I don’t really understand how it’s not child abuse. Because nothing bad happened, it was fine?
reckless endangerment maybe. child abuse…if nothing else fits i guess.
You’re really equating these two things?
That seems kinda stupid.
Just becuase the law CAN be made to apply to this case, doesn’t mean it makes sense or that it SHOULD be.
Trumped up to satisfy someone or we can’t get him with anything else so let’s use this seem to be the most logical explanations to me.
How? They both put the child in a situation with a high probability they they will come to harm.
I could cook meth in the room with my two-year-old dozens of times with no harm coming to the kid. I might also let my nine-year-old kid drive at 3:00am sitting on a plastic box in the cab of my truck and make several transits without there being a serious accident. Even though in both of my hypotheticals neither kid suffers an actual harm, what makes them examples of child abuse is the failure to provide a reasonable standard of safety and security for a child.
My local news reported that she asked the officer why he had pulled her over since she was driving just fine. They also said this is not the first time dad had pressed her into service as his designated driver.
She knows how to drive and she’s apparently pretty good at it, but it looks like (legally) that’s no good reason to drag her out of bed a 3AM to take you for a pack of smokes and a slim jim.
Isn’t this a silly sort of thing to be debating?
That driving a car is as dangerous as being in a room where meth is being cooked?
That’s really what you’re asserting? Truely? Or are you just trying to yank my chain?
How about riding a bike then? there’s also a significant chance of coming to grief there - probably a lot more so than when driving a car.
If the kid had plowed into an oncoming vehicle, killing both her and the drunktard, would you have seen it then?
I would say without hesitation that driving a car at night is more dangerous to a 9-year-old child than being in proximity to drug preparation. http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Kids.html states that auto accidents are the #1 cause of death in children. Meth lab explosions don’t even crack the top 20. Numbers don’t fucking lie.
Ben has previously displayed a complete inability to admit he is wrong. Ever. Don’t take it personally, but don’t expect a reversal of fortune either.
A few things:
- Numbers don’t lie but statistics do. If you don’t know and can’t understand that, then I feel sorry for you.
- My name is not Ben. At least do me the courtesy of getting that right
- I can and have admitted wrongness on this board before.
So I guess three from three wrong and you’re out?
Getting a kid killed in a car crash does not equate to child abuse.
When the term child abuse is tossed around it carries with it a certain image in most people’s mind - an image that doesn’t exactly match with “I had to drive a car” (and nobody said she was even forced by the way - at that age I would have been more than happy to be driving, at any time of the day or night)
Speaking from experience, I say Yes, it’s child abuse. The act itself, caught in commision, is just the tip of the iceberg. (No, I never drove my drunk stepfather BUT…)
The fact that the little girl was okay with it is a huge red flag. And in later reports the mother said she didn’t even know her daughter knew how to drive.
???
Obviously this wasn’t the first time because the girl knew how to drive. What’s the mother been doing, pulling the covers up over her head when she “goes to bed at a decent hour?” Leaving the daughter to deal with a drunk.
Neglect is as bad as getting hit. The girl gets approval from her father for learning how to take care of him. (Apparently this is a "shared secret.) And this is NOT good for a child’s psyche.
There’s a book called, I think, The Good Daughter. 'splains a lot.
Probably the little girl is (mad/defensive/upset) because her ability has been minimalized. After all, she had a handle on it, right? And it made her feel cool…
No child should bear the weight of this responsibility.
I say: charge him with child abuse. And charge the mother with failure to protect.
This part DOES make sense - so the abuse is not in the driving, but in the “taking care of a drunk”
I can grok that…
Was she in the wrong lane?
You are just stubbornly clinging to a definition of the term that is narrower than its actual use. Failure to provide a reasonable standard of protection and security to a child is an abuse. In this case, the expected order of the relationship was reversed. The parent was incapacitated, and a juvenile was serving to provide for his safety, in a way that explicitly put her at risk. She was driving on a booster seat, for christ’s sake. Clearly she was too small to operate the vehicle safely.
Sent with my fat fingers using Tapatalk.
Thanks for understanding the true problem, bengangmo. And what worries me here is that the mother seems to have “divorced” herself from the situation. That could mean that she’s no longer “performing her wifely duties…” I hesitate to say this but…what other “secret” could the father and daughter be sharing, if you know what I mean. If I was a social worker I’d be all over this like a duck on a June bug.
But just because they’re not forced to do it, doesn’t mean it isn’t bad for them. If a parent gives their young child drugs and the kid is happy to take them, it’s still putting them in a dangerous situation – even if nothing bad happens.
If you put a 9 year old in a car driven by another 9 year old, it’d be pretty obvious child abuse. You are putting your child in a situation that is potentially extremely deadly. 9 year olds simply do not have the capacity to safely drive a car unsupervised, except in the most controlled situations (such as in an empty field on a farm.)
Well, that’s what happened here. She could have easily gotten herself killed.
Particularly as the kid was sitting on a booster seat in a full-size van. It seems unlikely that it would be possible for her to be properly belted in and manage to work the pedals - the average nine-year-old is only 4" tall.
Assuming that is why he is being charged with child abuse, again - I would agree with it.
What many here seem to be saying is that the driving is a symptom of the abuse, which makes sense.
ETA - if that really is why he’s being charged, then I guess it’s another “win” for good and accurate reporting.
You can’t allow a little kid to think it’s okay to drive your car, on the public road, at 3am. **Becky2844 ** Indeed.