I don’t think kids weigh things the same way as an adult would. If they don’t want to see their dad, they may not have the skills to set aside their emotional response to do something in their own best interest. But you can often reframe, or help them manage their emotions and then they can reconsider (I don’t know anything about these kids, but kids in general, I mean). I would think a Family Court would have options like this. Maybe they were already tried and didn’t work.
I’m really curious about why the kids do not want to visit their dad.
When my kids were young they were always eager to spend time with me on “my” days. Their mom tried like crazy to highlight my shortcomings, but they just laughed about it. The only anger my daughter ever exhibited was directed at me for not “fighting back”.
Some kids are, but by all reports these kids are quite bright. The eldest was offered a Stanford summer math program placement that he deferred as he did not want to go without his siblings.
The kids seem to believe the dad is abusive. Whether this is based on their own observation or hearsay, we don’t know, but they are refusing to see him on principle, I’d guess. The judge is a bully and they are standing up to her admirably. People old enough to say so ought to get a say in who they spend time with, even if they are minors. They should be given some say in the terms of their relationships. These children understand that they have human rights whether the court respects them or not and they are doing what it takes to protect them.
They are courageous, not too dumb to recognize their own “best interests”.
The fact that the father promptly left the country for weeks without lifting a finger to help his jailed children says it all. A juvenile detention center is not a safe place and being taken from your family–at age nine, even–is incredibly traumatic. Many nine-year-olds become homesick at a slumber party, which is voluntary and one night of fun. A normal loving dad would understand the horror of his kids being treated this way, but the transcript contains no objection from him. He is fighting to win, not to see his children or have a beneficial relationship with them. The story of King Solomon comes to mind.
I disagree with this. Kids are stupid, but more than being stupid they naturally tend to identify with their primary caregiver, and in addition to even that, the primary caregiver generally has a lot of control over the information that’s fed to the kids.
I’ve seen a lot of cases in which primary caregivers were very successful in turning the kids against the non-custodial parent. Sometimes it wore off (or even boomeranged) when the kids grew up and were not in anyone’s custody and could deal with both on their own, but sometimes it didn’t.
Yeah, I’m just not seeing how having a relationship with someone is so paramount to anything and everything that children should be sent to prison for not desiring that relationship. It’s completely and utterly absurd. I don’t care how unfair it feels to the father, or how “good” families have relationships with both parents, or whatever society says good little nuclear families are “supposed” to do. If someone doesn’t want a relationship they should have that right, and no person should be able to use the law to force them to. It’s just completely irrational that the law should have the right to dictate or attempt to force people into relationships. To separate for protection, I can understand. But the reverse is just wrong.
Basically, I don’t care what the mother and father are doing. The judge is completely insane to be abusing her power in this way, regardless of the rest of the case.
OK, so how about a situation that doesn’t involve divorce.
Suppose a kid hates his family and wants nothing to do with them, and decides to move in with the neighbors down the block. Do you still say “if someone doesn’t want a relationship they should have that right, and no person should be able to use the law to force them to”?
As long as the kids are being taken care of, are not being abused, are not doing anything illegal or delinquent (i.e. still going to school, etc), and have stated they agree with their situation and the people housing them agree, that situation is fine to me. Cases like that happen, usually in cases of the parents being terrible (the kids leave with aunt and uncle and stay with them, as an example). Sometimes it even ends with full adoption by the host family.
If the kids do it just because they want to, I still don’t see why the law should be involved. It’s up to the parents to deal with their children, and they should be doing it personally. If they can’t connect with their children then regardless, nothing the law says can force it to work. A child that wants to leave permanently and refuses to deal with their parents shows that there is something wrong in the relationship, be it either in the parent or in the child. The only thing that can fix that is therapy and safe places, not law-mandated visitation time with each other.
Because children can’t give consent. They have been determined, by law, to not be old enough or mature enough to understand the ramifications of these decisions. That’s why statutory rape laws exist. It works both ways. Children can’t give legal consent, nor can they take legal consent away. Courts, parents, legal guardians make these decisiosn for them. If they really want that level of consent consider emancipation. Until then they are subject to the decisions of the parents, legal guardians and courts.
I disagree on the law on this point, but you are correct. However, what you asked does happen. It’s true that it happens mostly because the parents were not exercising their right to force their children to live with them, but it happens.
Recently there was a case in Ontario, Canada, where a child went and received her vaccinations without her parents’ knowledge or consent. As it turns out, in her jurisdiction, children are deemed capable of deciding their own medical care under law unless proven otherwise. I agree with laws like that.
The question at hand though is forcing children to have lunch with a parent under pretense of forcing them to have a relationship, which I believe to be a gross stretching of current laws in an abusive way. I do not agree with it.
Needs to be granted by a court and - importantly, in context here - “I don’t want to have a relationship with my parents” is not grounds for emancipation.
…and i disagree with the premise that children can hold their breath and say I don’t wanna… and have that be sufficient. The fact remains that they simply do not have the maturity to understand the ramification of twhat they are doing long term. No matter the precociousness of the child. It is the same idea that not allow a 14 year old to sleep wiht a 20 year old man because she really wants to and is totally in lurve. They can’t give consent. End scene., That’s the parents, legal guardians, courts/judges decision making until the child is emancipoated or reaches legal age of consent.
What the judge did here was the legal equivalent of sending a spoiled entitled obstinate child to his/her room to think about their actions. They were sent to a neutral place away from the influence of the mother and the father t oreally think about what they are doing. They were sequestered form the children / “criminals” who just wanted to steal, rob, sell drugs or whatever other activity they decided to consent to that landed them in the general population crimnal part of juvenile hall. They were then released from their adolescent gulag and sent to sleepaway camp.
Since we both disagree with legitimate opinions, I’m interested to see how the case will finally turn out. At this point I’m sure other lawmakers will exercise some oversight on the judge in question and we’ll get our answers as to whether this was justified or not. Of course, we might all still disagree once the dust has settled.
Exactly. Imprisonment of a nine-year-old will quickly increase the kid’s synapses! As it did those of a hungry child about to be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread as he climbed the steps of a scaffold.
So we have now gone from a sequestered unit of the local juvenile hall to imprisonment. Just make sure they don’t get Adibissi or Schillinger as their cell mate. Beecher will tell you why. Sister Peter Marie can give absolution.
The fact remains is that were sent… over a couple of nights to a squestered neiutral place away from the parents influence to really think about what they were doing. Call it “imprisonment” if you want, but ain’t nobody coming out of this with Crime and Punishment. I call it a pajama party at the youth detention center before going to camp. See how much nicer that sounds?
