It’s particularly sad when this sort of insanity comes from the judicial branch. It is not “child abuse” to leave a kid in a car for ten minutes.
10 thoughts on “Fantasy As A Basis For Policy”
Comments are closed.
It’s particularly sad when this sort of insanity comes from the judicial branch. It is not “child abuse” to leave a kid in a car for ten minutes.
Comments are closed.
Not only is the parent presumed guilty, the parent is not even entitled to a hearing to prove his or her innocence.
Entitled to a hearing? The nerve! What country does she think this is?
If she had actually killed the child, she’d be entitled to a hearing.
In AZ, during the summer, it is dangerous. We recently had a child die that way. But I agree in most cases it would not be.
Ken, you seem to be unclear on the incident in question. Cool day, left the windows cracked open, left the engine and A/C running, maintained visual contact with the vehicle for the 10 minute duration.
It’s dangerous up here in Canada in the summer as well, probably just about everywhere. We also have cold winters to deal with, same situation. The point of the report is that there was no common sense applied and you shouldn’t make law based on fantasies of what could happen. Life is dangerous. To date, nobody has gotten out of it alive.
Especially laws that have no recourse of appeal.
Why assume it is unclear to me? I simply point out that danger does exist. But if you know me at all, you know that I believe parents rights need protection from overzealous busybodies. Individual rights trump ‘community rights.’
The assumption, without definite contrary evidence, should be that parents have the best interest of their children. Even contrary evidence must rise to a certain level before anyone should interfere. We all have a responsibility to each other.
I do know that Ken, but your earlier post was unfocused in my view and I thought I’d give you a little poke Maybe I’m just getting old and grumpy 🙂 .
I think the car is a good place for children. They’re sneezing on produce, ripping shit off the shelves, ramming your ankles with shopping carts. Good for nothing, soft skulled, germ bags.
Droll. Bah humbug to you too.
This seems to be yet another case of the creeping “civil penalty” system as applied to criminal law. The most pernicious application, of course, is the idea of automated traffic cameras, which create civil penalties as a source of income for municipalities all while removing the rights of the accused in criminal court.
The very fact that the woman was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing should have been the basis for immediate dissolution of the civil complaint of her parenting abilities.
And yes, I understand that tying the results of these sorts of complaints to the outcome of their criminal counterpart could, in fact, allow serial abusers to circumvent the system, because there are occasionally cases of true child abuse where there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute and/or convict. And while I understand and sympathize with those in Child Protective Services (or whatever your local Authority is called) for those edge cases, the system is otherwise broken, and needs to be fixed.
The time and energy and money spent needlessly persecuting otherwise good parents would otherwise be put to MUCH better use going after the true abusers and the real problem-parents. Ther other side of that same coind is that the more broken the system becomes, the less likely people are going to be to trust it and/or use it, letting even MORE abusers remain free to abuse.
Many moons ago I had a conversation with a counselor at our son’s elementary school, during which, among many other things, I had demonstrated my technique for getting his attention, by swatting him gently on the cheekbone with two fingertips. (I demo’d this on myself – he was not present). A couple days later I received a call from the county CPS. The lady caller was polite and professional, and apparently slightly bemused that the counselor had called them to report this incident as, I suppose, evidence that I was a possible abuser. However, she did remind me that the counselor is, under California law, a “mandatory reporter”, which means that she has some liability if she does not report suspicions. My demonstration fell under the counselor’s interpretation of “striking a child”.
There were no official follow-ups to this incident. I guess, but do not know, that I still have a record on file with CPS about this incident. (Our son is now over 21, so ….)
What did I learn from this? Never discuss anything of the kind with anyone who might be required or even inclined to report it. This includes all of those people one might otherwise be inclined to discuss child-rearing with, including teachers, counselors, pediatricians (any doctor, really), psychologists, etc. Even non-mandatory reporters (everyone else in the world) can call things in and potentially ruin your life, so never discipline your child in public.