PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - Another misfit parent making excuses.

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/)

- - Another misfit parent making excuses. (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/130660-another-misfit-parent-making-excuses.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You seem awfully passionate here. Am I stepping on some emotionally-charged toes?

Look, I explained about being careful with whom I let my kids visit. When they're really young I walked them to the house where they were to play and either fetched them or the other parent would bring them back. When they got older it was me standing outside watching them walk. (Oh yeah, when I say me, it also means my wife, we're interchangeable parts of the same parental machine). Later, it was a phone call upon arrival and departure. The same pattern repeats with the driver's license. Also, the kids grow-up understanding that there are evil people, especially men between teen-years and advanced age, who will steal them from their parents. And you teach the kid how to deal with problems. You start young and slowly reveal the full truth about evil people as they are more self-aware. By doing this, you give the kid the power of knowledge and rational response.

The chance of the kid getting snatched (the ultimate parental horror, IMO) under those circumstances is present, but vanishingly small. Because of that, the kid increasingly realizes personal responsibility.

So yeah, I know where my kids are. Partly from line of sight (when tehy're young) and later from trust, because I raised responsible, aware, and careful kids who are becoming reasonable, responsible, well-adjusted adults.

Failing to do these things with a child is negligence. If, after having done everything reasonable they still screw-up (and most kids do to some degree, especially in their teen years), it is not due to parental negligence.

Bot

No, nothing personal here. I'm a bit miffed at the fact that you take a position that says the only responsible thing to do is to watch the kids 24/7 until they are 12 years old.

All of the above statements are entirely true and I agree with them.

The question remains whether you allow an 8 year old to go off and play in the neighbor's yard (presuming you know the neighbor) without any adult supervision. You maintain that it is not acceptable to do this, however, I say that the 8 year old may be out of your sight every so often. These times may include going and coming from school. They might include going and coming from a neighbor's house. They might include riding a bicycle to the store if it is not too far away. These are all things that I did at 8 years of age, and, I'll bet that you did as well. Naturally, there is the issue of gender. You would be more likely to allow an 8 year old boy more latitude than an 8 year old girl, I would assume.

However, my point is very simple:

If you don't watch them, with you own eyes, the eyes of your wife, or the eyes of another parent, 24/7, it is possible that harm can come to them. This is despite what you believe are your best efforts.

And, in contrast to your earlier statements, this is not negligence.

Oh puh-leeeze, that is beyond simplistic.

Even if you watch a kid with your own eyes, 24/7 harm can come to them. Got meteors?

My kids either rode the bus or rode with me (or wife) or occasionally another parent, if we were in a carpooling arrangement. Until HS, then when they got their license, if grades were maintained and no trouble in school and the lawn got mowed and the rooms were clean, then they got to take the car to school.

In any case, if was not directly supervising small ones, I made sure that there was a responsible adult present. To do otehrwise would be negligent.

Bot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Nice story. I've heard it all before..........somewhere.

What's it got to do with negligence? My entire premise of the argument is that you are not negligent if you fail to watch an 8 year old 24/7 and harm comes to him. If the kid is playing in the yard, runs out into the street, and gets hit by a car, it's not negligence.

I don't see you addressing any of the points in post #85, so, I'll not repeat them again.

You want to believe that you are negligent if the kid gets hit by a car on the way to school. Fine.

I don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

If your kid runs out in teh street, you may actually be negligent. Need more info than that, huh? Like say, your six year-old is outside playing in teh yard. No problem. But you also keep your croc collection in the backyard. Sure, you tell him ne good, but the little dumb bunny goes into the backyard anyway.

Or you keep a car with a faulty trunk lid in the yard. Sure, you tell the kids to be good....

Bot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If your kid runs out in teh street, you may actually be negligent.

Not if the kid is 8 years of age. Naturally, you are negligent if the kid is three. So, technically, your statement is correct.

Happy now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Not if the kid is 8 years of age. Naturally, you are negligent if the kid is three. So, technically, your statement is correct.

Happy now?

Still depends--on the child. Age is an indicator, not a predictor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Still depends--on the child. Age is an indicator, not a predictor.

True, but, I would say to you that, legally, it would be hard to find a parent of any 8 year old guilty of negligence if the 8 year old ran out into the street after a ball and was killed by a vehicle.

I do understand that you could make a case for negligence if the 8 year old functioned at the level of a 5 year old and had no knowledge of the risks involved with retrieving a ball from the street.

So, let's just stick to your average, run of the mill, 8 year old, for the purposes of our discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Did the parents instruct the child concerning traffic safety?

Well, in this case, the subject is described as a mentally disabled 11 year old. The article goes on to indicate that the father had previously attempted to relieve himself of the responsibilities of parenthood.

If you have a gated swimming pool, and your 5 year old is clever enough to get over/around the fence while you're momentarily distracted, are you negligent? Perhaps, but not necessarily. If you don't bother to ascertain the whereabouts of said child for an hour after he's been laying dead at the bottom of the pool, are you negligent? Absolutely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Botanist, listen to me. If you allow your daughters (over the age of eight) to go over to the next block and see friends of theirs, you are allowing your children an opportunity to be injured or die. If the kid is injured, or dies, you have not neglected your primary male responsibility in human society.

Clear?

So if he allows his kid or kids to run loose without knowing who will be supervising them, it is not negligence? IMO, if he lets his kid out, he had best have an adult supervising the kid. Either himself or someone else who is trustworthy. If that is too much for him, perhaps he needs to have himself or his wife sterilized BEFORE they have any kids.

This here is a 2 prong story. This is how the kid in Elroy, WI got mauled by a couple of Rotts. 2 kids, 5 and 6 were playing. No adults present. The kid picks up a Rott puppy and the Rott parents thought the kids were posing a threat to it's pups and attacked the kids. No one was around and by the time the other kid got help, the first was long dead. Tradgedy was that the pups and the adult Rotts all got put down for doing what the parents wouldn't and couldn't do. Take care of their young. The second moral is that bad things happen when adults don't care for their young and leave them to babysit each other and call it "play".

Kids today are so g-ddamned soft!

Why my neighborhood was so tough a cat with a tail was considered a tourist and our favourite game was spin the cop.

These kids today what a bunch 'o sissies :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

From 12-16 there is a transitional period in which daddy releases his iron-grip and encourages responsible independence. It also means you have to accept that they'll screw-up.

However, note that the independence comes from trust which has to be earned, not given. IOW, if at 12 the kid is still irresponsible and a total screwup who is constantly getting into trouble, then they are not to release the grip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Did the parents instruct the child concerning traffic safety?

Yes...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Did the parents instruct the child concerning traffic safety?

In WI, it is not necessary. The dumb clowns decided that their laws would superceed the laws of physics. The car is expected to yield to the pedestrian. That means that adults or kids don't have to worry. The car will stop on a dime because the law dictates so even if there is not a safe distance.

With the information at hand, I would also consider the parent more negligent than the searchers/police, because they are more aware of the special circumstances in the area, and are aware the trunk to the car is broken. They should have seen it was closed while previously it was in the open posistion, something the searchers werent privy to, and based on that observation, they should have checked the trunk.

Kids need to be able to have time outside alone without adult supervision before the age of 12, tons of kids in my neighborhood do. We also have helmet laws, I dont allow my kids to wear them though, using a helmet and you dont learn how to fall properly. When we are at the park, some people complain my kids dont have helmets, I basically tell them its none of their business, that my kids can probably out razor theirs anyways. :)