From: slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:28:20 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Jul23.164832.27914@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>>Maybe all that could happen.  I don't think it would, but that is just 
>>my gut reaction.  However, I am well aware of what IS happening, right now
>>every day, in my neighborhood, in my city.  Families churning out damaged 
>>children.  I am willing to give up some of my all-encompassing parental 
>>authority and take the personal risk that I could get trapped in a bogus 
>>lawsuit if something could be done for the children who are living hell-life.
>>Obviously, you don't want to do that, that's okay.  Free country, and all that.
>
>You misunderstand my position. I'd like to do something to help those
>kids whose parents are not up to the task, but I seriously question the
>efficacy of the legal system at improving these parent's skill and 
>behavior. For example, I would not expect a law which enables the victim 
>of a drunk driver to sue the SOB for damages to materially affect the
>number of drunk drivers on the road.
>
I see.  However, I am thinking more in terms of aiding the victim 
as opposed to punishing the aggressor.  Even though a judgment against 
a drunk driver will not change him (Lord knows, enough evidence of that) 
the money from a judgment could pay for the victim's medical bills, 
lost wages, or, if deceased, could put the victim's children through 
school.  Even though the victim may never be whole again, monetary 
compensation can do some good.

Also, "kid suits" may not need to be about money.  For instance, a 
child could sue to get a certain medical procedure.  The cash outlay 
being only the cost of the procedure and legal costs (granted, which 
could be high in and of themselves).

Even though I am advocating children's rights, ideally and practically, 
I would like to see court intervention kept to a minimum.  I, frankly, 
would prefer a larger, social adjustment that recognizes and responds 
to the needs of families in crisis.  

>No, not at all, but this is a different subject, isn't it? The rights
>of children with respect to impersonal institutions are surely not the
>same as they are with respect to their parents, legally or morally.

I've been trying to approach this discussion from the child's position.
If it were agreed that a child had a right to a certain level of care, 
then that right would follow the child and the responsibility borne 
by the parent would also be borne by any entity acting in loco parentis.
I would view the existence of childrens rights as not giving greater 
authority to the state, but to the individual child.  

>Usually an institutional inmate has severely restricted access
>to legal remedies, in practice at least, if not in theory. Granting
>additional rights, or rather legal standing, is not likely to change
>this significantly. It all sounds to me like tinkering with a broken
>machine to try and make it fly; unfortunately, the machine was a tractor,
>and no amount of fixing will make it soar through the air.

But, an adult would only be institutionalized if they were found guilty
of a crime or found to be incompetent in some fashion.  A child can 
be institutionalized for just being a child

>But we gotta do something, so we tinker. It's a bit like displacement
>behavior in animals: the lion paces back and forth, the same eight paces,
>day in and day out, because he cannot do what he'd really like to.

So very true.  Sadly, we don't have enough in the bank or arms long 
enough to embrace all the troubled children.  But, that's not reason 
enough to stop trying.

Thanks!

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Xref: sparky soc.men:13817 soc.women:14237 misc.legal:15026 alt.child-support:2270 alt.dads-rights:1621