Subject:
|
Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:26:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
329 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> 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.
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 his part of the obligation?
Are you obligated to become destitute when you have a child that will
need care forever? If not, who can the child demand support from? If
not, what actions can a parent take to end or reduce the obligation?
Does this obligation rise to the level of demanding the mother risk
death (serious injury or other lesser things) in order to bring a baby
to term? I know we want to try not to get sunk by the abortion issue,
but I think it ties very closely in with this argument, but I think it
is probably easier to examine other situations first, keeping in mind
that the answers need to be consistent with the answers about abortion
(so maybe we shouldn't dodge the hardest question, maybe answering the
abortion question resolves all the other questions also).
Who becomes obligated to the child when the parents die?
> > 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.
The question is how do we reasonably determine competance. What can we
enforce for those who are not competant (i.e. are minimum driving age
and drinking age laws supportable)?
> > > > 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."
Hmm, is the contract really one-sided. Couldn't the child have
obligations under the contract in relation to his/her ability to be self
sufficient (which includes the competence issue above). For example, if
a parent does owe his 30 year old son support after the son is laid off,
can that support be provided under a contract that makes demands of the
son? I think one could demand the father provide room and board for the
son rather than let the son live on the public dole, but I think also
the father could as part of that, demand the son participate in
maintaining the house, and have legal recourse if the son refuses (or
worse, actually damages the house - though I guess that's a separate
issue, but is it, clearly you can't sue your baby for destroying your
nice shirt by puking up on it - but then there is a degree of
culpability on your part for wearing the nice shirt while holding the
baby). On the otherh and, obviously you can't demand a baby take out the
trash, and I agree, you shouldn't even be demanding an older child take
out the trash.
It seems to me that actually making contracts two-sided (limited by the
competancy of the child) would be the best way to honor the child's
competancy. Of course the implicit contract you enter by giving birth is
somewhat different, but I think it sets the groundwork for the later
contracts, and it places very few demands on the child. I think the
implicit contract would place whatever obligation the child has to be
self sufficient to the best of his/her ability.
> 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.)
True. I think also under your model, the parent of the 15 year old
mother has an obligation to the grandchild. In fact, any grandparent has
obligations to their grandchildren under your model.
> > 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.
I'm not sure it should be too easy for children to terminate their
relationship with their parents. If it's too easy, then it's easy for a
malicious outsider to get the relationship terminated. Clearly the
system needs to have good ways to determine when real problems are
occuring (without a real problem, a child should never want to terminate
the relationship with their parents).
> > > 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.
But you have to draw lines somehow. There is clearly a line between
conflicts that are resolved by the court system and those that are not.
There is clearly a line between conflicts that result in someone being
involuntarily confined (in prison or treatment centers and hospitals)
and those that don't. We have to have standards that let us decide which
side of the line people lie on. On the other hand, I tend to agree that
the line should be drawn in terms of measurable standards of competancy
(and responsibility), and then people placed on one side or the other
based on how they compare to that standard. Unfortunately, age is one of
the easier measures (and remember, no measurement is going to be
perfectly accurate). Age is also one of the few measures that had any
truth to it until fairly recently.
> > > 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.
That's why I think a contract model fits. The contract model says you
owe your son time, but it can give you some control over when that time
is.
> > 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 :-)
Hmm, I'm trying to remember how old I was when we had a system where we
posted the savings goals each kid had, and their progress towards those
goals. With inflation, the goals were probably not too far off from $400
(though the rate of inflation for the types of things we were buying is
not that extreme). Since it happened before we moved from Concord to
Lexington, I was less than 13 (and my younger sister who participated
also was by extension less than 9). I know that was a valuable exercise
for me (as evidenced by my remembering it - it was certainly one of the
first times I learned money planning). I know I didn't have "perfect"
parents, but I can certainly say I got a pretty good deal from them.
There is no doubt in my mind that my most important life skills and
values came from them.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
| (...) It's hard for me to think of it as an obligation. I've never met anyone able-bodied who was in a position that precluded them from supporting themselves. Also, wouldn't the parent _want_ to help out? Just like the adult kid would _want_ to be (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
