So basically, if a parent (or both parents) really want to dump their kids, they can keep petitioning the court, over and over again, in the hopes of not having to to support them. Some parents (especially “sperm donor” types) will really be aggressive in attempting to do this. Sounds really nice. Lots of red tape. Lots of paperwork. Lots of expense. Not to mention the message it’ll send to the kid.
And you didn’t address the scenario of one parent wanting to stop supporting a child, while the other one wants to keep supporting the child. How will that pan out?
But how do fulltime college students who support themselves do it? Obviously it is done. A “mature” adult does it, so can a “mature” child.
Hey—no reason why the kids can’t work weekends, take half days at school (or night classes) or study on their own. Like many adults do when they want to further their education.
Once again, how do the adults who support themselves and go to school do it? It’s obviously done. They manage. Let the kids. You think that many of them are “mature” enough.
And the judge can take into account that there are GED programs, and night classes too. Hey—this works both ways. An education can be gotten many ways. If adults educate themselves and support themselves at the same time, then kids can too. That’s part of being having adult rights. And that’s what you think some kids are entitled to, and can handle.
I thought this is what you were fighting for—for kids to be able to petition to be adults, with all the adult rights and privileges. But most all under 18 kids are still attending school, right? So any kid who wants to be an “adult” is going to have to figure out how to juggle their education and their own support, right? But you are acting as if I am suggesting something heartless, or horrible. ::shrug:: I’m only describing what you want. A child who is capable of adult responsibilies, and is getting them.
Red tape, paperwork, and expense: That would discourage frivolous petitions, don’t you think?
Message it sends to the kid: If his parents really don’t want him around, I think he’d get the message anyway. This way, at least he would know that his parents and the state are confident that he can support himself, encouraging him to improve his own life.
Perhaps the court could award him some money to move out, which would serve the dual purposes of discouraging frivolous petitions (since the parents would have to pay) and helping him get started.
The simplest solution would be to require both parents to sign the petition.
The adult is at college because he wants to be there. The child, however, is at school because the law requires it.
I wouldn’t require someone to work full time and go to school full time, whether I thought they could do it or not. Nor would I allow the parents to effectively force the kid into a different school (GED program, etc.) - the petition isn’t just about ending their support of the kid, but also about ending their control over the kid.
What’s so frivolous about getting out of paying several years of child support? I think that’s a pretty big incentive.
And, I might add—frivolous lawsuits are not at all uncommon. Why would you think this type of petition would be immune from it either?
But with your plan, he’d know that the government would help facilitate him getting kicked out.
Unless he’s not confident he can handle his own life, and is constantly worrying that the government will decide otherwise.
After all, plenty of people lose disability benefits, even though they feel very certain that they can’t work full time. It’s not an uncommon occurance.
I would think any “starting out money” would be worth it to a parent who was looking forward to not paying a few years of child support.
I don’t see how that’s fair. One parent may be really, REALLY sure that the kid’s ready to be out on their own. But they are being “held hostage” by the whims of the other parent, therefore they are being forced to pay to support a child that they don’t want to support? I seem to recall in prior threads that you don’t like such an idea. So—let the courts decide if the kid can be on their own—wouldn’t that be more fair? Whether the kid asks for the court to decide, one or two parents—what’s the difference who asks? The courts have final say.
And that’s a law that can be modified as well. There’s GED, night classes—a whole variety of creative ways in which a kid can still finish his education and have time to work. But that’s beside the point—the adult is able to juggle college and work, that’s my point. That’s something adults can do, and often do. And they even have to pay for their education (along with supporting themselves) where the kid gets off easy with a free education. I don’t see that as being a big problem for your so-called “mature” child.
Or do you think a kid should only have the responsibilities they want to have?
Well, how else do you expect them to make it on their own? They have to go to school, and they have to support themselves. And they can’t get financial support from outside sources, because that’s something that independent adults are not entitled to have.
Oh, but it wouldn’t be the parents forcing the kid, it would be the courts deciding the the kid was “mature” enough, at the parent’s request. Once again, who cares who asks the courts to decide? No matter who asks, they can’t make or force the kid to do anything, without the court’s blessing.
Exactly. If they don’t control the kid, they also shouldn’t have to support the kid. The kid needs to fulfill all their obligations without anyone’s help. And if a kid needs to go to school and needs to support themselves, and they aren’t grown up enough to handle both things (even though many adults do), then they are certainly not mature enough to be eligible for adult status.
Coroners are called to testify about what caused this particular death, something which lay people can’t determine. It is possible that something else caused the death (perhaps the person was already dead before being shot). They are not called to testify that being shot in the heart causes death. It is ridiculous to impose upon the prosecution the burden to prove that a six month old is incapable of consent when we know that a six month old can’t consent.It would be like calling an expert to prove that shooting someone can cause injury. But if the law doesn’t say a six month old can’t consent, then the inability to consent will have to be proven in each individual case.
This
really is the gap. You are opposed in principle to restrictions based in any way on age , even if the presumption that children below a certain age are incompetent is more accurate than the presumption that they are competent (and if there is no age restriction, there is a presumption that everyone, including six-month olds or five year olds is competent) and even if the presumption is based on scientific evidence. Although you seem to think that group based evidence is an acceptable substitute for individual evidenve in at least some cases. Why, exactly, would you find group based evidence that a two year old can’t consent acceptable as a substitute for proof that a particular two year old can’t consent in the context of an investigation or a trial, but oppose the law setting a line based on that very same evidence? There is no difference in effect- a two year old can’t consent whether it is based on the law or an expert opinion in a particular case. The only difference is the time, expense and lack of notice to the adult if it is to be proven in the individual case.
The gap is that you don’t understand that law simply doesn’t work that way. Look, the mentally ill and mentally disabled can’t consent to sex in some circumstances- but it’s not enough to show that the victim is mentally ill or disabled. You have to prove that the illness or disability causes the indivdual person to be unable to appreciate the nature of their conduct. The prosecution can’t simply prove that the victim has an IQ of 50 and be done with it- the law doesn’t say that people with an IQ of 50 can’t consent. A group test can’t be used as a surrogate for individual proof- it can only be used for making a distinction in the law.
You’re not accounting for weekends, or that fact that school and work allow meal periods.Work 16-20 hours over the weekend, and the other 20-24 hours over the other five days. Gives you an average of 5 hours per weekday after sleep and school and 6 to 8 free hours per weekend day. This can be done, I did it through my last 2 years of high school and all through college. Full time job doesn’t have to mean 8 or 9 am to 5 pm you know.
But why would the law require it, if age based restrictions are eliminated? There wouldn’t be any compulsory education laws. Adults aren’t required to go to school until they graduate from high school .In my state 17 year olds aren’t legally required to attend school as it is.
Sure… but if you petitioned last month and got turned down, and the month before that, and the month before that, paying court fees and going through a lengthy process each time, you might think twice about petitioning next month. Or you might not, if you enjoy wasting time and money.
That’s what the appeal process is for.
My criticism of child support is unrelated to my criticism of age restrictions. As long as both parents are required to support the child, any decision to change or terminate that support should involve both parents.
Again… adults are free to choose not to go to school. Kids are not. I have no objection to a compulsory education[sup]*[/sup], but I wouldn’t impose a further burden on someone who’s in the process of completing that education. People who are no longer required to go to school can choose to work full time and go to school full time, if they want to - but they aren’t necessarily expected to do that.
Why should independent minors be expected to (essentially) hold two full-time jobs when adults aren’t?
For everyone. The end of compulsory education should be defined in terms of achievement, not age.
So instead of the parents directly forcing the kid to change schools, the parents’ request causes the government to force the kid to change schools. You’ve used an entire sentence to say what I summed up in the word “effectively”.
The compulsory education is both a right and an obligation. Kids are obligated to attend school, but they also have a right to attend public school at public expense. One of the more important things they learn in that environment is social interaction, which is pretty hard to get from night/weekend classes; I believe their right extends to attending a regular school if they wish, not just a GED progam.
Then you’d say an adult who chooses not to go to college and work full time, because he doubts his ability to make ends meet, is immature? I’d say he’s rational.
Whether the presumption is more or less accurate is beside the point if it isn’t entirely accurate. A presumption that 11 year olds aren’t capable of safely driving a car might be true 99% of the time, but if there’s even a single person younger than 12 who can safely drive a car, then setting the driving age at 12 or higher is inappropriate. (It might be appropriate as a compromise for efficiency’s sake, as long as there’s an effective system of exemptions, ensuring that any capable 11 year old can get a license.)
If the law were truly based on solid evidence, and it provided for a way to change the age in response to new evidence, even if there’s no political initiative to change it (or indeed, in the face of political opposition), then I suppose I wouldn’t mind.
My concern with simply lowering the age is that an acceptable age limit–that is, one low enough that no capable minors are excluded–will leave a lot of incapable minors above the limit. Angry parents will respond by writing to their representatives, “Your state liquor store sold my naive 13 year old son a gallon of vodka and he poisoned himself!”, and the representatives will cave in and raise the age again.
Well, the law doesn’t work like anything I’ve suggested. What’s wrong with one more change?
Oh, I don’t expect that most parents would petition the court every month. Once or twice a year would probably do it. And certainly keep the kid on pins and needles.
Ah yes! More paperwork! More pins and needles, hoping the judge will see things the “right way”! Sounds great!
Ah. I see. So if one parent doesn’t think that Junior is ready to be a grown-up at age 22, and Junior doesn’t want to be a grown-up, but the other parent thinks Junior is grown-up enough, Junior is still going to be supported by both parents? What if both the kid and one parent think that the kid is not ready for independence at age 30? 35? The dissenting parent is forced to support their kid indefinitely?
And like doreen suggested, we could change the law! Because you can’t have it all your way—you can’t have a kid who wants adult rights and privileges, but can’t fulfill all their obligations. Which means that in order to be an “adult”, they have to support themselves. Right? And if they want an education, they need to get that too. Right? So, what is your solution for this so-called “mature” child? Miss out on school? I don’t think you’d like that. Not have to support themselves? Well, they are not living an “adult” if someone else is supporting them, so that’s out.
Then I guess that we can’t get any kids who are still attending school to apply for “adult” status. If they don’t want to juggle both obligations at once, let’s call the whole thing off. Because sure as shootin’, no way should they be supported by someone else while they complete their education, would you not agree?
But what is your solution for a kid who hasn’t finished school yet? Because they have two choices if they want to be an “adult”: Quit school, work full time. Juggle school and work. That’s what real adults do. They cannot expect that someone else support them while they attend school, so neither should a “mature” kid.
Because this is what you want. For a kid to live an “adult” life, when they really aren’t adult. Adults have finished school. Kids haven’t. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Unless you want the policy to be that once a kid applies for “adult” status, they are no longer expected to go to school. Because, after all, real adults are no longer required to go to school, and this kid is now deemed an “adult”, so obviously their schooling is done. Is this what you want?
But this is what you want! A kid can apply for “adulthood”. You want that. You don’t disagree that if a kid can apply, then so can the parents on the kid’s behalf—they can ask the courts to decide if the kid is “grown up” enough to be out on their own. This is what you want.
But we can change that, just like we can change age of consent laws. Because I don’t see how else you can work it—either the kid is allowed to be a kid, with their parents supporting them while they go to school, or the kid is an adult, where they support themselves. If they must go to school, (and you seem to think that they must) then obviously most of them can’t juggle real “adulthood”, which is living with all the obligations that are expected of them.
And there won’t be pressure if the age limit is eliminated altogether?
It is not beside the point at all. You’re not getting that there is a presumption either way. Either 12 year olds are presumed to be competent or they are presumed not to be competent.There is no way to avoid making a presumption.You have to choose one or the other. Anything that doesn’t have to be proven is a presumption. It may be a rebuttable presumption, but it is a presumption all the same.And if the presumption that 11 year olds are incapable of driving is correct 99% of the time, that means the opposite presumption, that 11 year olds are capable of driving is only correct 1% of the time. Yet you prefer that one.
Getting rid of age of consent laws doesn’t change the way the law works- it simply changes or eliminates particular statutes. Allowing group-based evidence, or permitting testimony at a previous trial that 2 year olds can’t consent to be used in this trial would be a change in basic principles.Allowing Dr X’s testimony last year that two year olds are incapable of consent to be determinative of the the consent issue in the trial of Mr Y for having sex with a two year old deprives Mr Y of his oportunity to cross-examine Dr X and perhaps convince the jury to ignore that testimony. It also would deprive him of his right to call Dr Z, who thinks Dr X is wrong (and he wil find Dr Z somewhere) which could at least cause the jury to resolve their doubt in favor of Mr Y. And if you allow group based testimony , or testimony from a prior trial in age of consent cases, you have to allow such testimony in all cases.
Indeed he is. As is the 12 year old who decides the better choice is to continue to be treated as a child so that she can finish high school at least without being required to support herself.As I said before, barring an absolutely horrendous homelife, the most mature minors are the ones least likely to opt to be treated as adults if they must take the bad with the good. Because they are the ones capable of thinking past the drinking they want to do next Saturday night to the future of of saying “You want fries with that?” if they drop out of eighth grade to support themselves and gain the right to drink, drive, and vote and to have their consent to sex with adults legally recognized.
I think you’ve misunderstood. The minor/adult dichotomy is a result of age restriction laws; removing the age restrictions means someone who hasn’t completed his education might still be able to sign contracts, consent to sex, etc.
The transition from “child” to “adult” is gradual, not like flipping a switch. Legal “adulthood” is simply the attainment of a certain set of age-restricted rights and responsibilities. Without age restrictions, the word is almost meaningless as we’ve been using it here.
Before putting words in my mouth, why don’t you look at what I actually said? On the first page…
Again, you’re presenting a false dilemma. “Child” and “adult” are only vague labels; there’s no reason that an individual must have either no rights or all rights, no obligations or all obligations.
MR2001-
i think that the problem that everyone here is having with your argument is that you are advocating lots of freedoms without the accompanying responsibilities that adults must bear. Responsibilities act as a check on a lot of the freedoms that adults enjoy- you seem content to have children behave as adults without realizing that their parents will, in almost every case, bear the brunt of their bad decisions.
I brought up the school issue earlier in this thread, and you replied with a story of your friend and an ‘alternative school,’ where he stopped in to pick up assignments once a week (top of page 3). now you say that we need to have compulsary, guaranteed education in ‘normal’ schools for socialization’s sake. I would like some clarification as to what you propose re:education.
you are proposing change. we are all waiting to see how this would be in any way better than what we have now. i think that your proposal ends up hurting adults and children.
But you agreed that the kid would have to be responsible for self-support, and child support (if they were to have kids, which is a possiblity if they are legally able to have sex). How will they manage self-support and child support, and go to school, if they don’t have a job? So, I gather that you want someone to suport them while they enjoy all these “adult rights”? Not going to happen.
I see. You want the kid to have their cake and eat it too. Just like I thought. You want them to have the “perks” without the responsibility. Figured as much.
Sure they could. And they could support themselves without dropping out of school, too. You want children to gain adult rights, as they feel comfortable with them, and concede that they must then also bear adult responsibilities, but then don’t want them to be forced into self-support. What adult responsibility is more basic than the responsibility to provide for yourself? Which adult responsibilities don’t in some way depend on the expectation that adults are self-supporting? The only one I can think of is being held criminally responsible as an adult. Which responsibility would be tied to the right to drink? Or the right to drive? Suppose the minor wants the right to drive, but doesn’t want to be held to a contract or to support himself ? Does he get to drive?
The pressure will take a different form, since the decision of whether to allow a certain person to buy alcohol is made on an individual basis. The complaint would not be “13 year olds shouldn’t be drinking”, but “my 13 year old shouldn’t be drinking”. The guidelines for allowing someone to purchase alcohol could be tweaked without denying all young people that right.
I prefer that one because it means the 1% of 11 year olds who can drive will be allowed to get a driver’s license, without having to jump through extra hoops that other drivers don’t have to.
A system of exemptions would solve the core problem: that young capable drivers are unable to get licenses at all. But just as it would be unfair to hold a female firefighter to a higher standard than her male counterparts, I believe it’s unfair to hold a young driver to a higher standard than an older one, which is the effect of presuming young drivers to be incapable.
In principle, getting a driver’s license should be just as easy for any capable driver, regardless of age. In practice, a compromise for the sake of efficiency is fine as long as it’s reasonably possible for every capable driver to get a license.
I see. In that case, I suppose a better way to do it would be to set up a board to review the evidence annually and set guidelines, including which tests to use, and recommended ages. I would still be careful to allow the individual tests to be used as definitive proof of an individual’s competence, but the guidelines would provide a good advance notice to anyone who’s unsure if a particular action would be legal.
You know, I’m really curious: When have I ever said that?
Absolutely not; rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.
A young person with a driver’s license is responsible for any damage he causes while driving, just like any other driver. A young person who can sign contracts is legally bound to them. A young person who consents to sex is responsible for child support, and if he doesn’t have the money, he’s treated like any other deadbeat. And so on.
Gladly. I believe everyone has a right to a basic public education in a normal school if he so desires, and also an obligation to complete that basic education (or at least try until it’s clear he won’t pass)–but not necessarily at a normal public school. He may choose to attend a private school (at private expense), a far away school (providing his own transportation), or an alternative school, correspondence school, or whatetever; but he can’t be forced to attend one of those instead of a public school.
Would you mind clarifying?
OK, once again: Just like any adult who doesn’t have a job. Someone who doesn’t have a job doesn’t intentionally have kids, because kids cost money. If a mishap occurs and he ends up having to pay child support, he gets a job - or the law pursues him, his wages are garnished when he does get a job, etc.
If he has to work and go to school at the same time, as a result of a responsibility that he accepted, then fine. He knew exactly what was coming.
Parental support is normally tied to the balance of rights which the minor has received, which means it will end naturally at some point as the minor receives more rights and responsibilities.
Now, in the rare case of a Peter Pan who is capable of making his own decisions but just doesn’t want to grow up, and who’s happy to stay a second-class citizen if it means keeping parental support, his parents shouldn’t be expected to support him forever. There needs to be a way for them to terminate that support. However, I don’t think waiting for him to finish his education is unreasonable; parents already expect to have to support their children until then.
That’s untrue and you know it. Do you think it will come true if you just repeat it enough?
Just in case, could you add “You drive a Viper” to your mantra? I’ve always wanted one of those…
Sure, why not?
The decision of whether someone may drive on public roads should only be based on whether that person can safely handle a car and follow the rules of the road. Having a low-paying job doesn’t make someone a bad driver. Driving has nothing to do with contracts, or with supporting oneself.
Naturally, once he gets his license, he’s held to the same standard as any other driver. He must have insurance, pass emission tests, obey posted signs, and so on. If he gets a ticket, he has to pay the fine or face the consequences, same as anyone else.
No, the complaint would still be 13 year olds shouldn’t be drinking. And it would be coming even from non-parents.
You could easily tweak them enough to allow seventeen and sixteen and fifteen year olds that right, without necessarily allowing it to the five year olds as well. But you have a philosophical objection to that which I just don’t understand, since you willingly concede that you don’t believe any five year old is competent to drive on public roads or consent to sex , you apparently don’t have a problem with a de facto limit based on evidence and even concede that allowing exemption would solve the practical problem. You seem to just have a problem with having it actually written into the law. That’s one part I don’t understand. Where exactly is the difference in fairness between a law that says no one under age 10 may consent to sex based on scientific group based evidence and a system of law which doesn’t give an age, but allows scientific group based evidence stating that no one under 10 is capable of consenting to sex to show that this particular 9 year old was incapable of consent? Either way, you can allow the defense to prove that this particular nine year old is capable, so that’s not the difference. They will both have the same result, so that’s not the difference.
But it’s not unfair to eliminate the paraplegics from consideration for the job of firefighter. Because we know without needing indivdual proof that a paraplegic is not capable of handling the job, just as we know that no five year old can safely drive or consent to sex. And we don’t waste time and money giving the paraplegics a test that they will surely fail, and no one claims it’s unfair that we don’t allow them to apply for the job on the same basis as the able bodied.
Go the extra steps. Someone who gets a driver’s license has in effect signed a contract with the government, agreeing to abide by the rules including the requirement to have a means (whether insurance or an alternative) to pay for any damage he causes . Someone must sign a contract to buy insurance and have the money to pay for it. If he can choose to drive while declining to be held to a contract, how can he be held to that agreement with the government ? How can he get insurance while not wanting to be held to a contract?
Now for a less rare case of Peter Pan syndrome- although I’m sure you haven’t encountered it much. I work with ex-convicts, the vast majority of whom are not self-supporting, live with their parents, don’t have drivers licenses or cars, wouldn’t care if they couldn’t drink in a legal bar, since there’s always an after hours place they could go to, didn’t vote even when they legally could, and wouldn’t care if they couldn’t consent to sex because only their partner would be doing something illegal. Give them the option to live exactly as they are now, with the the added benefit of being treated as a juvenile in the criminal justice system and they’ll take it in a second.How do you fix that problem without either having an age or getting rid of the juvenile justice system altogether?
I think a good example of how the age restrictions can sometimes not work is to look at women involved in bigamy (yea, I know, bigamy’s a WHOLE new debate, but bear with me here). I recently saw an interview with a young woman who married a man when she was a young teen, and had children with him. She said that being married and having children at her age would not work for many people, but that she was, at that age, emotionally ready to be married and raise children. While the age restrictions, and age of consent are definitely a good thing in protecting children, we also have to understand that people mature emotionally and psychologically at different rates, and different ages.
Well, for these changes to be accepted at all, society would have to come around to the idea that young people are more ‘mature’ than many think - i.e., stop associating ‘maturity’ with age. Obviously, if the law were changed tonight, there would be a huge outcry; but in a hypothetical future where the law has been changed (and the members of Congress who were responsible still have their jobs), we can assume that the population is generally OK with the idea that rights like drinking should be handed out by merit, not age.
Whether it’s reasonable to think public opinion will change is another question. I haven’t encountered anyone who thinks that a teenager is any less capable the day before his 18th birthday than the day after, so the seeds of the idea are already there.
OK… so you set an age limit at 15. What about 14 year olds? Surely if all 15 year olds can be trusted with alcohol on their birthday, the majority of them could also handle it the day before, when they were only 14. Or the week before, the month before, or 6 months before.
The difference is the ability, motivation, and willingness to change it in the future. Suppose the Great Scientific Minds of Today convene and set the age limit at 16. “No person under 16 can possibly understand that sex leads to babies,” they say, “and we have no reason to believe they ever will.” Lawmakers set this age in stone.
Now suppose that ten years later, the Great Scientific Minds of Tomorrow publish a new study showing that the age really should have been 14. Or maybe 18. Will lawmakers consider it important enough to spend their time on an amendment to the age of consent law, instead of a new farm subsidy? Will they avoid changing it because they fear the political reaction, even though the legal age of consent is no longer based on fact?
A good system of exemptions would make the difference almost irrelevant, that’s true. But looking past the age of consent, the legislators’ reluctance to change the legal age for e.g. drinking or voting could result in a lot of needless inconvenience for large groups of young people. While inconvenience isn’t as bad as the outright denial of these rights (as seen today), I think it’s still something to avoid - and that means making the process that grants those rights as responsive as possible to new evidence.
How can he be held to that agreement with the government? Well, because it’s the government. I never signed an actual contract with the state, but the “implied consent” law means that I’m required to submit to a breathalyzer just because I have a driver’s license. Likewise, the act of getting a license implies that the applicant takes responsibility for damages and traffic violations.
How can he get insurance without signing a contract? Not very easily. If no one will give him insurance because he can’t be held to the contract, his parents won’t put him on their insurance, and he doesn’t have the money to post a bond in lieu of insurance, then he’s out of luck. But another kid whose parents will let him use their insurance, or who does have the money to post a bond, should still be able to drive.
Let the parents terminate their support by proving that he has the capacity to manage his own affairs, sending him kicking and screaming into the real world. No age necessary, just a psychologist and a judge who weighs the testimony of the kid, the parents, and the psychologist, the kid’s achievements and assets, and any hardship that the process would impose.
You, know the age limit for alcohol doesn’t necessarily apply to all situations. For example, even though though a person must be over 21 to purchase alcohol, that doesn’t mean that a parent (who again, is in the best position to judge the maturity of their child) can’t be permittted to alow their child to drink at home. And at any rate, I never argued against a gray area where exemptions could be made- for example any over 18 can buy alcohol, anyone under 14 can’t and those between 14 and 18 can have a “drinking license” if they qualify.
Why would an agreement with the government be treated differently than an agreement with anyone else ? Sure,the act of getting a license implies that the applicant accepts responsibility for damages and traffic violations. And signing a contract outright states that the signer agrees to fufill the terms of the contract. Why would someone be permitted to claim that they are competent to be held to one, but not the other?
So let me see if I’ve got it now. You’re not so much opposed to setting an age in law in principle as you are opposed based on practical issues- that is, you wouldn’t object to the age being in the law if you believed that age would change when the evidence showed it should. That I can understand. (although it wouldn’t be a problem in your hypothetical changed society)
You missed part of it. They’re living off their parents now, when their parents have no legal obligation to support them. There’s no reason to expect that to change. Does a 40 year old whose parents are willing to support him, who doesn’t want to drive and care if he can legally drink get to opt to be treated as a child and avoid being held responsible as an adult for his own conduct? If not, how would you avoid it without making it age dependent or eliminating the juvenile justice system?
But with the system you want, the kid won’t even have a smidge of a hint of a remote chance of being self-supporting. They’ll be a kid who is attending school and who has their parents supporting them. Even though there are adults who are unemployed or in some way “deadbeats”, what is the percentage compared to kids? A high percentage of adults work or are self-sufficient. A very, VERY low percentage of kids are self-sufficient. Certainly not the kids attending school fulltime, but not working (the “sane” way to do it, as you seem to think—no juggling school and work, no, that’s not right). So the scenario you want is not equal to the scenario of an adult being fully “responsible”. A “responsible” kid (one who is actually responsible from the git-go) would be a rare thing indeed. So the odds of them all of a sudden being “responsible” after the fact (after they parent a kid, for instance) are also remote indeed. (Possible, but remote.) Besides, I thought you wanted the kid to “prove” that they could be “responsible” before they could be granted such rights of priveleges. How will he do that?
Well, I guess if he wants “responsibility” of being an adult, and he wants to attend school, he’ll choose whichever school program best suits his new work schedule. But to not work at all, because it’s too much to expect of the little darling who wants to be “responsible”, (but not enough to actually support themselves)? Nope. Not going to happen.
And how will this kid who needs to support a child at age (let’s say, 14) support a kid and go to school? Why, they’d have to (shudder) work, wouldn’t they? But you’re all against that. That’s not reasonable. That’s not fair. So, do we “force” the 14-year-old parent to work so they can support their kid? Do we “force” the kid to attend school and work?
And he should know exactly “what was coming” when he opted to take on adult responsiblities in the first place. He wanted to have “adult” rights, while he was still completing his education. What else would he expect but to have to support himself?
When this thread started, I don’t think that you anticipated that it would take the twists and turns that it did. I don’t think it occurred to you that we would bring up total responsiblity for minors, or the possible option of parents opting to force their kids to be “adult”. I don’t believe for a second that you ever wanted any of that, or that you in any way prefer it. In your OP, your focus was single-mindedly on kids, and their “rights”. No thought, of course, of the “rights” of parents who probably do not want be financially or legally responsible for kids who want to engage in “adult” behavior. Oh, of course you’ll deny all of this, but I still am convinced that you never wanted any of it.
Like doreen said, you missed part of it.
I’d also remind you—you said previously that both parents would have to petition the court to force their “Peter Pan” deadbeat kid out of the home. But what if only one parent wants to boot the kid out, while the other parent is perfectly happy to keep supporting the kid? Is the dissenting parent forced indefinitely to support their deadbeat kid? Or is there an age where the dissenting parent can wash their hands of their deadbeat kid, no matter what their spouse (or ex-spouse) thinks?
Sure… most of the ‘adult’ rights can currently be exercised by minors, in some watered-down form, with enough cooperation by their parents.
That sounds agreeable, if there’s a factual basis for those specific ages.
It’s not literally an agreement, it’s the law. Minors who are legally unable to sign contracts are still expected to obey the law today (though the consequences of breaking it are different for them, in many cases).
I suppose he’d be able to remain a ‘child’ if his parents were willing to support him for his entire life, but he wouldn’t be able to choose to give up his ‘adulthood’ at age 40.
This raises questions of how responsible the parents should be held for their children’s actions. If his parents are helping him abuse the system, they ought to be sanctioned.
Once again, you miss the point.
Moving from being a child to an adult is not like flipping a switch, even under today’s laws. Someone who wants a driver’s license doesn’t have to prove that he can handle alcohol; someone who wants to vote doesn’t have to prove that he can support himself financially.
However, your statements like
show that you’re assuming all rights and all responsibilities come at the same time, that someone who isn’t ready for one responsibility isn’t ready for any of them. That is not the case, neither under our current laws nor under the changes I’ve suggested here.
Yes, just like I said in the next paragraph you quoted. Because he accepted that responsibility along with the right to consent to sex.
Well, that’s a new low. “It doesn’t matter what you actually said, because I know you’re lying!”
Since my ASFAR days, I’ve always believed that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand; that was the stance of ASFAR, and it is the stance of NYRA. I don’t know why you think I’d participate in an organization so opposed to what I “really” think (according to Miss Cleo, I presume… or do you have your own psychic powers?).
Well, my idea was that since both parents have equal parental rights and responsibilities, any change in that situation should involve both parents. Whether that means they both have to agree to terminate support, or they go in front of a judge and he makes the decision (as in custody disputes), I guess I could really go either way. But I’m open to suggestions. What would you prefer?
I mean, surely you have a solution in mind. You wouldn’t just ask that to draw me into another tiresome child support debate.
Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I think the only “right” that comes before the age of 18 is driving. Which is at age 16. But that’s tempered by the need for car insurance. If the minor can pay for their insurance (not inexpensive, especially for the rates charged to a minor), or they have parents who are willing to provide them with insurance (and the parents aren’t forced to pay for insurance) then they can drive. And only then. So it isn’t as easy as saying, “You’re 16! You can drive!” It’s, “You’re 16! If your parents agree to foot the bill for you, or if you can foot the bill yourself, you can drive!”
Voting comes at age 18. 18 year olds are “adults”, legally. So, by default, they’re already legally responsible for themselves anyway.
Very well, then. Which “rights” do you think a child can petition for first? Sex only? Drinking only? Would you think that having the right to have sex with adults would require that the child be financially responsible for themselves? Would drinking require the child prove that they could be responsible for themselves? (As in, actively, currently supporting themselves?) Because these activities, especially, can come with financial consequenes.
Now, where did I say that you were lying? I said I never believed (and I don’t believe) that you ever wanted this to be about kids being expected to carry the same level of responsibilty that adults carry if they want to enjoy the same rights. We only went down that road on this thread because of everyone else, (not you) brought it up.
But what you are arguing on this thread does not bear that up.
I don’t “prefer” either. I think it’s a lame idea. I just want to know what you think, and at what age the dissenting parent can go to the judge to ask to terminate support. Because earlier, you said that sure, the parents could petition the court and ask to have support terminated when the kid was, say, age 15. But when I asked how that would work out if there was one parent who was continually reluctant to support their kid, and therefore would repeatedly ask to have support terminated, your solution was that both parents would have to agree that the time had come to terminate support.
So, I don’t get it. When can the dissenting parent (the one who wants to stop support) go on their own and ask for the judge to terminate support? What age?
It’s your idea, after all, not mine. I think that allowing parents to continually go before court to ask to stop supporting their own kids is a recipe for disaster. So, you come up with the solution. My solution is to not allow it at all, and let the kid be an “adult” at age 18.
Now, where did I say that you were lying? I said I never believed (and I don’t believe) that you ever wanted this to be about kids being expected to carry the same level of responsibilty that adults carry if they want to enjoy the same rights. We only went down that road on this thread because of everyone else, (not you) brought it up.