How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 10:19 AM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #110

vacri wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump isn't really proving me wrong. He made a lot of promises. He's completely unable to get any of them done; he's a completely ineffective politician. He's alienated his own staff and political allies. He won't survive the next election, and doesn't even want to. He doesn't care to stay, and without impeachment, there's no way to remove him. Total amount of elections won = 1, total amount of 'stuff done' = 0. Trum…

> He really is an atypical case here. Not in my experience. I France we have politicians lying, cheating and even being condemned coming back all the time.

You don't even need to go as far as France. RI and NJ do that too.

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

#122

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 10:20 AM UTC

walterstucco wrote: post #72

pamqzl wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I'd be far more worried about my kid being hit by a car than being a victim of any crime. Or maybe they try something stupid (we all did stupid things as kids and I don't expect my kids to be smarter than I was) and wind up drowning in the river or falling off something.

> Honestly I'd be far more worried about my kid being hit by a car But why? Is it common for them to be hit by cars? Is it safer for them to go to school with parents? And if someone hits you while you are trying to protect your kid, is it less traumatic? And if while you take them to school you hit someone else's kid, is it less traumatic? Is it common for kids to drown or fall and die while parents are not there? F…

> If you start thinking about everything that _could_ happen, you wouldn't let your kids go out

This is precisely where are now.

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

#123

Post by pharrington » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 10:22 AM UTC

I smell a confidence trick.

Nowhere in his article does Crook mention any specific names of government workers he interacted with, specific dates when he met with caseworkers, or specific actions or enforcements the government would take regarding his case.

In an article full of links to specific stats and empathy inducing images of his children, he does not show a single government correspondence.

I hope my assumption is just misguided cynicism, and that there actually is a concrete reason to give this man money.

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

#124

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 10:23 AM UTC

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…

I don't know how it works in Canada, but in California, CWS has the right to remove your children to foster care if they deem the child is at risk of harm, and then the courts get involved.

Considering that forcibly removing children from their parents is a highly traumatic situation, I can understand how someone might not want to do what you suggest.

Also, at no point is a jury involved in the disposition of the children; it's a single judge and a 3+ party trial (parent(s), child, state, &c.).

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

#125

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 10:24 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #84

dagw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with the general assertion in the article, cherry picking statistics for just one, very rare, crime isn't compelling evidence. Why not present the stats for all relevant crimes?

Practically all crime is at an all-time low, but that's largely beside the point. Is the risk of robbery intolerably awful, or have we become unreasonably timid? I think that America (and to a significant extent Canada) is still in the throes of zero tolerance culture, where any risk is intolerable and any action to mitigate risk is justified. Two kids get into a scuffle at school? Expel them both. Don't worry about…

>where any risk is intolerable and any action to mitigate risk is justified

Which commonly takes the form of "If you can't afford X then you shouldn't be doing Y"

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

#126

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 10:27 AM UTC

nicklaf wrote: post #8

nippples wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Helicopter parenting is one problem, legal enforcement of helicopter parenting is an entirely different monster.

Don't parents sometimes tattle on other parents they deem to be irresponsible, according to their own standards of just what children ought to be able to do by themselves? I seem to remember reading some anecdotes here the last time this topic came up.

Not just other parents, people in general. Also in my experience a woman is under much more scrutiny as a parent than a man (e.g. exact same activity -- with dad: "So great to see dad bonding with kid" -- with mom: "I can't believe she would let her kid do that!")

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

#127

Post by gambiting » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 10:27 AM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #82

icebraining wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of countries in Europe are way more leftist than the US, yet we still have kids wandering around. Seems like a very poor correlation.

Which ones are you thinking about?

Even in the UK, which is rapidly approaching US is many cultural aspects, there is absolutely no issue with kids walking themselves to school or playing outside without supervision. I'm not saying there aren't cases where someone overzealous gets authorities involved because they think kids are in danger, but in general you see loads of kids walking to school and taking the bus/metro on their own.

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

#128

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 10:29 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #116

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

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

In Australia men don't have a 50% custody right. The mother can just cease participating in the shared parenting plan. She could say "he lets them roam the streets unsupervised". Then it goes back to court, the courts tell the mother "you have to participate", and then she "forgets" or her "car breaks down" or she "doesn't have enough money for petrol". This can also, though rarely, work with the genders reversed.

The result is the same: The Government strips you of custody because someone claimed you stepped out of line.

I don't meant to sound like I have an axe to grind, but I do, so that's how it comes across.

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

#129

Post by mathw » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 10:31 AM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #71

galfarragem wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Translating parent comment and playing devil's advocate: What did happen in the western world that made parents not allowing their kids to wander around? He proposed one explanation in a contrived way: leftist politics. Instead of mindless downvoting, how would you explain it?

General increase in risk aversion. Same reason there are seat belt laws, helmet laws, firecrackers are illegal, you have to take your shoes off to get on a plane, lawn darts are banned, and people fear second hand smoke. To tie it back to the parent comment, there is data that shows more individualistic people take more risks, so perhaps it is tied to the decline of individualism, and religion. Regarding kids specifi…

Aren't individualism and religion opposing philosophies? Most religions demand conformity.

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

#130

Post by daemin » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 10:31 AM UTC

A more sinister way of looking at this is that the government wants to raise children to be more dependent on an authority figure. So that when they grow up to become adults they will more naturally defer to authority and the state will have an easier time controlling the population and instituting draconian measures.

This goes hand in hand with another commenter where no-one wants to take the responsibility for being wrong and always defers to an "authority figure". Because nobody got blamed for buying IBM.