MaxTheReaper said:
Neither do I.
However, there's a difference between being free to do "whatever you want" and being free to require your parents to justify their treatment of you as being in your best interests...
No actually, that's *not* why most of you think the father is in the right. The argument you jumped into wasn't about the facts of this particular case, but rather how the parent/child relationship should be structures...
I know--it would be *terrible* to instill a sense of empowerment in a young person where they feel their rights are taken seriously by their government...
The law doesn't matter anymore to a broken home, its the psychological impact to a 12 year old such a power trip has.
While its a mad story, I'd love to find out how she grows up, what will she be like in ten years time?. Has this affected her.
Maybe she'll become an advocate for children's rights.
Trace2010 said:
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Why is that a problem? Here, let me give you an analogy: The Business Judgment Rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
Think of the Parent as the Director, the Child as the Stockholder, and Growing Up as the Business. Why is that so bad a framework?
BECAUSE IT'S A HUMAN CHILD- not a house, not a business...the child is not a "share-holder", the child is the "recipient". You are teaching said recipient how to survive in grown up world. Comparing raising a child to raising a business, that's how No Child Left Behind and standardized tests were adopted.
In other words you have no real response to what I said ;-D
Not true at all...but let me take them one by one to spell it out...
1) There wasn't one violation in play, there were TWO. After the alleged impropriety After said justification was asked and answered- student still broke house rule in defiance of dad's wishes (going to internet sites dad didn't want her to go to). This was not a first infraction, this was a SECOND infraction of said rule. Combine this with the fact that up until May, when residence was changed (according to original article) that the girl was living WITH DAD. If dad cannot trust child to do what is expected inside of house, why pray tell would dad trust child to do what was expected outside of house?
There's your justification for the punishment involved- was probably discussed with daughter, though she didn't like it one bit.
2) Apparently little girl was not satisfied with the fact that a) she was banned from going to a school dance- probably for the first infraction, and b) after second infraction= because she didn't want to wise up= dad refused to let her go on the trip. Now, I agree with the father and the mother having a united front to stand behind the decisions, but obviously this was not done- thus "jurisdiction" when the infraction occurred was under the father's house, and under his rules. RULES THAT HAD NO LIMITS UNTIL THE CHILD DEMONSTRATED UNDESIRED BEHAVIOR.
3) There was an answer to your question, you just couldn't read into it. Comparing the raising and educating of a child to a business is just a plain bad analogy at worst and an irresponsible one at best. I can demonstrate MY said point about child support using your principles.
"Supposed stockholder goes back to the director and says, 'I don't want to play by your rules'- what does the director do? Explain why, naturally. Then stockholder says, 'I still don't want to play within the limits of your rules'. Director states, 'Go ahead, but you will probably lose money'. Stockholder states, 'I want all the money I've lost back'. Director says, 'You need to do what I say to have best possible chance of return'. Stockholder says, 'I DON WANNA!!' Director says, 'do it your way; good luck to you', steps away, and stops wasting time or allocating unnecessary resources to floundering stockholder in the best interests of the business." However, parenting has no directorships, no stockholders, and no business plan to speak of. Likewise, the child (outside of divorce) cannot change board of directors.
No court would necessarily let me get away with it, but if my child is taught that she doesn't have to obey rules in my house (ESPECIALLY rules that deal with her safety and security online)
The child is, presumably, allowed (encouraged, EMPOWERED) to explore the world BY their parents without limits until limits are required to be placed on child's behavior by the parents. I ask you, who better to teach this than the parents?
However, all too often limits imposed on the child (by both parents and teachers) are allowed to be circumvented with outside assistance (in this case the judge, who should have taken one look at the case, seen that it was simply "one parent trying to interfere with the parental responsibilities of another" and thrown it out of court). I am not siding with the father in compensation for "power", nor do I side with him based only on (what, I guess YOU WOULD consider, family structure issues), but simply because in the grand scheme of parental "rights and responsibilities" the dad was correct.
