you fight for the "right" of parents to do some pretty weird things with "their" children versus the "right" of society to intervene. In those cases (not treating with effective medical care, for example) the parent seems to be acting pretty much as a property owner... this is "my" child and I can do what I want.

How do you resolve that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:41 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

If only that baby had had a gun!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Indeed!

I know it's wrong to judge people on very little evidence, but I'm not too enamored of the mother, either. Being a contestant on The Amazing Race is not a positive point, in my book. I know another past contestant, and she seems to be pretty self-involved ... too self-involved to be a good parent. At the same time, the mother's reaction seems awfully cold...

Quote:
"Had the justice system been there for us before now, my son would be here to celebrate this moment with me," she wrote. "I am not sure that I will ever be able to forgive my country for the terrible injustices that led to the death of my son. I am not sure if I will ever forgive myself for following the law and waiting for justice my son would not live long enough to see."

Perhaps it's an unrepresentative portion of a larger quote, but she speaks of her fear, and of justice, but nothing of grief. And she named her son "Prince", for god's sake! Anyway, not to trivialize the topic or blame the victim; mom was certainly a better parent than dad, but I wonder of any of that played into the court's decision. Sometimes there are weird or subtle personality things that don't make it into the papers.

ETA:

Quote:
McLeod, an intelligence analyst who once was a contestant on the CBS reality competition 'The Amazing Race,' said she does not understand why the judge ignored her concerns for her son's safety.

This was accompanied by evidence of Joaquin Rams' lack of fitness as a father: his involvement in running an online pornography business; the testimony from the Manassas detective that Rams is a suspect in his ex-girlfriend's killing; and a sexual encounter between Rams, 40, and a woman who said Rams raped her when she was 19. Rams said it was consensual.(The Associated Press does not identify people who claim to be victims of sexual assault.)

In making his custody and visitation rulings, the judge said the suspicions about the deaths of Collins and Mason were no concern to him, describing it as 'smoke that's been blown that I can see through.'

Because there was no conviction, just allegations and suspicions.

It would be great if there was some kind of near-100% accurate test for liars and killers. According to further info in the article, the alleged killer's half-brother said that Joaquin was "a monster" who was deceptive and violent from a young age.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I agree that CPS (by whatever name) and family court need a makeover. Caseloads? Waaaay too high.

Still, I have seen family court thread some really fine needles. They have to balance a child's needs, parent's rights (Is there such thing? Or is parenting all responsibilities and no rights?), and the practicalities of the system (foster/ adoption systems overwhelmed). I think, far too often, there are no good options, just "less bad" ones. You know... cases where the dad is a raging alcoholic, the mom is a drug addict, the children are neglected and possibly abused, there are no other family members (aunts or grandmas) able to step in, the children are too old and damaged to adopt out, and the foster care system is overwhelmed.

I think it's unfair to burden staff with punishing amount of work, withdraw necessary resources which make the job possible, tag them with failure and then vindictively withdraw even more funding. It's a typical knee-jerk right-wing response.

So, OOC Frem, ARE there such things as "parents' rights"? I have seen you come down hard on the idea of the authoritarian parent who insists that children are there to obey. You have said time and time again that children should have the same rights as parents. And yet, I have also seen you fight for the "right" of parents to do some pretty weird things with "their" children versus the "right" of society to intervene. In those cases (not treating with effective medical care, for example) the parent seems to be acting pretty much as a property owner... this is "my" child and I can do what I want.

How do you resolve that?

Ask the child.

That actually happened in my mothers eventual divorce, the judge flat out asked ME about who should hold custody, to the ire of both attorneys.
And I told him my opinion of my so-called father, you bet, who balled his fist and took a step towards me and I grabbed a sharp looking pen and took one towards him, only to be picked up and held back by the baliff while my so-called fathers attorney got hold of him.
And *THAT* question was prettymuch answered, wasn't it ?

Okay, that was half a jest, but it's still a viable option, and while it's not as effective as mandating an attorney I am supportive of the CASA program, a representative which works for the interests of the kid alone.
One recent problem with that is a lack of attorney-client privledge with a CASA, causing various factions of a trial to attempt to then use the CASA's own discussions with their client as a weapon against them, which we've subverted by having my lawyer sit in on those conversations as a "consultant" for a token fee (that being $0.25) in order to force them under attorney-client privledge.
There's also that a CASA, by themselves, is INADEQUATE.
Better that they function as a social worker in conjunction with an actual hardass lawyer, cause anything less is just not good enough.

The CASA Letters
Documentation of correspondence between Andrew Vachss and employees and supporters of CASA
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/casa_letters.html

As for "less bad", yeah I feel ya - I am a firm believer in least harm principle myself, and sometimes it can be damn hard to know, worse when the stakes are so bloody high.

I do feel our current Foster Care System is completely unsalvageable, and should be replaced with something muchlike a boarding school with additional theraputic and placement resources as well as certain life-skill training normally covered by parents, and operated with close supervision and direct accountability.

All of this of course takes resources, resources we damn well OUGHT to invest, pennies now instead of dollars later, cause for a fact it's cheaper to help these kids out THEN, get them in a phsyical/mental space where they can be, can grow, rather than prosecute and incarcerate them later.

Also, side order of RESTORATIVE, rather than RETRIBUTIVE justice in the juvenille justice system, it makes no sense to deliberately condemn a kid who acts out to a path which forces them to crime and violence as the only viable option left unto them, and then blame them when they take that road.

It can be done, the resources are already present, it's just a matter of reassigning priorities, but what lacks is the will, it seems.
And if it does not exist, I mean to create it, or at least fan the sparks which'll ignite that fire.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This was accompanied by evidence of Joaquin Rams' lack of fitness as a father: his involvement in running an online pornography business...

The rest of it I can see, but this one here by itself does not I think automatically make one a bad parent, now included as totality of evidence perhaps, just sayin of itself it's not indicative.

One of my staunchest long term allies runs such a biz, and we initially met and started working together cause he was under fire from folk who didn't seem to comprehend the difference between consenting adults and abusers/victims - I've been his go-to-guy when he runs across stuff that's criminal for quite a while since I won't judge and accuse HIM, and can get that stuff handled via proper channels without him catching any kill-the-messenger flak.

S'funny though, he got into that biz to begin with as the only way to keep up with his child support payments, he was a "playa" early on in life and his penance for it requires a hefty chunk of change, which he doesn't begrudge as much as you think, even going so far as to obtain school clothes and supplies over and above his court mandated payments.
Admittedly though, none of us tells the kids what exactly he does, that'll come when they're old enough to not freak out about it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And yet, if the state steps in, then everybody gets all upset about parents' rights... example, the FDLS.

Or Geezer, who titled the thread "Time for father, or water, or court-ordered visitation control?"

And Rappy seems to agree that SOME kind of control should be used here.

In their arguing that "control" is never the answer to anything, both seem to be making the point that something more should have been done, apparently by someone in some official capacity, since obviously the parents both sucked at their job, as witnessed by the death of their child.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 27, 2013 8:15 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I went through an amazing race phase in high school and I remember this woman. No judgement here regarding that.

Yeah, those caseworkers have a lot on their plate, I think if their caseloads weren't so huge they could do their job better.

Frem I disagree with you about boarding school, that would be like going back to the olden days of orphanages, which I wouldn't encourage because it doesn't feel like a household when there's umpteen kids there. That being said I think the government needs to do better at monitoring foster parents, because its a crap shoot how good of a household you'll end up in, some of them are great, some of them are horrid. CASAs are super cool though and I'm glad that is an available option.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I agree that CPS (by whatever name) and family court need a makeover. Caseloads? Waaaay too high.

Still, I have seen family court thread some really fine needles. They have to balance a child's needs, parent's rights (Is there such thing? Or is parenting all responsibilities and no rights?), and the practicalities of the system (foster/ adoption systems overwhelmed). I think, far too often, there are no good options, just "less bad" ones. You know... cases where the dad is a raging alcoholic, the mom is a drug addict, the children are neglected and possibly abused, there are no other family members (aunts or grandmas) able to step in, the children are too old and damaged to adopt out, and the foster care system is overwhelmed.

I think it's unfair to burden staff with punishing amount of work, withdraw necessary resources which make the job possible, tag them with failure and then vindictively withdraw even more funding. It's a typical knee-jerk right-wing response.

So, OOC Frem, ARE there such things as "parents' rights"? I have seen you come down hard on the idea of the authoritarian parent who insists that children are there to obey. You have said time and time again that children should have the same rights as parents. And yet, I have also seen you fight for the "right" of parents to do some pretty weird things with "their" children versus the "right" of society to intervene. In those cases (not treating with effective medical care, for example) the parent seems to be acting pretty much as a property owner... this is "my" child and I can do what I want.

How do you resolve that?

I agree with your couple of posts here. These are hard decisions to make, and often - here at least - courts have the not so great job of working out which parent is the least damaging, and usually both have a list of allegations against one another for someone to sort out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:57 PM

double post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Ask the child.

That actually happened in my mothers eventual divorce, the judge flat out asked ME about who should hold custody, to the ire of both attorneys.
And I told him my opinion of my so-called father, you bet, who balled his fist and took a step towards me and I grabbed a sharp looking pen and took one towards him, only to be picked up and held back by the baliff while my so-called fathers attorney got hold of him.
And *THAT* question was prettymuch answered, wasn't it ?

Okay, that was half a jest, but it's still a viable option, and while it's not as effective as mandating an attorney I am supportive of the CASA program, a representative which works for the interests of the kid alone.
One recent problem with that is a lack of attorney-client privledge with a CASA, causing various factions of a trial to attempt to then use the CASA's own discussions with their client as a weapon against them, which we've subverted by having my lawyer sit in on those conversations as a "consultant" for a token fee (that being $0.25) in order to force them under attorney-client privledge.
There's also that a CASA, by themselves, is INADEQUATE.
Better that they function as a social worker in conjunction with an actual hardass lawyer, cause anything less is just not good enough.
-Frem

Definitely not a fan of hardass lawyers in family cases, they screw things up worse than anyone.

So you ask a child? That is it, that is the answer?

Not a very good one for most children, to whom having to choose would be an agony. Not everyone has a family where it is as clear cut as yours. Some kids have two good parents that they love equally. Or maybe they have a not so good parent that they feel responsible for. Or maybe one parent has worked hard at getting them to hate the other one, even though there is nothing wrong with the other. Or maybe they have two lousy parents, and the courts have to decide how least to stuff them up. The dope smoking mum who is neglectful, or the dad whose temper gets the better of him when he drinkss.

And at what age do you expect a child to have ALL the decision making around there own well being? 18 months? 3 years old? 4 years old?

The system here 'tries' to give kids a voice, but they have to be older before they get full decision making. Who can make a teenager do anything, right?

In my world, Frem, lawyers shouldn't be involved at all. These are not court matters unless harm or neglect is involved. The sooner people stop using the legal system to sort out their relationship problems, the better place the world would be.

My personal soap box.

And of the original story, sometimes the decision is wrong. It's damned sad, but that is the way of it. The personal responsible is the arsehole who did it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 12:20 AM

Uhh, Magons ?

What I was talking about is a lawyer specifically for the CHILDS interests, not beholden to either parent OR the State, and believe me, when there's harm, abuse, neglect, you WANT that kid to have a badass lawyer, cause a lot of times the States interests are in conflict with the childs interests, and that opens up a whole new level of ugly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_guardian#Guardian_ad_litem
North Carolina so far has one of the most efficient systems in this respect.

As for your position I am not so very sure that's a good idea - if those kids in Pennsylvania who had their lives ruined by those Judges had some hardass lawyers it would have nipped that crap in the bud, and despite the pretense of this being an isolated incident there's still a lot of railroading going on in both the juvie justice and family court systems.
Might be different over the water, but in our system without serious legal representation you might as well just dump them headfirst into a meat grinder, at least it'd be quicker.

As for age, maturity varies, but once a child is able to offer a cogent argument of their own position on a matter, I think it should be heard and taken into account - self awareness of this kind is by no means an on/off switch but rather a gradual process.

And for mine own, having suffered the consequences of being forced into an adult role and responsibilities far too early, and without the respect or social/legal standing to go with it, yes I hold a bit of a grudge about it - something I think a LOT of young people do, and maybe think working WITH them instead of dropping decrees on them without their consent or input would undermine a lot of that adversarial attitude which causes so much problems.

Oh, and Riona, in respect to my notion - larger organisation, smaller units, cause I don't think even the best of volunteers can reliably bond and work with more than four kids without someone getting shorted there, especially the very young ones... that being the primary problem you describe.
The other is that all consuming drive to control, yes kids need structure, but they also need open time to be who and what they are, and this should be provided in sufficient quantity lest one undermine their development.

As with all things, a balance must be struck, erring if at all possible in a least-harm direction.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 1:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

What I was talking about is a lawyer specifically for the CHILDS interests, not beholden to either parent OR the State, and believe me, when there's harm, abuse, neglect, you WANT that kid to have a badass lawyer, cause a lot of times the States interests are in conflict with the childs interests, and that opens up a whole new level of ugly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_guardian#Guardian_ad_litem
North Carolina so far has one of the most efficient systems in this respect.

As for your position I am not so very sure that's a good idea - if those kids in Pennsylvania who had their lives ruined by those Judges had some hardass lawyers it would have nipped that crap in the bud, and despite the pretense of this being an isolated incident there's still a lot of railroading going on in both the juvie justice and family court systems.
Might be different over the water, but in our system without serious legal representation you might as well just dump them headfirst into a meat grinder, at least it'd be quicker.

Oh I'm all for the law being involved if abuse is occuring. But in the majority of cases, its just mums and dads using the law to get back at one another for the perceived or real wrongs that have been dealt to them in the relationship and in fact, by doing this are in affect saying a big 'fuck you' to their kids.
In our laws, and I think the US as well, they are supposed to give the best interest of the kids the paramount consideration, but too many gung ho lawyers like to play up disputes to make themselves money. No one benefits but them.

Quote:
As for age, maturity varies, but once a child is able to offer a cogent argument of their own position on a matter, I think it should be heard and taken into account - self awareness of this kind is by no means an on/off switch but rather a gradual process.

well the question kind of begs why should kids be involved in that decision making to such a heavy degree in the first play. What has gone wrong that parents cannot make decisions for them.

For a lot of kids, asking them who they want to live with, you might as well give them a saw and ask them to cut off an arm. Most kids love both their parents, even bad, sad and mad parents. It's tough to get them to be the decision maker in what is really adults messed up lives.

Quote:

And for mine own, having suffered the consequences of being forced into an adult role and responsibilities far too early, and without the respect or social/legal standing to go with it, yes I hold a bit of a grudge about it - something I think a LOT of young people do, and maybe think working WITH them instead of dropping decrees on them without their consent or input would undermine a lot of that adversarial attitude which causes so much problems.

I agree about working with them, but I think that kind of decision making is exactly what you have described, dropping them into adult roles and responsibilities which too often happens in cases of separation and divorce.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 5:38 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
The court should have erred on the side of caution and made the visits supervised.

Yeah, this seems like it woulkd have been the logical course of action.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 6:11 AM

Quote:
And yet, I have also seen you fight for the "right" of parents to do some pretty weird things with "their" children versus the "right" of society to intervene. In those cases (not treating with effective medical care, for example) the parent seems to be acting pretty much as a property owner... this is "my" child and I can do what I want.

It's like religion, I don't believe in any kind of doctrine, and while I don't have too much trouble with whatever spiritual creed people want to believe, I kinda see organized religion as taking kids and telling them what to think.

But you can't really take the kid aside and say, no, don't believe in any of that, it's harmful to you, because the kid has a tribalistic need to belong to the culture and belief system of the family.

So you end up with parents teaching their kids they should pray away cancer, and the kids dying because of it, but what else can you do? The patient refuses treatment.

Same with abuse, you might try to intervene, but ultimately you can't give long-term help to an abused spouse or kid unless until they ask for help. Because inevitably, unless they themselves are ready to admit they don't want to be treated that way and the person abusing them isn't worthy of their esteem, they will try to defend that person. Unless you can work with the victim, instead of them working against you, there's not much you CAN do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 6:30 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And yet, if the state steps in, then everybody gets all upset about parents' rights... example, the FDLS.

Or Geezer, who titled the thread "Time for father, or water, or court-ordered visitation control?"

And Rappy seems to agree that SOME kind of control should be used here.

In their arguing that "control" is never the answer to anything, both seem to be making the point that something more should have been done, apparently by someone in some official capacity, since obviously the parents both sucked at their job, as witnessed by the death of their child.

But if you note the complexity of the discussion about this issue, you'll see that it's pretty hard to come to a simple, "lets ban all the fathers/mothers/courts/bathtubs/social workers/etc." resolution that addresses the rights of all involved, yet provides a solution that causes the least risk and damage.

And once again, it's the people who caused the problem, not the bathtub.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Same with abuse, you might try to intervene, but ultimately you can't give long-term help to an abused spouse or kid unless until they ask for help. Because inevitably, unless they themselves are ready to admit they don't want to be treated that way and the person abusing them isn't worthy of their esteem, they will try to defend that person. Unless you can work with the victim, instead of them working against you, there's not much you CAN do.

I don't think being an abused spouse is the same as being an abused child at all. You have some decision making capacity in there as a spouse. You chose the relationship for starters. You can leave and live somewhere else, even though its true there are other things that can tie one to an abuser. Another thread.

A child's world is entirely shaped and reliant upon the adults who care for him or her, at least until they hit adolescence. A child existence feels normal, especially in the early years, and it may be years, decades, a lifetime until that person sees the abuse in their relationship. Once again, to put the onus on them to seek help is putting responsibilities on them that that they may not be capable of.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

But if you note the complexity of the discussion about this issue, you'll see that it's pretty hard to come to a simple, "lets ban all the fathers/mothers/courts/bathtubs/social workers/etc." resolution that addresses the rights of all involved, yet provides a solution that causes the least risk and damage.

And once again, it's the people who caused the problem, not the bathtub.

Oh jesus, you are trying to equate this discussion to issues around limits on guns. What a jerk.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And yet, if the state steps in, then everybody gets all upset about parents' rights... example, the FDLS.

Or Geezer, who titled the thread "Time for father, or water, or court-ordered visitation control?"

And Rappy seems to agree that SOME kind of control should be used here.

In their arguing that "control" is never the answer to anything, both seem to be making the point that something more should have been done, apparently by someone in some official capacity, since obviously the parents both sucked at their job, as witnessed by the death of their child.

But if you note the complexity of the discussion about this issue, you'll see that it's pretty hard to come to a simple, "lets ban all the fathers/mothers/courts/bathtubs/social workers/etc." resolution that addresses the rights of all involved, yet provides a solution that causes the least risk and damage.

Huh. Rappy seems to think "court control" is the final solution.

Of course, if you were ever honest for a second in your life, you'd realize that in the complexity of the mass-murder-by-gun issue, nobody's seriously suggesting a simple let's-ban-all-the-guns resolution, but rather they're suggesting several different approaches, all of which address the rights of all involved, yet provide a solution that causes the least risk and damage.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

But if you note the complexity of the discussion about this issue, you'll see that it's pretty hard to come to a simple, "lets ban all the fathers/mothers/courts/bathtubs/social workers/etc." resolution that addresses the rights of all involved, yet provides a solution that causes the least risk and damage.

And once again, it's the people who caused the problem, not the bathtub.

Oh jesus, you are trying to equate this discussion to issues around limits on guns. What a jerk.

And he can't even coherently do that. Senility is such a ruthless bitch.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 2:38 PM

There are laws to what you can do and not do as a parent. You can't abuse or murder your children, for a start.

If you are found to be unfit for parenting, you might lose your children or you might only have supervised access.

Courts are there to make decisions around these issues. They don't always get it right.

So parenting is not beyond the law. Some would say there are arguments for having to pass a test to become a parent. From some of the crappy, damaging parenting I've seen, I am not sure its altogether a bad idea.

This is a stupid analogy to use with regards to the gun debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 3:22 PM

Clearly the only reasonable answer is to allow these people to have more children. If more guns makes us all safer, then surely bad parents having more kids makes them better parents.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Same with abuse, you might try to intervene, but ultimately you can't give long-term help to an abused spouse or kid unless until they ask for help. Because inevitably, unless they themselves are ready to admit they don't want to be treated that way and the person abusing them isn't worthy of their esteem, they will try to defend that person. Unless you can work with the victim, instead of them working against you, there's not much you CAN do.

I don't think being an abused spouse is the same as being an abused child at all. You have some decision making capacity in there as a spouse. You chose the relationship for starters. You can leave and live somewhere else, even though its true there are other things that can tie one to an abuser. Another thread.

A child's world is entirely shaped and reliant upon the adults who care for him or her, at least until they hit adolescence. A child existence feels normal, especially in the early years, and it may be years, decades, a lifetime until that person sees the abuse in their relationship. Once again, to put the onus on them to seek help is putting responsibilities on them that that they may not be capable of.

Kids can't choose their parents, but in some cases can recognize abuse, and in some cases can also ask to be emancipated. Or run away. As thinking individuals, they can certainly make decisions about their lives, that might be better than the decisions their parents might make (especially if said parents are terrible), and should be at least offered the opportunity. The difficulty of the decision is no reason for someone ELSE to make it.

Many spouses can't recognize abuse, despite their greater years of experience.

It's not so different as you think.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 4:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Kids can't choose their parents, but in some cases can recognize abuse, and in some cases can also ask to be emancipated. Or run away. As thinking individuals, they can certainly make decisions about their lives, that might be better than the decisions their parents might make (especially if said parents are terrible), and should be at least offered the opportunity. The difficulty of the decision is no reason for someone ELSE to make it.

Many spouses can't recognize abuse, despite their greater years of experience.

It's not so different as you think.

It all boils down to capacity and responsibility. The very nature of childhood is that you are dependant upon adults around you to look after you and to make decisions for you. Of course this will change and vary depending on a child, the family, the culture, but at some stage all children are dependant. They just don't have the capacity, be it emotionally, intellectually, psychologically or legally.

So you can't wait until they ask for help. Sometimes intervention is required where they may not ask for it, or want it, but it needs to happen anyway. A child may suffer being removed from a parent, but ultimately it may save their life.

With adults, you begin with the assumption that they have capacity, even if that may not be entirely true psychologically. I guess you have to contend that adults are in charge of their own decision making, their own lives, can make good and bad choices, so long as those choices do not mean that someone else is harmed. So adults can choose to stay or leave abusive relationships, even if that choice is a bad one. Children, on the other hand, do not have such choices (well younger ones anyway - older kids tend to vote with their feet)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 4:37 PM

Quote:
It all boils down to capacity and responsibility. The very nature of childhood is that you are dependant upon adults around you to look after you and to make decisions for you.

That's the same argument that was used about women and their husbands to deny us the right to vote.

/disapproval

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 5:08 PM

You mean the argument that treated women as children? That was the bit thar was offensive to women, not sure why that rates your disapproval.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 5:22 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Byte I think you misunderstand Magon's argument. I agree with her that sometimes its necessary to intervene and take a child away if abuse is occurring, kids are young and it is important to look out for their safety. With grownups, at least most of the time, it is their responsability to look after themselves and make their choices. Obviously a child who is self aware and knows which end is up will seek help. But what if they've been taught from the beginning that the world is evil and they'll get more hurt out there than staying home where they are beaten? What if a child honestly thinks this is normal behavior for parents because they are too young to realize that its not? What if a child has been "brainwashed" into thinking that they don't deserve any better and if they look for help elsewhere they'll be in even bigger trouble from their parents when its found out? Your position on this matter isn't something I can agree with. That being said I do think its important to create social structures in which children feel safe and able to ask for help if they need it, where they feel like they can take charge of their lives and stand up and say no more abuse, I'm leaving. Its important to empower people.

I agree with Frem that its important to have someone with some measure of power (lawyer or someone else comparable in authority) who is solely responsable for seeking what is in the child's best interest. I do think that is very important. But I agree with Magon's that it can be horrible to expect a child to make a choice about who to live with. Obviously, like in Frem's case as a boy, sometimes its plain as day, but there are so many other factors at play in most cases and its not fair to expect kids to make those choices when things are complex.

Frem, I think the thing is that you apply your experiences to everyone. Obviously we all do that to some degree, but you are notorious for doing it. That being said you know lots of children who have had similar experiences and I value your opinion on many things regarding kids, but there are also lots of children, more than in your category, who are in a different place than you were and so such a decision wouldn't be fair and would be very taxing and inapropriate for them to be forced to make.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
That's the same argument that was used about women and their husbands to deny us the right to vote.

And minorities, once upon a time.
It was BS then and it's BS now.

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
But I agree with Magon's that it can be horrible to expect a child to make a choice about who to live with. Obviously, like in Frem's case as a boy, sometimes its plain as day, but there are so many other factors at play in most cases and its not fair to expect kids to make those choices when things are complex.

It *IS* horrible, it *IS* unfair - sometimes life is like that unfortunately.
But using that to deny them any input or influence on the matter is even more so.
Sometimes one has to make the best of an ugly situation, and who would know what is more tolerable to them than the one who is going to have to live with it, even if we may not necessarily agree ?

There's no easy answers to this, and offering them better options seems like a damn good priority to have you, you see ?

Quote:
Frem, I think the thing is that you apply your experiences to everyone. Obviously we all do that to some degree, but you are notorious for doing it.

This is mostly cause of one of those life lessons learned a bit on the late side.
See, as a child once I realized that "Adults" were IMHO, every bit as stupid, malicious and petty as my so-called-peers, I took to considering everyone else a complete moron by default.

Being so savagely isolated even then, despite being surrounded by people, it took me much longer than it should have to realize how hateful, how harmful, this attitude was - and so by default I try to assume that whomever I speak with has at least enough brains and life experience to comprehend my position on something and if they do not then I do back up and try to explain it.
I'd rather assume the better of someone than the worst, you see ?

In retrospect, no WONDER some of the Adults hated me so, being lectured by an obnoxious ten year old who dressed like a libertine and thought you were an idiot had to have been a pretty low blow, especially when the little bastard had both cause and a valid point.
*cringe*

Quote:
That being said you know lots of children who have had similar experiences and I value your opinion on many things regarding kids, but there are also lots of children, more than in your category, who are in a different place than you were and so such a decision wouldn't be fair and would be very taxing and inapropriate for them to be forced to make.

I feel ya - truth told I *don't* have so much experience with "undamaged" kids, and tend to keep my distance in order to protect them from being drawn into such matters like moths to a flame...
And while I agree in principle that forcing them to make such a decision would be out of sorts, I don't think allowing them input on it would be, especially if they have their own notions - to deny or ignore them I feel might be harmful, so hearing them out at the very least, THAT we can do.

Speaking of keeping distance, and protecting - my buddy Rev actually has a daughter.
Remember what I say about genetics loading the gun, and environment pulling the trigger ?
Well, his life and world were completely unsuitable to raise a child at the time and he was man enough to admit this, and the mother was not by her own admission stable or sane enough to do the job - nor is my work and world any place for a child who hasn't already experienced such things (cause I mighta been the go-to-guy on that otherwise) and so by mutual agreement we placed said little bundle of joy with a comparatively normal loving family which happened to still be of some blood-relation, and then backed up and supported them from a distance.
My job in this respect was to use my contacts to roadblock attempts from his former employers, military and otherwise, to interfere with her life, since they knew she had certain potentials.

And our whole focus was to keep that "trigger" from EVER getting pulled, offering her the CHANCE of a normal, happy development instead of winding up... like us.
Okay sure, given her parentage she might not be quite-exactly "normal", but without the tramautic environ to pull the trigger on it she'll wind up a hell of a lot closer to it than WE are, and prolly be much happier for it.

Said munchkin is roundabouts eleven now, far past the most critical development periods and very likely to enjoy her happy little relatively normal life.
I call that a win.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
That's the same argument that was used about women and their husbands to deny us the right to vote.

And minorities, once upon a time.
It was BS then and it's BS now.

Okay, so here's a thing. You let babies make up their own minds the minute they come out of the womb. Ask them how they want to live and who with. Make em accountable for their actions. Send them to jail if they break the law. Make them work. Make them go to war. Oh right, that would be bullshit wouldn't it. Like your argument.

If, on the other hand you are saying that responsibility is a graduated thing throughout childhood and into adulthood, then for fuck sake READ my posts before you make these ridiculous claims about my argument being the same thing said about women and minorities. That goes for both you and Byte.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 6:58 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

If the child does have a clear opinion then I agree with you that that desire should be heard and valued and taken into account. I just don't think the whole decision should be up to a kid. Of course that being said the older a kid is the more say she/he should have, obviously the opinion of a 16 year old is going to be more informed than the opinion of a four year old, even though some 4 year olds are clever and some 16 year olds are undecided.

Frem I use that expression a lot in my line of work, thanks for sharing it with us, people really understand and identify with it. More often I use the sand bucket annalogy. Sand representing genetics and water representing environment. If you've got a lot of genetics then it won't take much environmental stress to make your bucket overflow (end up with mh differences). Then there are plenty of people who have very little genetic loading and they go through lots in their lives and come out fine anyway.

I'm one of those people who was just genetically loaded, I was sort of doomed from the start so it didn't take much water for my bucket to overflow.

Hopefully Rev's daughter doesn't have as much genetic loading as she could and everything works out neurotypical for her, sounds like she's in a good environment and its great that he still is told how she's getting on. People who are mature enough to know whether they are meant for parenting are superior in my book, it sounds like he feels right about his choice for her and it sounds like its working out well so far.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 28, 2013 10:04 PM

I did read your posts Magons, and there's you agreeing with it when YOU say it, and DISAGREEING with it when *I* say it - even though it is the exact same thing.

What the hell am I supposed to think about that, neh ?
That maybe you're dismissing my position right out of hand because you happen to be doing a little strawmanning instead of discussing perhaps ?

One can bloody well ASK a kid what they want - it might not be an option to actually DO, mind you, but at least the courtesy of asking, listening, and then having the goddamn decency to fucking explain to them why this cannot be done is a hell of a lot kinder to them then just throwing life altering decisions at them as if they were a piece of furniture or a housepet, especially when they're sitting right there watching and listening.
This does damage to them - you think my nasty attitude and cynicism about this evolved in a vaccuum, do you ?

From my perspective I am making a reasonable request which costs nothing, does no harm, and might even help the situation in some cases, and yet simply because it involves not treating children as property, as things, instead of people - I catch the flames for it, as usual.
And people wonder why I am so bitter, so hostile, when it comes to said topic.

You ever think that MIGHT have a little something to do with the drive straight to the kind of absurdity you posted there every single time I suggest children might be people, might be human beings with rights that should be respected ?

You ever think it might have a little something to do with having BEEN in that position, as a child, repeatedly, and perhaps holding a little bit of a grudge about it - that perhaps the entirety of my issue to have children treated as people was founded on the bedrock core of having once been a mistreated child ?

It costs us NOTHING to ask them, to listen to what they have to say, even if we cannot act upon it, even if doing so avails the situation NOTHING - to have DONE it, this is very important.

The Essential Role of an Enlightened Witness in Society
http://www.alice-miller.com/index_en.php?page=2

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:51 AM

And where have I ever said that we shouldn't talk to children. I actually have said and believe from the bottom of my heart that their voice in matters that concern them are important.

I just don't believe that 'ask them what they want' is THE solution to decision making, because I believe that children don;t need to bear the burden of their parents fucked up lives. The parents need to make the decisions and children can express opinions that can be listened to. And when parents can;t, and for some reason they think the law should get involved, god help them, then children should be heard. But its voice, not choice, unless they're at an age where they really can make that decision. Rione said it well in her post.

I understand that you've been through it and have a perspective. But I work with it every day. I hear what kids say, and basically they say whatever will get them into the least trouble. They say one thing to mum and one thing to dad and another to a counsellor and another to a lawyer. Because its a horrible position for them to be in and its mightly confusing and difficult and scary to be a kid when your parents are too caught up in their own shit to take care of you. So I feel pretty passionately about it too and I don;t appreciate being compared to someone who has supported suppression of minorities/women because of my views.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:30 AM

AGENTROUKA

Just having read this it seems like you all really believe the same thing and the only problem is perceived insult?

I agree with both Magons and Byte and Frem at the same time, because I don't see a fundamental difference, really. You are all saying the same thing but phrasing it differently.

I agree that children should be involved, should be heard and have things explained to them, throughout all proceedings. I think Magons fully supports that?

I also agree that in many cases it would be detrimental to place true responsibility for their entire future on their own vulnerable shoulders without taking objective factors into account. But I don't think Byte or Frem advocate that?

Judging from my own experience in childhood (summed up as addiction and workaholic-induced neglect, respectively) I could have benefited a great deal from outside intervention. I didn't know how to ask for help because the dynamics of the constellation rest on denial. I got as far as daydreaming about some kind of fairy godmother intervention, but that was it. Was that a mistake of mine? Hell no, I was a little kid and I didn't have the knowledge, strength or insight to change my situation. But a lot of the adults around me to whom certain things must have been obvious, in school, neighbors, family friends, friggin' family members, none of them did anything, or nothing that led to any change. No one talked to ME about it, either. (I have lot of bitterness about my primary school teachers for that.)

So I think there is a lot to be said for intervention on behalf of children far beyond the narrow scope of divorce proceedings. The first step should be talking to the kids, but along with assessing their living conditions to create a full picture beyond what the child has developed as perspective. Kids may know they are unhappy, but they may not know what normal and healthy is, so they need that outside education about their rights. So yeah, they should never be treated as objects, but no one should assume them to have the strength of Young!Frem, either. (But I don't think he's implying that, either.)

There are so many ways to help families that don't involve tearing them apart. Child advocates whose job it is to ensure the well-being of the child, who work with the child first and foremost, seems like a fantastic idea.

As for this particular case? Ugh. So preventable. Grrrr.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:46 AM

Quote:
Okay, so here's a thing. You let babies make up their own minds the minute they come out of the womb. Ask them how they want to live and who with. Make em accountable for their actions. Send them to jail if they break the law. Make them work. Make them go to war. Oh right, that would be bullshit wouldn't it. Like your argument.

Even infants scream and recoil from someone abusing them. People are born to some horrible conditions, some infants are malnourished, and if they could they would ask for food. They also get recruited as child soldiers in certain kinds of hellhole, another instance where abducted infants and kids have choices made FOR them by adults.

Really everything you mentioned there is something that actually happens to children NOW - working, jailing, war, and so forth. Society doesn't pull it's punches when it comes to anyone, adults or kids. Everything that happens to adults can also happen to a kid, and adults have about as much say as a kid in what happens to them.

And despite how little control over our lives we have, what control we do have is something to cherish. The voice, in its ability to defend us and preserve our choices, may not always be THE solution to any problem, but it is the most important and necessary tool every human has in the problem solving process.

So all of that considered. Why are we claiming that some people simply can't make choices, and we shouldn't expect them to have input, because the situation is complicated and upsetting and they'll just want to avoid trouble (which is true for everyone in difficult circumstances)? Without the ability to stand up and represent themselves, it's harder for people, both kid people and adult people, to protect themselves and look out for themselves. If someone has the ability to ask, in whatever way they can, we have an obligation to listen.

In any case, trying to attribute loss of innocence to us as some kind of ideal Frem and I hold and that we think every child should suffer through those problems you listed is ridiculous. No one was arguing that. No ADULT should necessarily have to cope with those issues.

I get you're a mother, I get that the horror of some of this strikes you in a very deep and visceral way, because you wouldn't ever want your kids to go through that (and maybe they did, in a divorce proceeding). I can respect that. I also get that talking about spousal abuse in this same way has also probably touched a nerve, and maybe that wasn't very sensitive of me because you've gone through it.

But ultimately I just plain disagree with you. Kids in some places go through some terrible trials, and while they might not come out of it undamaged, which adults going through trails don't necessarily either, kids often do manage to find a way in situations you'd think a "dependent" wouldn't. Because they're not just "dependents," they're human. And just by being human, they deserve a say in what happens to them, because they are also subject to the whims of this same cruel world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:36 AM

AgentR: That's what's frustrating me so - that we all seem to be in agreement yet talking past or at each other instead of TO each other, it's like some vital connection is being missed here.

Some of the kids we pulled out of bad situations, most often those damn Hellcamps, to them it practically *WAS* a Faery-Godfather intervention, cause nobody, even those willing and able to help them, ever saw need or cause to discuss it with THEM - which tended to cause a few problems of it's own sometimes, oh yes.

One major problem in those cases was them being psychologically iatrogenic, when mental health personnel were participant in or enablers of the abuse or denial of it - this is an avoidable problem and the first contact with mental health personnel should be as untraumatic as possible and avoid at all costs ignoring or dismissing a childs concerns or voice, since that it what causes the problem and such avoidances can make it very freakin hard to help them with any issues related to it.
That's not very relevant to the topic at hand save as a pitfall to avoid however.

As for simply speaking to them, the whole Socrates Club thing came about for no more profound reason than me idly speaking with a few of the kids at the local high school while waiting for someone I was supposed to pick up as a favor to their parents - that an adult would speak to them as equals, actually listen to them, instead of talking at them, had an impact far beyond even my expectations - and has certainly had strong positive benefit for one of them, who's now a junior appliance repair tech.

As for out of court solutions, I wonder if perhaps an arbitration setup might work, it would have to be necessarily modified, as legal binding arbitration is a whole different ballgame, but the core principle of it, I wonder if that can be adapted on a more humane level with the addition of social/psych personnel and a more family oriented focus ?
Certainly something we can put some thought into, perhaps.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:15 AM

AGENTROUKA

Arbitration sounds like a good step.

In many cases where children might benefit from intervention even that might not be necessary. An overwhelmed parent might be just as grateful as the children to receive advice/training/supervision/addiction therapy/information about other support, as long as there is no immediate implied threat that the family will be broken apart because it's dysfunctional and has aspects of abuse and neglect. Most parents are not monsters and actually want to be better.

Unprofessional or harmful psychologists? Belong in a special level of hell. The rage this induces in me is irrationally strong because I know when it's done right it can be incredibly beneficial. To destroy trust in this option is reprehensible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
So all of that considered. Why are we claiming that some people simply can't make choices, and we shouldn't expect them to have input, because the situation is complicated and upsetting and they'll just want to avoid trouble (which is true for everyone in difficult circumstances)? Without the ability to stand up and represent themselves, it's harder for people, both kid people and adult people, to protect themselves and look out for themselves. If someone has the ability to ask, in whatever way they can, we have an obligation to listen.

Clearly you choose to not understand my posts and continue to argue in a pointlessly oppositional way about stuff that I don't disagree with.

End of this conversation for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
So all of that considered. Why are we claiming that some people simply can't make choices, and we shouldn't expect them to have input, because the situation is complicated and upsetting and they'll just want to avoid trouble (which is true for everyone in difficult circumstances)? Without the ability to stand up and represent themselves, it's harder for people, both kid people and adult people, to protect themselves and look out for themselves. If someone has the ability to ask, in whatever way they can, we have an obligation to listen.

Clearly you choose to not understand my posts and continue to argue in a pointlessly oppositional way about stuff that I don't disagree with.

End of this conversation for me.

I think I do disagree. Because what you have said invites disagreement.

I'm not the one saying that my arguments equate to pro-child-soldiers, calling my arguments bullshit, and then throwing my hands up and walking off because I'm so dense and pointlessly oppositional.

Do you think children who are politically inclined should be able to vote?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:02 PM

Byte, I've laid out my arguments as clearly as I can. I believe that children should be heard, even though you continue to claim I say the opposite. I believe at a certain developmental stage, they can have choice, even though not all will want it. I have tried to point out that their are developmental stages that children do not have capacity, and that will vary depending upon the child, the circumstances and the culture. I have said that choice can be a double edged sword and giving choice can be more damaging to a child than any other outcome.

What I do get annoyed at and have done here is when people don't read my posts and continue to insist I am saying something that I am clearly (reading my own posts) do not.

In addition, I get annoyed when people use blanket simplistic statements as solutions. "Let the kids choose" is one of those statements.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:13 PM

Quote:
giving choice can be more damaging to a child than any other outcome

Quoting this. That's the keystone of our disagreement - and a contradiction on your part.

Saying that you listen to children but that giving them their choices is damaging is not really listening at all.

Quote:
In addition, I get annoyed when people use blanket simplistic statements as solutions.

WHO is not reading posts?

You didn't answer my question. Should politically inclined children be allowed to vote?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:07 PM

It is my choice whether or not I answer a question you have posed. In this case, I choose not to. Not the same as misrepresenting someone's view.

You certainly can hear children without giving them the ultimate choice. You can hear their concerns, their worries, and their wishes and use those as part of making a decision on what is in their best interest. Ever heard of the term 'consultation'? Research has indicated that giving children a voice is extremely beneficial.

There is no contradiction in my argument around voice, choice and the psychological damage that can occur if children are given the full onus of choice. It just means that this is a complex area, and parents and professionals need to be aware that seemingly simple solutions may in fact be not the way forward.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:35 PM

All well and good, but if you aren't willing to give them the vote, then you aren't willing to give them a voice in their future.

They will remain second class citizens, and the amount of legal protections they have will be minimal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:36 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I'll come right out and say that I'm a "magic number" person. Byte knows this as does Frem and they actually don't mind as much as I would think they would, Byte in particular. If you're not 18 then no voting. Now I would possibly be willing to lower the voting age to 16 or 17 if lots of people wanted to do that, I'm not rabid about it, but I don't know that many people that are too particular about it and when in doubt leave things alone tends to be my philosophy (note that if I feel strongly about something I'm all for changing it, but I don't feel strongly about this so I'm fine with it.)

Byte how would you decide who is old enough to vote? If it is some sort of political competance test would you say that people over 18 who don't know all the things on the test shouldn't be allowed to vote?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:36 PM

I thought your magic number thing was for consent? Which I'm somewhat more okay with, that's a trickier thing than voting.

But for voting, I thought about it, and no competence tests, they tried to do that to black people after the civil war. They let FLORIDA vote, after all, we're talking pretty low standards here. Any kid who knows enough and cares enough to vote I think should be allowed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:08 PM