Subject:
|
Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Mar 2003 06:30:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
404 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > > Can the
> > > parent charge the child for room and board and affection?
> >
> > No, it is owed. The parents made the choice to bring a human into the world.
> > They must fulfill their obligations to the best of their ability.
>
> When does the obligation end?
Never. At least that's the quick answer. As I see it, reproducing is in some
ways akin to playing Roulette. There's always a chance that you'll end up with
a psychotic or a retard as a kid who will need care forever. You owe them
that. If you have a child who is cognitively capable and sane, but they
still need care as adults, the most probably explanation is that you FUBARed as
a parent. Your job as a parent is to help them enumerate their goals and then
reach them. For a normal person, independance is one of those goals.
> I'm inclined to think the obligation ends at adulthood (whatever that is
> defined to be - I think the law does have to have a way to draw a line
> as to who is competent to be an "adult" and who is not).
I think that competence should be determined every step of the way. It's just
not reasonable to hold someone (even an adult) to a contract they enter when
the verbiage is so convoluted as to be indecipherable to them. The burden for
making sure that your contractual partners understand their role in the
contract should rest on everyone.
> > > Can a parent sue his child for
> > > breach of contract? What manner of reparations are suitable?
> >
> > There's no contract to breach...unless I'm not getting something.
>
> I haven't explored everything yet, but I feel there is an implicit
> contract. Perhaps that's just because I see it easier to not special
> case offspring. If an implicit contract is entered upon birth (or
> earlier), then we can hold the parents to that contract just like any
> other contract.
Agreed. The contract model mostly works just fine when enumerating the
responsibilities of the parent. But Dave was asking about the parent suing the
child and I say the child has essentially no responsibilities under that
contract. It is one sided. The child's behavior is limited by the laws of the
land, but not additionally by the "parenting-contract."
But the one problem relates to what I said above about needing to understand
the terms of the contract before being held to it. Parenting _is_ a special
case because there is on other side on whom we can count to explain and
simplify the terms. And fifteen-year olds who have kids still owe them perfect
care, even though they most probably didn't know what they were getting into.
(Though I think that woudld be largely corrected under my model of parenting
which also includes doing away with our cultural prudishness.)
> I would think the conditions for the parents terminating
> the contract would be pretty limited (to the same extreme cases you are
> talking about). I think children would have somewhat more leeway to
> terminate the contract (however they would have to do one of two things
> to do so: convince the parents/courts that they have the required
> understanding to enter/terminate contracts, convince the courts that
> their parents are unfit [and thus the court would assign a replacement
> guardian, who would then request termination of the contract]).
I think this process should be quite easy. I'm not sure if what you're
describing would be.
> > Not exactly. I think I must have communicated poorly. I think that right now,
> > most parents just decide what their kids can handle in the way of
> > responsibility. I think kids should have penultimate say in such things. The
> > law would work to protect them from obligations beyond the scope of their
> > understanding. And the ability of people to understand what they're getting
> > themselves into is a spectrum anyway. Our law suggests that prior to 18 (most
> > places) people are completely clueless and after that time, they are completely
> > clueful. That's absurd. Look that the trouble that college students get into
> > with credit.
>
> I definitely agree that the line we have drawn seems wrong. But somehow
> the law does need to be able to determine when people should have the
> understanding, and what to do when people don't have the understanding
> (I think the law can treat a "normal" 4 year old differently than a 30
> year old with the mind of a 4 year old).
I think the problem at root is the belief that any line can be drawn. People,
regardless of their age, have some capacity to think and abstract and project
into the future. In general, smart people have more then dumb people and older
people have more than younger people (at least during the 0-40 span). Drawing
a line of any kidn is going to screw a bunch of people on either side.
Understanding that people have different abilities is the way to go.
> > I don't think I'm willing to go that far. Kids should have freedom over their
> > lives, not over mine.
>
> But how does that mesh with the obligation you owe?
Determining that is the trick. Certainly, my kids do have some power over my
life because of my debt to them. But that doesn't include, for instance, the
right to dictate how I spend my time. I even think my son has a right to
expect that I will play with him, but if I want to check my email first when we
get home from school, then I will. He doesn't like it, but it's not my job to
remove all sources of frustration. It's my job to help him deal with them
constructively.
> It seems to me the obligation is contingent on some things.
I think the key is determining what is reasonable. Reasonable for everyone in
the family. What if one kid wants A and one wants B but A and B are mutually
exclusive? We have to help build a consensus and learn to compromise when
possible.
> I don't find it at all unusual for a 4 year old to be able to understand
> this to a sufficient extent to agree that it's a good idea to keep
> paying the mortgage. Now a teenage kid might understand more, and be
> able to counter by pointing out other options. I'd expect a teenage kid
> to also have a better understanding of the value of $400.
And when my son feels motivated to point out alternatives, we'll take him
seriously. Actually, I think my son has a pretty firm handle on $400 now. His
monthly allowance, coupled with his desire for more expensive stuff is helping
that along. It is theoretically possible (with the system of matching grants
that we've put in place) for him to have saved $400 by Gen Con, for instance.
But he won't...too much stuff to buy in the here and now for an eight year
old :-)
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
| (...) Hmm, does that never mean that the parent has an obligation to support the child if the child loses his/her job in a layoff after attaining self sufficiency? How is this modified when rape is involved? How do we hold the rapist responsible for (...) (22 years ago, 18-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
| (...) When does the obligation end? I'm inclined to think the obligation ends at adulthood (whatever that is defined to be - I think the law does have to have a way to draw a line as to who is competent to be an "adult" and who is not). (...) I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
