Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

5kids1condo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 193 posts

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#111

Post by new299 »

pmiller2 wrote: post #41
new299 wrote: post #21

I'm sympathetic. But given the article is against "fact-free" parenting. I didn't find the data presented very compelling. Basically you'd need to know how common crime against children traveling unsupervised on buses in a similar scenario. The closest example presented is kids in New York riding the subway, so presenting stats on that would be useful. I'd also like more details on the Japanese example, it's honestly…

Hearing reports of a thing on the news is actually a signal that such things are not common. That's why you don't see every little (or even big) traffic accident on the news. It's not special. It happens every day.

There are so many potential biases involved, that I'm not sure I would use "hearing it on the news" as a statistical metic to drive my personal evaluation.

Obviously, if you're using it to set policy, some kind of study would be valuable.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#112

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

DanBC wrote: post #69
Dove wrote: post #62

I don't mind the idea of the state protecting children. What I mind is it happening without essential protections such as a right to jury trial, a presumption of innocence, and illegal behavior being limited to what is defined by actual laws written by elected representatives. What we have here is the terror of the police state. Anonymous tips, petty bureaucrats making life changing rulings on a whim with no clear la…

In the OPs situation he can just politely tell the child protection team that he's heard their advice, but that he disagrees, and that he's not going to change his behaviour. The social workers then put all the information together and take it to their lawyers, who'll either say it's not strong enough to go to court, or ask him if he really does want to ignore the advice because they think they have a good case. At t…

> but that he disagrees, and that he's not going to change his behaviour.

I don't think that's how it works, in this day and age.

As Adrian mentions in the article:

Being a divorced, single dad who has his kids 50% of the time, I have little recourse to challenge the Ministry’s decision. Disobeying it even in the slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner store by my 9.75 year old), could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children, a remarkably draconian outcome I would never risk.

This is very similar to how it would work in Australia. The cards are especially stacked against you if you're unfortunate enough to be the bearer of a Y chromosome during a separation involving children.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#113

Post by new299 »

tempestn wrote: post #78
new299 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A 2003 study in Canada found just one case nationwide of a stranger abducting a child, in the entire two years prior." Without knowing if, and how many children rode the bus alone, this information is not meaningful.

Of course it is. One incident in two years, out of a population of tens of millions, is effectively zero. Regardless of how many kids ride the bus, if there were a significant number of predators out there waiting to abduct children, there are sufficient opportunities available that it would happen with some regularity. It's not for lack of unsupervised bus riders that it's such a rare occurrence.

Isn't it possible that very few children ride the bus alone in Canada? Particularly given the fact that there seems to be governmental/social pressure against this?

So the population of unsupervised children riding buses might be 10? or 100? or 1000000? we don't know.

1 in 10 would be high, though given the limited size of the dataset, possibly not very statistically relevant.

It seems doubtful that this is a very useful dataset.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#114

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

DanBC wrote: post #99
Confiks wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that he could "just" do this in my opinion really simplifies it too much. You must be terribly sure of your case to open yourself up to such a risk. Also, in many countries, child protection services can preemtively declare you an unfit parent and place your children in foster care, pending a decision from a judge, which may well take months.

> Also, in many countries, child protection services can preemtively declare you an unfit parent and place your children in foster care, pending a decision from a judge Which countries allow this? It doesn't happen in England.

I can't speak for England, but in Australia...

Good luck if you're male and working, and the other parent is female and on social welfare. The mother can simply claim you're violent, or otherwise unfit to be a parent, and hey-presto you're fucked. She gets legal aid, the guy has to spend 5+ years and $35,000+ of his own money getting nowhere because the Family Court of Australia is extremely reluctant to force the female parent to comply.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#115

Post by DanBC »

sametmax wrote: post #106
DanBC wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't do anything without going to court. Of course there are laws that govern this.

About the result yes. But the procedures they engage can have a tremendous impact on one's life, and even more when a court is involved, whether they are right or not. Can you imagine having to kiss some distant bureaucrat bottom, accepting they invade your life, endangering your reputation, making you question your choices, threatening you to loose your kids, making them look at you differently, all that __even befo…

He doesn't have to do any of that. He can chose to not engage at all.

Again, the state can't do anything without going to court, and when they go to court they have to prove their case, he doesn't have to prove anything.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#116

Post by DanBC »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #112
DanBC wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the OPs situation he can just politely tell the child protection team that he's heard their advice, but that he disagrees, and that he's not going to change his behaviour. The social workers then put all the information together and take it to their lawyers, who'll either say it's not strong enough to go to court, or ask him if he really does want to ignore the advice because they think they have a good case. At t…

> but that he disagrees, and that he's not going to change his behaviour. I don't think that's how it works, in this day and age. As Adrian mentions in the article: Being a divorced, single dad who has his kids 50% of the time, I have little recourse to challenge the Ministry’s decision. Disobeying it even in the slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner store by my 9.75 year old), could result in the Ministry st…

> could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children,

It's not true though.

The ministry can't strip him of equal custody rights, they can only go to court. A judge is the only person who can strip his rights away.

THe claim is:

> Disobeying it even in the slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner store by my 9.75 year old), could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children

And that claim is just bullshit. Show me any case in Canada where this has happened.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#117

Post by roceasta »

Ntrails wrote: post #101

This article is depressing as hell. I used to walk to school at the age of what, 8? There was one really quite busy road I had to cross on my own, the rest was residential. But learning to cross the road is something that was dogmatically addressed from a very young age. "Stop. Look. Listen." I remember learning about that aged 5ish? My parents knew I could cross the road, they'd taught me, the schools had taught me.…

But frankly if we're going to spend our lives obsessing about extreme tail risks then we've already lost

Yes. And the tail risks are asymmetrical here. Bureaucrats take on responsibility for thousands or hundreds-of-thousands of children in their district. They look bad however few of these kids are harmed or killed. So what might be a perfectly acceptable risk for an individual family is not acceptable to the local government.

The more they interfere and assume responsibility for children the more additional responsibilities their offices will be loaded with when things go wrong. Which will cause further problems, et cetera, because although parents love and provide for their children, institutions don't know how to (and can't afford to).

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#118

Post by DanBC »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #114
DanBC wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, in many countries, child protection services can preemtively declare you an unfit parent and place your children in foster care, pending a decision from a judge Which countries allow this? It doesn't happen in England.

I can't speak for England, but in Australia... Good luck if you're male and working, and the other parent is female and on social welfare. The mother can simply claim you're violent, or otherwise unfit to be a parent, and hey-presto you're fucked. She gets legal aid, the guy has to spend 5+ years and $35,000+ of his own money getting nowhere because the Family Court of Australia is extremely reluctant to force the fe…

Your comment is irrelevant to the claim made, which was

> in many countries, child protection services can preemtively declare you an unfit parent and place your children in foster care, pending a decision from a judge,

For a child to be placed in foster care in Australia either the parent has to agree or a judge makes a decision. It's not possible for a child to be placed in foster care without either of those.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#119

Post by danieltillett »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #114
DanBC wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, in many countries, child protection services can preemtively declare you an unfit parent and place your children in foster care, pending a decision from a judge Which countries allow this? It doesn't happen in England.

I can't speak for England, but in Australia... Good luck if you're male and working, and the other parent is female and on social welfare. The mother can simply claim you're violent, or otherwise unfit to be a parent, and hey-presto you're fucked. She gets legal aid, the guy has to spend 5+ years and $35,000+ of his own money getting nowhere because the Family Court of Australia is extremely reluctant to force the fe…

Yes it is pretty bad. I have always wondered how many real cases of partner abuse have been caused by tilting the system so far in one direction.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#120

Post by new299 »

tempestn wrote: post #78
new299 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A 2003 study in Canada found just one case nationwide of a stranger abducting a child, in the entire two years prior." Without knowing if, and how many children rode the bus alone, this information is not meaningful.

Of course it is. One incident in two years, out of a population of tens of millions, is effectively zero. Regardless of how many kids ride the bus, if there were a significant number of predators out there waiting to abduct children, there are sufficient opportunities available that it would happen with some regularity. It's not for lack of unsupervised bus riders that it's such a rare occurrence.

So, I'm now reading the article he cites to support this.

It's an old article, from 2013. It states that:

"Police statistics show 25 children of the 46,718 reported missing in 2011 listed as "abducted by stranger."

And then goes on to show that in the majority of cases that the abductor was known to the parents.

So, the useful dataset would be.

* How many of the children were abducted with unsupervised?

* In the Canadian population how many children in total are left unsupervised regularly.

From that we could calculate:

Percentage of children left unsupervised regularly who are abducted.

Percentage of children not left unsupervised regularly who are abducted.

Of course, correlation != causation. But if there is no difference between the two populations then that would tell us something. However, there isn't enough data in the article to make this assertion.

Post reply on HN