Children of the State

[Christian Graus]

Oakman wrote:

Nonetheless, he had to make a judgement call, not a legal one.

Yes, that is true, in that I assume there's no law that could apply here. One wonders if the best he could do is to say that he knows what will be taught in a classroom, and to what level, so given that he had to choose at all, it was the logical choice ?

Oakman wrote:

hile the genuflecting that goes on in courtrooms may make him think that his words are inspired by a Higher Power, his training has only equipped him to understand the law, not everything that happens.

As I say, I'd suspect that he was put in a place where he had to decide which of the two was most likely to conform to societies standards,. having been forced to choose at all.

Oakman wrote:

You think that cases are appealed and overturned on whether the judge had an opinion about the matter before he walked in the door?

I think that if a judge is plainly unfair, then mechanisms exist to appeal, yes.

Oakman wrote:

If you argue that 25 hours a week in a school can counteract her influenc

No, I'm not suggesting it can nullify it. What I am suggesting is, it will provide some alternative views. Kids always get to decide for themselves, but they can decide only from the options they have been given.

Oakman wrote:

My suggestion that the parent be told that until they come up with a solution that is acceptable to both of them and obeys the laws of the state, they be fined still seems a logical response to the problem.

OK, that's a decent option - give them an incentive to agree. Of course if she has no job and lives on his payments, then the fine also hurts him only. At the end of the day, what makes this a tough situation is that a couple with kids decided to divorce. It's not that the state was trying to control their lives, that's my core point. The state was dragged into this. AND, the other point is that reading the paper does not give you the whole story. It never will. If I wanted to make definitive pronouncements about the motivation of the judge and what he should have done, I'd get the court transcripts first.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Christian Graus]

I hope you're right, but society what it is today, I have no idea how the neighbours treat their kids, and they don;t know how I treat mine. The co-ordination of reports from doctors, teachers, etc, seems to me the best way to try to track down that sort of thing. When my wife was a little girl, her dad and some other off duty cops went around to a guy who beat his wife, and beat the crap out of him. Nowadays, I don't think people would be connected enough to notice, or do something about it.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Lost User]

The three monkey syndrome lives.

[Stan Shannon]

Than we are obviously trying to solve the wrong problem.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Christian Graus wrote:

Well, I more assume that my rights would get trampled, but that I wouldn't go down without a fight.

Not once your lawyer explained the facts of life to you.

Christian Graus wrote:

Yeah, at the end of the day, life is less complicated if you can make the most of who you married in the first place, especially if there is kids.

It takes two to make a marriage, only one to get a divorce.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Christian Graus wrote:

One wonders if the best he could do is to say that he knows what will be taught in a classroom, and to what level, so given that he had to choose at all, it was the logical choice ?

Would he also be "forced" to decide whether the child should chew double bubble or juicy fruit? You keep talking as if someone with a gun made him come up with a ruling other than the one I describe: work it out or pay the fines.

Christian Graus wrote:

the other point is that reading the paper does not give you the whole story. It never will.

Every time I try to point out to an Australian that reading the news, no matter how faithfully, does not make them an expert on the USA, they disagree. Can I assume that the next time this issue is raised, you would agree with me?

Christian Graus wrote:

I'd get the court transcripts first

You seem to have been weighing in pretty strongly, without having done so.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I don't believe a child cruelty body is necessary to achieve the goal of protecting children.

Unless of course, a state government sets it up.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Unless of course, a state government sets it up.

That would be preferable to the federal government. But, I would even have problems with that. I would be opposed to any bureaucratically defined standard of child care. What is best for a child should be exclusively the authority of the parents of that child. Any criminality towards a child should be defined and enforced precisely the way any other crime is. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a local community is not the perfect place for such responsibilities to be invested by a society.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Lost User]

Clearly Stan, you seem to know better than them who are Child Care specialists. Would you care to give some guidance of correctness where such Child Care specialists are getting it so consistently wrong. To help you, here is a small 5 page PDF leaflet for you to consider in terms of its wrongness. [^] And here is another, this time a 14 page booklet [^]

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Clearly Stan, you seem to know better than them who are Child Care specialists. Would you care to give some guidance of correctness where such Child Care specialists are getting it so consistently wrong.

It isn't the specialists who are the problem (mostly) - it is the bureaucrats who will actually be empowered to administer any such system. It will, of necessity, be a one size fits all bureaucratic solution designed not to help children but to justify the existence of the bureaucrats. Just as with health care, I refuse to sacrifice my freedom simply because other people are incapable of using their own wisely. Freedom is a dangerous thing to give to people. Those who cannot handle it should go live somewhere else or at the very least let me live separately from them.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.