Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
goxfiles

Father Fined $200, Sentenced to One Year of Probation for Making His 8-Year-Old Son Walk a Mile Home From School

Recommended Posts

Again, I agree to a point. I don't believe a punishment is made wrong simply because of physical pain, the Bible seconds that. THOUGH, I believe it is unnecessary until nothing else has worked. The last thing I would want to do to my child would be spanking, but if I've tried all else and he/she isn't learning, my hand would be forced. It's better than letting them grow up spoiled, and is our duty to them as good parents. Though I'd never have my father's "cherished belt collection" or anything of the sort. I genuinely hope it never comes to that for me, even once, but I also wouldn't shun it as parenting all together. The Bible says, "Spareth the rod, and spoil the child." Now to take this literally, unless you start caning your children, you're a bad parent. To take it at it's meaning, "If you don't punish your child, you're spoiling them AND physical reprimand is morally acceptable." I do not believe in any way that the verse encourages its necessity or advocates for those who abuse their children with it either.

 

HEY! Play nice, you two. Don't turn this into an argument or make this thread aggro. You're both Brothers and claim to be intelligent enough to dictate how adults raise their children, I'd expect you both could act better than "This may come as a shock to you... sorry not sorry" and using the word "liberals" as basically an adjective. I am not a liberal, I'm actually known for opposing their mentality in fullness. Nonetheless, never use someone's beliefs to insult anyone, that is very disrespectful and not at all Christlike. Same goes to you Edward, please try not to be so sarcastic and sharp with him, whether or not you find his thinking insulting. Let's be respectful and mature here, and not act like we still need to be raised by someone ourselves.

 

Now, to the point: JAG, what you say is true, this fine is in excess, as I've stated before. But just because "nothing happened" and "anything could have happened" does not mean it wasn't dangerous. If I made my fiancee go walk through a gang war and use the retort "Hey! If she had stayed at home a plane could have crashed into the house and killed her, anything could have happened." does that mean I didn't just endanger her? Now, given, that is a rather exaggerated metaphor, but I believe it makes the point.

Like with all people, we have different views. Let's just try to convey them calmly and respectfully and in a manner that will glorify our God and not sin against our Brothers, please. Even though this topic hasn't blown up yet, I sense the aggro coming O.O

 

I'm not a "Brother". And I'm atheist and a girl. And uh... who are you again? At what point were you given the power to chide me about how I respond to people?

 

I find the man in the OP to be abusive and neglectful. He intentionally, knowingly put his child in an incredibly dangerous situation. This is not the same as letting your child play outside or letting him cross the street; this is leaving him on the side of a busy highway, at the mercy of literally every person passing by. The child was picked up by someone and taken to the police, right? How easily could that have been a pedophile? A murderer? How easily could someone have swerved and hit this poor kid? There was no sidewalk, no safe place for him to walk. This wasn't your garden variety "oh he's outside playing, he could have been picked up by anyone". This was deliberate abandonment. This child was left alone, at the mercy of literally everyone passing by. The "father" wouldn't have been unable to do anything to stop anyone from hurting his son. He couldn't have been ignorant of this fact. He just didn't care.

 

I find people who agree with his "methods" to be potentially abusive and neglectful in turn. I wouldn't trust anyone who agrees with this man's actions with a child. Someone who thinks harming children or putting them in dangerous situations alone is acceptable should not be trusted with children. 

 

This child has not "learned that crying gets him out of trouble". He has learned that he cannot trust his father. That his father will abandon him if he's angry. Abandoning his child on the side of the highway accomplished nothing, period. All it did was put a child at risk and more than likely leave that same child traumatized. This was not discipline. This was child endangerment, and he deserved official, legal reprimands. 

Edited by Radical Edward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I have no problem with this punishment in concept. Making a kid walk a mile in the heat of the day really isnt that bad if it were supervised or on private land of some sort. But to drop off your kid on the side of a highway and leaving him, not telling him how to get home, that is neglect.

An argument could be made that not punishing you child could be neglect or abusive, but I'll save that for another day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

When "parenting methods" are abusive and neglectful, yeah. I'm gonna "dictate someone else's parenting methods". If you, JAG, dump your kid off on the side of a highway, guess what? I'm gonna pick your kid up and call the police because you deliberately put that kid in an incredibly dangerous, life-threatening situation because you were too stupid to think of a better way to punish him for not answering a question.

 

Yeah, that's all that happened. He's not going to be traumatized by being abandoned by his dad on the side of the road. He's not going to have trust issues. Totally. 

 

HE ABANDONED HIS EIGHT YEAR OLD ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, JAG. Stop acting like this is me being some sort of awful, whiny liberal trying to "emasculate our society" and figure out a better, less psychotic way to discipline children That kid could have been grabbed by any number of psychos or pedophiles. He could have been hit by a car. And his father deliberately put him in that situation. He left that little boy alone, on the side of a busy highway with no safe place to walk. That's not discipline.

 

If you really don't see the difference between the constant low amounts of danger that a child is in and the life-threatening situation this piss poor excuse for a father put this little boy in, I don't think you can be trusted with children. I certainly wouldn't trust my children with you.

 

I hope that guy gets an earful from his wife, at the very least. I'd divorce him, personally. Put my kid in that kind of danger and you're in for a world of hurt.

 

You have no basis to define abuse and neglect is the problem.  You're just making it up, from your own thoughts and emotions, and then you're using the government to force it upon other parents.  It's wrong.  You've yet to prove any harm befell the child for walking down the road.  You're only dealing in hypotheticals, which I've already shown to be useless.

 

Your worldview is too far removed from reality for this to be taken seriously.  You just said you'd divorce this guy.  You just said this was psychotic.  Your concepts on marriage and family structure are too skewed for us to find common ground.  We've obviously grown up in different parts of the world and it's affected us differently.  What I am fighting for benefits both parties - raise your children how you want, let this guy raise his kids how he wants.  Stop trying to force your subjective opinion on what is discipline and what is not, onto other members of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friends, let's all be kind to one another.

 

***

 

One thing that hasn't really been addressed here is why this whole thing started in the first place. If you are telling your child off/punishing your child for doing something wrong/"disciplining" your child, and they cannot explain to you why that is the case, you as the parent have failed.

 

You see, when producing a little human, and guiding that little human into being a big human, one of the major things you have to get right is communication. When addressing a behavioural problem in your child, you have to effectively communicate that their behaviour does not fit the standards you expect of them, and why that is the case. It's part and parcel of learning how to behave properly: we need to know why behaviours X, Y and Z are preferable to behaviours A, B and C. 

 

So, when an eight-year-old cannot repeat back to you the reasoning as to why they've been punished, that really suggests a failing in communication. Either they don't understand: spell it out to them. Or, they do understand, and they're jerking you around. Surely the simplest answer to that is to say, "Ok, I want you to sit silently there and think about why you've been put in time out. When we get home, we're going to talk about it again." Child is safe, not speaking to them to give them time to think accomplishes the discipline programme the parent desires, etc.

 

But leaving your child on the motorway, in traffic, is morally reprehensible. As a parent, it is your duty to protect your child; that is not protecting them. Just think about the consequences:

 

Could your child be hit by a car? Yes.

Could your child get lost? Yes.

Could your child suffer harm due to exposure to the elements (heatstroke, hypothermia etc.)? Yes.

Could your child be abducted? Yes.

Could your child be exploited? Yes.

Could your child suffer negative long-term consequences from this parenting decision? Yes.

 

If you want to use extra chores/hard work/removal of privileges/smacking etc. for discipline, be my guest. Some of those might not be my choice of discipline, but as a parent, you have the right to decide how you bring your children up.

 

But, endangering their welfare and their life is not discipline, it is negligence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no basis to define abuse and neglect is the problem.  You're just making it up, from your own thoughts and emotions, and then you're using the government to force it upon other parents.  It's wrong.  You've yet to prove any harm befell the child for walking down the road.  You're only dealing in hypotheticals, which I've already shown to be useless.

 

Your worldview is too far removed from reality for this to be taken seriously.  You just said you'd divorce this guy.  You just said this was psychotic.  Your concepts on marriage and family structure are too skewed for us to find common ground.  We've obviously grown up in different parts of the world and it's affected us differently.  What I am fighting for benefits both parties - raise your children how you want, let this guy raise his kids how he wants.  Stop trying to force your subjective opinion on what is discipline and what is not, onto other members of society.

"Benefits both parties"... except for the kid abandoned on the side of the road and could have been kidnapped, raped or hit by a car.

 

Stop supporting child abuse and neglect.

 

Yes, I would divorce this guy. You know why? Because he abandoned an eight year old on the side of the highway. He clearly has no interest in keeping this little boy safe.

 

Friends, let's all be kind to one another.

 

***

 

One thing that hasn't really been addressed here is why this whole thing started in the first place. If you are telling your child off/punishing your child for doing something wrong/"disciplining" your child, and they cannot explain to you why that is the case, you as the parent have failed.

 

You see, when producing a little human, and guiding that little human into being a big human, one of the major things you have to get right is communication. When addressing a behavioural problem in your child, you have to effectively communicate that their behaviour does not fit the standards you expect of them, and why that is the case. It's part and parcel of learning how to behave properly: we need to know why behaviours X, Y and Z are preferable to behaviours A, B and C. 

 

So, when an eight-year-old cannot repeat back to you the reasoning as to why they've been punished, that really suggests a failing in communication. Either they don't understand: spell it out to them. Or, they do understand, and they're jerking you around. Surely the simplest answer to that is to say, "Ok, I want you to sit silently there and think about why you've been put in time out. When we get home, we're going to talk about it again." Child is safe, not speaking to them to give them time to think accomplishes the discipline programme the parent desires, etc.

 

But leaving your child on the motorway, in traffic, is morally reprehensible. As a parent, it is your duty to protect your child; that is not protecting them. Just think about the consequences:

 

Could your child be hit by a car? Yes.

Could your child get lost? Yes.

Could your child suffer harm due to exposure to the elements (heatstroke, hypothermia etc.)? Yes.

Could your child be abducted? Yes.

Could your child be exploited? Yes.

Could your child suffer negative long-term consequences from this parenting decision? Yes.

 

If you want to use extra chores/hard work/removal of privileges/smacking etc. for discipline, be my guest. Some of those might not be my choice of discipline, but as a parent, you have the right to decide how you bring your children up.

 

But, endangering their welfare and their life is not discipline, it is negligence. 

 

Literally all of this.

 

Nothing this man did was sensible or justifiable. He deliberately put his child in danger, and pretending this isn't the case is just silly.

Edited by Radical Edward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

I find people who agree with his "methods" to be potentially abusive and neglectful in turn. I wouldn't trust anyone who agrees with this man's actions with a child. Someone who thinks harming children or putting them in dangerous situations alone is acceptable should not be trusted with children. 

 

This child has not "learned that crying gets him out of trouble". He has learned that he cannot trust his father. That his father will abandon him if he's angry. Abandoning his child on the side of the highway accomplished nothing, period. All it did was put a child at risk and more than likely leave that same child traumatized. This was not discipline. This was child endangerment, and he deserved official, legal reprimands. 

 

Well, you heard it right here folks.  Let's lock em up.  Anyone who disagrees with your prescribed way of raising kids should deal with the legal consequences. For one second stop being selfish and think about the past 4000 years of ways fathers have disciplined their sons.  You stand and judge every last one of them.  Hell, you probably would lock my mother up because she spanked me with a wooden spoon when I was younger.

 

The world is full of danger, get over it.  My dad once let me hold onto a pier while a hurricane was coming into the Gulf.  My mom, she would have said 'no way!' Did my dad abuse and neglect me?  By your standards, probably.  Yet it was one of the most dangerous and fun experiences of my life - waves were trying to suck me out into the ocean, but I held on for life.  You know what it taught me? Courage. The same courage I used a week ago when I saved a girl falling down a waterfall when a group of us went hiking.

 

Once again, stop emasculating society.  America was built on the discipline of our forefathers and to substitute it for babying our children will inevitably weaken our resolve, and does a great disservice to future generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

You bring your kid to disney world.

 

Could your child be hit by a car? Yes.

Could your child get lost? Yes.

Could your child suffer harm due to exposure to the elements (heatstroke, hypothermia etc.)? Yes.

Could your child be abducted? Yes.

Could your child be exploited? Yes.

Could your child suffer negative long-term consequences from this parenting decision? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You bring your kid to disney world.

Could your child be hit by a car? Yes.

Could your child get lost? Yes.

Could your child suffer harm due to exposure to the elements (heatstroke, hypothermia etc.)? Yes.

Could your child be abducted? Yes.

Could your child be exploited? Yes.

Could your child suffer negative long-term consequences from this parenting decision? Yes.

But at Disney world there are little "lost kid" kiosks everywhere. The thing about taking a kid to Disney world is that if you lose your kid, it's likely by accident. Not dropping your kid off by the side of the road, deliberately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero
 

I'm not a "Brother". And I'm atheist and a girl. And uh... who are you again? At what point were you given the power to chide me about how I respond to people?

 

I find the man in the OP to be abusive and neglectful. He intentionally, knowingly put his child in an incredibly dangerous situation. This is not the same as letting your child play outside or letting him cross the street; this is leaving him on the side of a busy highway, at the mercy of literally every person passing by. The child was picked up by someone and taken to the police, right? How easily could that have been a pedophile? A murderer? How easily could someone have swerved and hit this poor kid? There was no sidewalk, no safe place for him to walk. This wasn't your garden variety "oh he's outside playing, he could have been picked up by anyone". This was deliberate abandonment. This child was left alone, at the mercy of literally everyone passing by. The "father" wouldn't have been unable to do anything to stop anyone from hurting his son. He couldn't have been ignorant of this fact. He just didn't care.

 

I find people who agree with his "methods" to be potentially abusive and neglectful in turn. I wouldn't trust anyone who agrees with this man's actions with a child. Someone who thinks harming children or putting them in dangerous situations alone is acceptable should not be trusted with children. 

 

This child has not "learned that crying gets him out of trouble". He has learned that he cannot trust his father. That his father will abandon him if he's angry. Abandoning his child on the side of the highway accomplished nothing, period. All it did was put a child at risk and more than likely leave that same child traumatized. This was not discipline. This was child endangerment, and he deserved official, legal reprimands. 

My, I apologize. Almost everyone on Christian Teen Forums is some form of Believer, and with no information on who you are besides the name "Radical Edward", I made the natural assumption that you were male and a Follower. I'm sorry for my incorrect leap of logic.

Like I said, I side with you on this topic. I believe this was wrong, and not something I would ever do to my future child. I am not trying to chide you, I am just trying to keep thing polite and mature here. We're debating how children should be treated by adults. We should act like adults as well. Without such, how can your or anyone's opinion hope to be validated? I certainly was not attempting to come across as chiding, however, that I can truly say.

First of all, I have no problem with this punishment in concept. Making a kid walk a mile in the heat of the day really isnt that bad if it were supervised or on private land of some sort. But to drop off your kid on the side of a highway and leaving him, not telling him how to get home, that is neglect.

An argument could be made that not punishing you child could be neglect or abusive, but I'll save that for another day.

Agreed! :3

You have no basis to define abuse and neglect is the problem.  You're just making it up, from your own thoughts and emotions, and then you're using the government to force it upon other parents.  It's wrong.  You've yet to prove any harm befell the child for walking down the road.  You're only dealing in hypotheticals, which I've already shown to be useless.

 

Your worldview is too far removed from reality for this to be taken seriously.  You just said you'd divorce this guy.  You just said this was psychotic.  Your concepts on marriage and family structure are too skewed for us to find common ground.  We've obviously grown up in different parts of the world and it's affected us differently.  What I am fighting for benefits both parties - raise your children how you want, let this guy raise his kids how he wants.  Stop trying to force your subjective opinion on what is discipline and what is not, onto other members of society.

I strongly agree with this. The family concept in the reply you're referring to does seem shallow, as does the open judgment of this man's actions to the extent it seems to have been taken to. He seems to have been trying to be good to and parent his child, as badly as one may view he has done this, we shouldn't talk about him in such regard. Our opinions are not fact, and we have no right to force them on him unless a line has been crossed, as defined by the law. The debate here is to question if the law was indeed correct in where they drew the line here. As for the family aspect in Radical Edward's post, I was frankly a little sickened by it. If my fiancee told our kid to walk home, when we were married, and he got abducted and raped and killed, my one and only focus would be loving her and trying to comfort her and lead her from feeling guilty for our child's inadvertent death. We actually lost a child in-utero because she made a poor decision, not knowing she was pregnant. I definitely didn't leave or do anything but care for her because REAL love isn't "I'M GONNA DIVORCE YOU FOR THIS!!" It's unrelenting and unconditional. That comment struck me as very off. I'd hope to God his wife doesn't love him so little that she'd leave him for this. I like this reply JAG. QFT. 

Friends, let's all be kind to one another.

 

***

 

One thing that hasn't really been addressed here is why this whole thing started in the first place. If you are telling your child off/punishing your child for doing something wrong/"disciplining" your child, and they cannot explain to you why that is the case, you as the parent have failed.

 

You see, when producing a little human, and guiding that little human into being a big human, one of the major things you have to get right is communication. When addressing a behavioural problem in your child, you have to effectively communicate that their behaviour does not fit the standards you expect of them, and why that is the case. It's part and parcel of learning how to behave properly: we need to know why behaviours X, Y and Z are preferable to behaviours A, B and C. 

 

So, when an eight-year-old cannot repeat back to you the reasoning as to why they've been punished, that really suggests a failing in communication. Either they don't understand: spell it out to them. Or, they do understand, and they're jerking you around. Surely the simplest answer to that is to say, "Ok, I want you to sit silently there and think about why you've been put in time out. When we get home, we're going to talk about it again." Child is safe, not speaking to them to give them time to think accomplishes the discipline programme the parent desires, etc.

 

But leaving your child on the motorway, in traffic, is morally reprehensible. As a parent, it is your duty to protect your child; that is not protecting them. Just think about the consequences:

 

Could your child be hit by a car? Yes.

Could your child get lost? Yes.

Could your child suffer harm due to exposure to the elements (heatstroke, hypothermia etc.)? Yes.

Could your child be abducted? Yes.

Could your child be exploited? Yes.

Could your child suffer negative long-term consequences from this parenting decision? Yes.

 

If you want to use extra chores/hard work/removal of privileges/smacking etc. for discipline, be my guest. Some of those might not be my choice of discipline, but as a parent, you have the right to decide how you bring your children up.

 

But, endangering their welfare and their life is not discipline, it is negligence. 

 

You bring your kid to disney world.

 

Could your child be hit by a car? Yes.

Could your child get lost? Yes.

Could your child suffer harm due to exposure to the elements (heatstroke, hypothermia etc.)? Yes.

Could your child be abducted? Yes.

Could your child be exploited? Yes.

Could your child suffer negative long-term consequences from this parenting decision? Yes.

Well JAG, I think you just officially won me over to your side. It's true, we have no right to impose our beliefs on him, and he did nothing that isn't socially acceptable around the world. I STRONGLY disagree with his parenting, but that doesn't give me or anyone the right to tell him how to do it, unless a line is crossed that I'm starting to feel wasn't, the more I think about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

But at Disney world there are little "lost kid" kiosks everywhere. The thing about taking a kid to Disney world is that if you lose your kid, it's likely by accident. Not dropping your kid off by the side of the road, deliberately.

 

Now you're acting as if the father purposely hoped his kid would get abducted or lost or hit by a car when you used the words 'accident' and 'deliberately.'  Obviously, the only thing he did deliberately was tell his kid to walk the rest of the way home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
Well JAG, I think you just officially won me over to your side. It's true, we have no right to impose our beliefs on him, and he did nothing that isn't socially acceptable around the world. I STRONGLY disagree with his parenting, but that doesn't give me or anyone the right to tell him how to do it, unless a line is crossed that I'm starting to feel wasn't, the more I think about this.

 

 

Believe it or not, I'd never do this to my kid either.  I'm glad you can see my point though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you heard it right here folks.  Let's lock em up.  Anyone who disagrees with your prescribed way of raising kids should deal with the legal consequences. For one second stop being selfish and think about the past 4000 years of ways fathers have disciplined their sons.  You stand and judge every last one of them.  Hell, you probably would lock my mother up because she spanked me with a wooden spoon when I was younger.

 

The world is full of danger, get over it.  My dad once let me hold onto a pier while a hurricane was coming into the Gulf.  My mom, she would have said 'no way!' Did my dad abuse and neglect me?  By your standards, probably.  Yet it was one of the most dangerous and fun experiences of my life - waves were trying to suck me out into the ocean, but I held on for life.  You know what it taught me? Courage. The same courage I used a week ago when I saved a girl falling down a waterfall when a group of us went hiking.

 

Once again, stop emasculating society.  America was built on the discipline of our forefathers and to substitute it for babying our children will inevitably weaken our resolve, and does a great disservice to future generations.

Sorry for thinking child abusers should face legal repercussions. You're right. That is soooo selfish and emasculating. How do I sleep at night, having the gall to worry about the safety and welfare of children when their parents mistreat and neglect them. How dare I get angry when a child is abandoned on the side of the road in the name of "discipline". Ugh, I'm such a selfish, awful person, huh? 

 

I mean, clearly putting your child in incredible danger deliberately is the only way to ensure they're brave or learn a lesson. There's literally no other way to do that. Ugh, I'm trash.

 

I mean, it's a wonder I'm joining the military and deciding to put my life on the line every single day for this country when my parents did their best to keep me safe and not knowingly put my physical and psychological well-being at risk. I mean, there's no other way to be brave or courageous, right? I never clung to a pier in a hurricane, so how can I possibly be brave? 

Edited by Radical Edward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're acting as if the father purposely hoped his kid would get abducted or lost or hit by a car when you used the words 'accident' and 'deliberately.'  Obviously, the only thing he did deliberately was tell his kid to walk the rest of the way home.

He deliberately put him at mercy of literally every single person driving down that highway by kicking his eight year old out of the car on the side of a busy highway a mile away from home.

 

Not to mention the kid didn't even know how to get home.

 

But people are supposed to consider this A+ parenting? Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

He deliberately put him at mercy of literally every single person driving down that highway by kicking his eight year old out of the car on the side of a busy highway a mile away from home.

 

Not to mention the kid didn't even know how to get home.

 

But people are supposed to consider this A+ parenting? Please.

 

No, you can't let fear drive your life like that.  It's intellectually dishonest to say the father purposefully put his child at the mercy of others.  Do you not know what a school is?  I mean, it's like saying a father 'purposefully put his child at the mercy of a rapist' when he discovers his kid's teacher is a pedophile - just because there is a chance a teacher is bad doesn't mean he should avoid school altogether - nor does it make him responsible for that teacher's actions.  You can't live your life like that - thinking the bogey man is behind every corner. 

Edited by JAG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're acting as if the father purposely hoped his kid would get abducted or lost or hit by a car when you used the words 'accident' and 'deliberately.' Obviously, the only thing he did deliberately was tell his kid to walk the rest of the way home.

Not at all my intention, but I can see how you got there. But the kid didn't know how to get home or else the kid wouldn't have been crying on the side of the road saying that he didn't know how to get home. I'm not saying that I have the right to inforce my beliefs on this man, but I do think what he did was wrong.

We're getting a little debate-y so I'm going to bow out.

Edited by T.O.W.R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You bring your kid to disney world.

 

Could your child be hit by a car? Yes.

Could your child get lost? Yes.

Could your child suffer harm due to exposure to the elements (heatstroke, hypothermia etc.)? Yes.

Could your child be abducted? Yes.

Could your child be exploited? Yes.

Could your child suffer negative long-term consequences from this parenting decision? Yes.

 

And that, pal, is why we have a thing called context. Take a look:

 

Leaving your child on the side of the motorway:

Could your child be hit by a car? Yes. You are reliant on driver alertness and awareness to ensure that they do not hit your child. You are reliant on your child being visible to the drivers on the motorway (i.e. they're not walking in the line of glare, it isn't foggy/rainy, they are wearing brightly coloured clothing). You are reliant on your child not wandering slightly off the hard shoulder into the lane of traffic by accident because there is no proper pedestrian walkway. You are reliant on this all happening in your absence. 

Could your child get lost? Yes. You are reliant on your child having an impeccable memory, in the scary situation of being totally alone on a pubic motorway, to remember how to get home. You are reliant on them potentially being able to cross dual-carriageways and motorways to get to where they need to be. You are reliant on this all happening in your absence. 

Could your child suffer harm due to exposure to the elements (heatstroke, hypothermia etc.)? Yes. Unless you slather your kid in suncream, or a waterproof jacket, or enough clothes (i.e. you're daily prepared for baby drops on the motorway), you're reliant on the elements working in your favour. The weather rarely does that.

Could your child be abducted? Yes. You're reliant on luck and hope that this won't be the case. You are reliant on the goodness of other human beings that they will not abduct your child. You are reliant on your child, should an attempted abduction take place, being able to defend themselves and get away. You are reliant on your child having the skills, knowledge and memory recall in a stressful situation to know how to protect themselves, without you being there.

Could your child be exploited? Yes. See above. 

Could your child suffer negative long-term consequences from this parenting decision? Yes. Abandonment issues, a failure to resolve what was actually the matter in the first place, trust issues, just having your kid be terrified etc. The kid was sobbing on the side of the road, bless his sweet heart. 

 

Taking your child to Disneyland:

Could your child get hit by a car? Yes. Potentially, yes. But, Disneyland is pedestrianised inside the park (save for a few permitted vehicles that go at a certain speed). Plus, you're going to be with your child (inferred from the "take" your child to Disneyland rather than "send"). There is a risk, but it is substantially lower than dropping your kid on the hard shoulder. 

Could your child get lost? Yes. But, there are, as TK said, lost kid stations all over Disneyland, plus you are much more alert about it (remember going to Disneyland and always having to hold a parent's hand for ages?). It goes without saying that your child is safer when you are with them to prevent getting lost. 

Could your child suffer harm due to exposure to the elements (heatstroke, hypothermia etc.)? Yes. Shops everywhere selling suncream and hats. Shops everywhere selling jumpers and waterproofs and drinks and food. Resources to deal with the consequences of being unprepared for the elements. But, again, you are more prepared going to Disneyland than you are dumping your kid on a motorway. No resources there. 

Could your child be abducted? Yes. Effectively the same as the lost scenario. 

Could your child be exploited? Yes. See above. 

Could your child suffer negative long-term consequences from this parenting decision? Yes. Really? Unless you find your child has a severe phobia of Disneyland/characters/rides (i.e. something unlikely and unforeseeable)... 

 

 

To me, this just seems like common sense. When you have a sprog and you decide on activities it will do, you weigh up risk factor vs. experience factor. Perhaps not actively and intentionally, but almost all parents do it. E.g. an average child at five is probably not ok to walk to a shop a mile away to buy sweets, but a child t eight could probably do it with a friend/sibling/group, and a child at eleven could almost certainly do it alone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JAG, at what point do you feel that it is acceptable to interfere with a person's choices in parenting? Where is that line?

 

I understand your reservations completely, but it seems like you follow the philosophy of "well the kid didn't die, so it's all cool."

It's not ok. This man has a child. He took on an awesome responsibility when that child was born. I will fight for a parent's rights to raise their child as they see fit, as long as their child's welfare isn't being put at risk. Your rights are important, but so is that child's right to safety and security. This child's welfare was put at risk through blatant negligence. The dad didn't think through the possible consequences of his actions before he carried them out. This is why the first rule of discipline is to NEVER punish your child while you are angry. It was a stupid move, and those types of moves have consequences. His behavior is a red flag. Many tragedies would be avoided if more people took the time to address these red flags before the child actually gets hurt.

 

Would your reaction been different had the child been abducted, raped, struck by a car, or simply never seen again?

If the child had been hurt, what would an appropriate consequence be at that point?

Trust me, this guy is getting off easy if a $200 fine is all he is facing. The potential legal consequences of abandoning a child along the side of the road could be much more severe, right down to the police refusing to release the child back to his parents altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you can't let fear drive your life like that.  It's intellectually dishonest to say the father purposefully put his child at the mercy of others.  Do you not know what a school is?  I mean, it's like saying a father 'purposefully put his child at the mercy of a rapist' when he discovers his kid's teacher is a pedophile - just because there is a chance a teacher is bad doesn't mean he should avoid school altogether - nor does it make him responsible for that teacher's actions.  You can't live your life like that - thinking the bogey man is behind every corner. 

We as a society have decided that we will not stand for children being put in danger. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere, away from society and its most basic laws, do so. Go move onto the side of a mountain in some backwater commune and put your kid in danger.

 

But when you're in society, there are rules. And one of those rules is don't put your child in danger. This man put his child in danger. He left him alone, on the side of a busy highway. Someone picked him up and took him somewhere, and everyone involved is incredibly lucky that that person was a good person who took him to the police station and not to some soundproof basement where he'd never be seen again.

 

Leaving your child on the side of the road, alone, is not the same as taking your child to school. It is not the same thing as taking them to Disneyworld. The contexts are completely different, and the fact that you apparently don't understand that makes me question a lot of things about you. 

 

The fact that you think being horrified at the idea of leaving a child on the side of the road, alone, is intellectually dishonest, selfish, or somehow "babying" makes me question a lot of things about you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Not at all my intention, but I can see how you got there. But the kid didn't know how to get home or else the kid wouldn't have been crying on the side of the road saying that he didn't know how to get home. I'm not saying that I have the right to inforce my beliefs on this man, but I do think what he did was wrong.

We're getting a little debate-y so I'm going to bow out.

 

I didn't read where the kid didn't know how to get home, or that's why he was crying.  You could be right and I just missed it.  Other than that, I agree with you.  Not the bowing out bit - debate is healthy and fun and shouldn't cause ill-will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's a ridiculous example JAG. Yes, sometimes unsavory people end up working in schools, and it is foolish to assume that they are 100% safe. Thorough background checks are completed before a person can begin working in a school setting. But passing a background and child abuse check simply means that a person has never been caught committing a crime. But still, you know that the people working in your child's school at least haven't harmed children in the past.

 

You can't quite be as confident about everyone on the highway. In fact, several of them don't even have a valid license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At that rate my parents should be in jail then. It's a mile home from school. Stop overreacting. 

So you're parents had you walk home alone when you were eight along a busy highway with no sidewalk when you didn't know the way home? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

At that rate my parents should be in jail then. It's a mile home from school. Stop overreacting. 

Ha, guess I'm not the only one here who got that thought the second I read this cx

So you're parents had you walk home alone when you were eight along a busy highway with no sidewalk when you didn't know the way home? 

Worse, on many occasions cx

We're getting a little debate-y so I'm going to bow out.

Bye! :3

Oh CTF, the home of many an immature debate in which people actually believe they'll save the world with their forced opinion.

*fake happy sigh*

Edited by Mike Spero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

JAG, at what point do you feel that it is acceptable to interfere with a person's choices in parenting? Where is that line?

 

I understand your reservations completely, but it seems like you follow the philosophy of "well the kid didn't die, so it's all cool."

It's not ok. This man has a child. He took on an awesome responsibility when that child was born. I will fight for a parent's rights to raise their child as they see fit, as long as their child's welfare isn't being put at risk. Your rights are important, but so is that child's right to safety and security. This child's welfare was put at risk through blatant negligence. The dad didn't think through the possible consequences of his actions before he carried them out. This is why the first rule of discipline is to NEVER punish your child while you are angry. It was a stupid move, and those types of moves have consequences. His behavior is a red flag. Many tragedies would be avoided if more people took the time to address these red flags before the child actually gets hurt.

 

Would your reaction been different had the child been abducted, raped, struck by a car, or simply never seen again?

If the child had been hurt, what would an appropriate consequence be at that point?

Trust me, this guy is getting off easy if a $200 fine is all he is facing. The potential legal consequences of abandoning a child along the side of the road could be much more severe, right down to the police refusing to release the child back to his parents altogether.

 

 

Had this guy ran his son over with his car, that would have been abuse.  Had he of stripped his kid naked before telling him to walk home - abuse.  Had he of pushed the kid into traffic - abuse.  Simply having his kid walk home - even near a busy highway - not abuse.

 

Had he been abducted or hit by a car, my reaction would be grief.  The consequences should be criminal charges for the person who abducted the kid, and the same for the car that decided to run him down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

We as a society have decided that we will not stand for children being put in danger. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere, away from society and its most basic laws, do so. Go move onto the side of a mountain in some backwater commune and put your kid in danger.

 

But when you're in society, there are rules. And one of those rules is don't put your child in danger. This man put his child in danger. He left him alone, on the side of a busy highway. Someone picked him up and took him somewhere, and everyone involved is incredibly lucky that that person was a good person who took him to the police station and not to some soundproof basement where he'd never be seen again.

 

Leaving your child on the side of the road, alone, is not the same as taking your child to school. It is not the same thing as taking them to Disneyworld. The contexts are completely different, and the fact that you apparently don't understand that makes me question a lot of things about you. 

 

The fact that you think being horrified at the idea of leaving a child on the side of the road, alone, is intellectually dishonest, selfish, or somehow "babying" makes me question a lot of things about you. 

 

You already question a lot about me, so it shouldn't change much.

 

Here's the deal.  Schools are dangerous, Disney World is dangerous, highways are dangerous.  You'll always 'be at the mercy of others' no matter what.  That's not a good reason to make judgment calls.  Once again, I'm trying to appeal to your liberalism because you're breaking your own logic here are you not?  Wouldn't you agree that if a girl is raped, it's not her fault no matter where she is or what she was wearing?  Why can't you agree that if a boy is abducted it's not his fault no matter where he is either? Or his dad's for that reason.  The only person you can blame in that instance is the perpetrator - not the victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×