From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Summary: The issue here is one of being able to be heard
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:48:24 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

In article <1992Jul22.143442.3541@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:
>albert@endor.uucp (David Albert) writes:
>
>>JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown) writes:
>>>So (back to a common subject), why can't the parents divorce their
>>>children??  Oh, I guess they're not allowed to have a say in their
>>>own life.
>>>
>>First of all, the parent has made a choice to have the child, and so
>>must accept some responsibility for it.  However, it is not true that
>>the parent cannot divorce the child, so to speak.  In many states, a
>>parent is free to declare an older child 'incorrigible' and turn it
>>over to the state.  

"Older" is normally defined as something like 11 or 12 years old.

Now, given that, I believe that it should be possible for an 11 or 12
year-old (or older person) to divorce his or her parents, if he or she 
can convince a court that:

1)	He or she (the minor) knows what they are doing. 
2)	They are aware it is an irrevocable decision.
3)	They have the ability or see to it that they stay in school through
	the legal required age (16 in most states)
4)	They have somewhere to go, a way to get fed, and a sheltered place 
	to sleep.

Some of this >is< possible today, in some states.  This needs to be a piece
of federal law.  The Constitution applies to all US citizens; age is not a
criteria for application.

I also believe that a child, upon reaching the age of majority, should be
able to sue his or her parents for emotional or physical harm done 
deliberately or through negligence to their person.  They should be able 
to press criminal charges at >any< age for abuse, fraud, neglect, or 
intentional trauma (emotional or physical).

Kids should also be able to do these things to any person or entity,
including "Child Protective Services", which are guilty of any of the 
above.  The test here should be the exercise of "In Loco Parentis" or its
equivalent.  There should be no exclusions to this ability, other than 
the standard burdens of proof.  The statute of limitations needs to be
extended to the age of 20 years for these issues (leaving the person 2 
years to choose to take this action after turning 18).

That ought to put a significant damper on both parents and "social 
agencies" who like to traumatize kids, and bring some accountability 
to the current mess.

This kind of legislation is needed >NOW<, and has been for years.  If
anything, the situation is worse now than it was 10 or so years ago.

>>In all states, a parent can put a younger child up
>>for adoption.  There are plenty of ways for parents to divorce their
>>children, even when they chose the relationship, and few or sometimes no
>>ways for children to do the same, even though the relationship was
>>thrust upon them through no choice of their own.

You got it.  This is the problem.

>One thing you left out -- I've read that there's a growing (and disturbing)
>trend of parents declaring teenage children to be mentally ill, when in
>fact the teens were only somewhat less manageable than a normal teen.
>(Yes, that can still be hell -- but that IS the risk that a parent takes
>when the child is born.)  The kids are then made de facto wards of the
>state, by being locked up in hospitals.

This is correct.  A center of this kind is called Hawthorn Center in 
Livonia Michigan.  Many, if not most, of the kids in there have 
"behavorial problems", but are hardly fit to be hospitalized.  Their
standards for hospitalizing someone as a "mental patient" are rather, 
uh, interesting.  Parents can sign their kids into a place like this 
with the stroke of a pen.  Once in there, you are presumed insane and 
have to prove otherwise (consider trying to >prove< yourself sane.  
Anyone think they could do it?)  Of course, I'm quite sure that trying 
to do anything about your confinement in this situation would only 
"confirm" your insanity -- unless you were to file a probate action, and 
we all know what the probate court system is like (you'd be 18 before 
your case was heard, at which point it would be thrown out due to lack of
standing).

Granted that there are >some< people there who need help.  Lots of it.  
But there are also a number of "throwaways" in that place.

>We should never assume that every parent always has their child's
>best interest at heart, and/or knows what to do to act on that interest.
>I'd much rather empower teens to have some say in their life, than empower
>the state to meddle even more in family affairs via the social service
>agencies.
>
>Dan Breslau
>dan@codex.com
>Disc claimer:  "Hey!  That's my floppy!"

You got it.

How about it?  You want to stand for something meaningful?  Here's a good 
cause that needs attention.

Parents who are reasonable, and treat their offspring with respect, have
nothing to fear from this kind of law.  Having a voice isn't something 
to be afraid of; it's a protecting guardian that silently prevents some of
the worst abuses in our society.

In fact, in some cases, such as where the CPS abuse kids in the name of
"justice", such a law benefits both parents and their children. 

Its time to bring accountability to this facet of our government and legal
system.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions