Which Kids to Protect, and How

Superman · 06-22-2006, 08:09 AM

Listening to the radio yesterday. I heard that Washington State does not designate a minimum age at which parents are permitted to leave their kids at home alone. The parents are to use their judgement.

That works great when responsible parents actually do use their judgement. But this kind of regulation is often considered necessary anyway, and it a prime target for you knuckleheads that want to see gubmit eliminated. I'll be especially interested in Pat's suggestions here.

If we eliminate gubmit as the so-called "libertarians" suggest, problems will take care of themselves using mechanisms like supply and demand, and litigation. Harmed people can sue. Law suits create even more commerce, so it's all good. In the libertarian view, a doubling or tripling of the size of the legal community is apparently an attractive idea. Some of us wince at that notion.

Who is the five year old kid going to sue? Will it be okay for children to sue their parents?

What's the answer? Gubmit? Should there be a law against leaving 4 year-olds at home to fend for themselves. Who will administer and enforce this?

Just curious. About this idea that commerce solves all problems and regulations are unnecessary because markets regulate themselves. The self-regulating market.......that reminds me of the geocentric universe.

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

Sounds like Washington State is wacked. Remind me again, is that a blue state or a red state?

Lemme see here....Google....

Democrat Governor: Check
Democrat controlled House: Check
Democrat controlled Senate: Check
Wacked out laws: Check.

Any other questions?

The answer to your question is yes, there should be a law which prohibits abandoning your child at home prior to the age at which they can care for themselves. I thought there were federal child welfare laws, maybe Washington state has a special exemption...

Superman · 06-22-2006, 08:36 AM

Rick, I really wonder whether I should be stupid enough to respond to that. Okay. Ummm.....states are not exempted from Federal law. The stated fact that Washington State has no special age restriction here stands on its own, notwithstanding federal law. Perhaps someone nearby can explain this to you. When that has been done, I would probably be amused to hear your thoughts on whether an additional regulation like this is a GOOD thing or a BAD thing in the mind of an avowed conservative. Maybe after you have checked with Rush.

There is just a TON of things that would shift from gubmit to attorneys and judges, if uber-conservatives had their way and 90% of gubmit regulations were eliminated. Judges would have to be pretty smart and pretty principled. I wonder if we'd have any oversight over them, or if they can just sell their decisions to the highest bidder. I think the gangs would do very well. I'm guessing they're very supportive.

lendaddy · 08:49 AM

Do you really think the type of parent that would leave a four year old home alone would bother to check the laws on such a practice before doing so???? Seriously?

So once again you get a law that does nothing to actually remedy a problem. But it sounds good........and really that's what's important right? Well that and how it makes you......feel.

Wait I know, we'll develope a new federal agency to roam communities and inspect for infractions of the new "Home Alone™" laws. This agency will not be cabinet level, but it will have a Abandonment Czar that reports to the Chief of Staff

RoninLB · 06-22-2006, 08:53 AM

There should be laws on the books for child neglect.

After that this subject may fall under Gov't regulating social policy.

Gov't regulated social policy is unending social tension to one party or another. It's bad enough that every elementary school kid threatens his parents with the PD if he gets smacked for running into the middle of the street from between cars. Or how about the 7yr old girl who puts on Spice Girls make-up before jumping on the school bus. If you drag her to the sink crying and wash her face she'll report you.

BlueSkyJaunte · 06-22-2006, 08:57 AM

Child Protective Services (or whatever it's called) in most states are such a giant clusterf*ck that I'd hesistate to add any legislation that would increase their burden.

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
Rick, I really wonder whether I should be stupid enough to respond to that. Okay. Ummm.....states are not exempted from Federal law. The stated fact that Washington State has no special age restriction here stands on its own, notwithstanding federal law. Perhaps someone nearby can explain this to you. When that has been done, I would probably be amused to hear your thoughts on whether an additional regulation like this is a GOOD thing or a BAD thing in the mind of an avowed conservative. Maybe after you have checked with Rush.

There is just a TON of things that would shift from gubmit to attorneys and judges, if uber-conservatives had their way and 90% of gubmit regulations were eliminated. Judges would have to be pretty smart and pretty principled. I wonder if we'd have any oversight over them, or if they can just sell their decisions to the highest bidder. I think the gangs would do very well. I'm guessing they're very supportive.

Wow Supe, who peed in your Cheerios this morning?

Perhaps I misunderstood your original post. As I understand this you are saying that Washington State has no law which makes abandoning a very young child at home illegal. It sounds like you think there should be such a law, which I agree with. I point out that the government of Washington State is wholly controlled by Democrats and as such should be held accountable for the legislation (or lack thereof) in their state.

How does that justify your ad hominem attack?

Oh, and my comment about an "exemption" for Washington state was made in sarcasm.

Oh yeah, one other thing. I answered your question in my original reply with a "Yes, there should be a law against that". See? I didn't even have to check with Rush (who I don't listen to anyway but don't let that get in the way of your stereotype).

Drago · Drago's Garage

Awe crap, I live in WA and I leave all three of my 6 and under boys home every day.

I figure it's OK though.

It's not as if the oldest doesn't know the combination to the gun safe.

Superman · 06-22-2006, 09:46 AM

No, Rick. What I said was that Washington State has no specific age at which the law kicks in. No age definition. It is a judgement call.

Yes, there are laws everywhere in this democracy against child endangerment. Yes, those laws regulate a social construct. Just the kind of thing conservatives hate. Gubmit meddling in family decisions. I am looking for what you guys say about this. You want this regulation, or not?

The easy thing to do, as Len noticed and BSJ, is to maybe indicate support for protecting children in a general sense, or not, and then lambaste gubmit as a CF. Very constructive........not.

It's fun to pretend like everything is gubmit's fault, and that gubmit should be eliminated. And then there is reality.

Oh and Rick, aside from the miscommunications that are beginning to get cleared up, I was reacting to your version of the cute trick I mentioned two paragraphs above this sentence. The one where you go from a legitimate public policy question, directly to "gubmit is AFU," and then directly to "It's the democrats' fault." Cute. Fun. Baseless. Ignorant.

gaijindabe · 06-22-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
The parents are to use their judgement.

This works 99.99% of the time. More laws on the books is not going to help in the other .01% of cases anyway.

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
No, Rick. What I said was that Washington State has no specific age at which the law kicks in. No age definition. It is a judgement call.

Yes, there are laws everywhere in this democracy against child endangerment. Yes, those laws regulate a social construct. Just the kind of thing conservatives hate. Gubmit meddling in family decisions. I am looking for what you guys say about this. You want this regulation, or not?

The easy thing to do, as Len noticed and BSJ, is to maybe indicate support for protecting children in a general sense, or not, and then lambaste gubmit as a CF. Very constructive........not.

It's fun to pretend like everything is gubmit's fault, and that gubmit should be eliminated. And then there is reality.

Oh and Rick, aside from the miscommunications that are beginning to get cleared up, I was reacting to your version of the cute trick I mentioned two paragraphs above this sentence. The one where you go from a legitimate public policy question, directly to "gubmit is AFU," and then directly to "It's the democrats' fault." Cute. Fun. Baseless. Ignorant.

1). Conservatives hate gubmint meddling in family decisions: {annoying loud buzz sound here}. Wrong. Any conservative would agree that there are times and places for the government to step in and protect children. Abuse (which abandonment is part of) does not constitute "family privacy". What most conservatives ARE against is the gubmint telling us what we should teach our children, especially when it comes to morality.

2). My reasons for pointing out the Democrat controlled gubmint of Washington state is because this issue seems to be with Washington state. Therefore their gubmint should be held accountable. It's not my fault they all happen to be Democrats. It's cute and fun, certainly not baseless (care to look up the governor/senate majority leader/house majority leader) and really isn't ignorant any more than the liberals saying (correctly) that the current batch of Republicans is responsible for federal policy decisions.

BlueSkyJaunte · 06-22-2006, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
The easy thing to do, as Len noticed and BSJ, is to maybe indicate support for protecting children in a general sense, or not, and then lambaste gubmit as a CF. Very constructive........not.

As you're trying to put words in my mouth, I'll clarify: I was lambasting CPS in most states as a CF. Since my neighbor was a psych for the Phoenix area CPS, I do have some insight here. And news stories illustrating the inefficiency and ineptitude of CPS across the US are not too difficult to find.

By the way, how do you think the gubmint is doing right now? Things going smoothly? Yeah, I thought so.

Superman · 06-22-2006, 10:02 AM

That's something Len said also. So, you favor just not having these regulations. Because they are of no worth? I suspect some of those lazy, overpaid, underworked, freeloading cretins who work within the agencies that protect children would disagree. They probably actually use/apply those regulations, and they probably have a good sense for what would actually need to happen in order for that agency to more effectively protect children. I'm sure you and Len have talked to them.

lendaddy · 06-22-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman

The easy thing to do, as Len noticed and BSJ, is to maybe indicate support for protecting children in a general sense, or not, and then lambaste gubmit as a CF. Very constructive........not.

It's fun to pretend like everything is gubmit's fault, and that gubmit should be eliminated. And then there is reality.

Seriously,. get real. You want ineffective? pass another damn law and that will show you "ineffective".

For kicks why don't you play out for me a scenerio where this new law will change anything.

The idea that government can micromanage parenting at the houshold level is laughable. You can claim my method solves nothing and you'de be right, but your method also solves nothing while costing us money. It's a no brainer.

BlueSkyJaunte · 06-22-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
What most conservatives ARE against is the gubmint telling us what we should teach our children, especially when it comes to morality.

Unless of course it means teaching the bible in gradeschool.

Moneyguy1 · 06-22-2006, 10:04 AM

How about a generation of parents many of whom were raised in an environment that didn't prepare them for parenthood and was a bit lax on instilling common sense?

Put the blame where it belongs; not on the government.

Superman · 06-22-2006, 10:06 AM

True, Blue. Stories of children receiving poor or no protection from public agencies do indeed abound. Pretty easy to point at the existence of a problem. I'm asking, and waiting, for ideas or preferences. Bag the whole system and let the kids take care of themselves? Apply sufficient resources so these agencies CAN be effective? Eliminate gubmit and let the five year-olds' attorneys go after the parents?

Anybody got anything except the observation that there are problems?

BlueSkyJaunte · 06-22-2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
I suspect some of those lazy, overpaid, underworked, freeloading cretins who work within the agencies that protect children

Wow, you and my neighbor must have worked with the same people. Those are exactly the words she used. Except she added "idiots" and "criminal negligence".

lendaddy · 06-22-2006, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
That's something Len said also. So, you favor just not having these regulations. Because they are of no worth?

There are child neglect laws on the books. The idea that parents sit around in other states(that have an age law) lamenting the fact that they cannot leave little Ricky home while they go to the club is silly.

Wife "I would love to go to that rave at the other end of town, but I just read that they made it specifically illegal to leave Ricky home alone"

Husband "Yea, we had it greased before. I checked with our lawyer and he advised us that we'd likely slide on generic child endangerment, but now with this specific age deal.......not so much"

Wife "Yep, guess we gotta stay home tonight"

Husband "sigh"

BlueSkyJaunte · 06-22-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
I'm asking, and waiting, for ideas or preferences. Bag the whole system and let the kids take care of themselves? Apply sufficient resources so these agencies CAN be effective? Eliminate gubmit and let the five year-olds' attorneys go after the parents?

Anybody got anything except the observation that there are problems?

1) Mandatory non-reversible sterilization of parents after the second infraction
2) Hire qualified people for CPS
3) Enforce a true meritocracy within the CPS organization
4) Require regular audits by an external organization
5) Complete process transparency
6) Fire the goddamn people who need firing
7) And yes, improved funding