No tracer, it certainly does not justify the removal of the child. That wasn’t what I meant by my post at all. I am not even saying that the decision was wrong, although I have doubts as to whether this was right. What I did mean to say was that if the parents themselves had precious little foresight in the matter, how much can we expect of a child who probably never even heard of Child Protective Services before? The parents at least have (presumably) memories of what school was like when they were kids, plus a lifetime of living with the less-than-tolerant elements of society making news every week. They probably have access to and the ability to at least somewhat comprehend a lot of literature about child and adolescent psychology. Heck, my Childhood Psych 121 class ten years ago had a textbook that any reasonably intelligent layman could comprehend. What I am saying is that they, with all this and professional advice at their disposal (still don’t know if they have second or third opinions on the matter*), could not predict the outcome, what would be the expectation that a six year old could? And how on Earth did the parents think that it was fair to let him make a decision like this when he could not possibly begin to understand the repercussions it would have?
*Note: I can’t see Drain Bead’s video from work, so there may be information there that would explain the situation more clearly that might have some bearing here.
And the scariest thing about that case is that it is possible that had they not gone to a psychiatrist at all the kid might have realized he was being silly and laughed about the whole episode twenty years later. I mean he is only six.
Of course, I’m not saying that the psychiatrist was necessarily wrong, just that he could have been, and this is a risky course to take.
PeeQueue
Just a comment, and not necessarily a flame, though if you choose to take it as one, I won’t be offended.
Drain Bead said, in part:
This was posted by a woman whom I happen to know has had quite a bit of training in accurately summarizing the facts of a situation.
So several posters jump to the conclusion that the parents were jumping the gun in doing what they did.
Prepubescent children are not focused on sex, to be sure. But few of them are ignorant of sex roles (most of them are highly indignant at people operating outside sex roles – sissies, tomboys, etc., and “How can a woman be a doctor / minister / whatever?”).
I do not know what the right course is in such a situation. But I am confident that Drain Bead accurately summarized the parents’ actions, and that they were carefully thought through and agonized over. As careful reading of her post would show.
I have lots of opinions. I try to make sure they’re based on facts before I post them, whenever possible.
And Poly–I must mention that I don’t know these people. I got my information from a four-minute blurb on the local news. I posted a link, and everyone is free to watch exactly what I watched, and draw their own conclusions.
Polycarp wrote:
Well, they don’t have the sex drives that adolescents or adults do, but they do “play doctor” with each other from time to time.
Actually, these are the kinds of things I had in mind when I wrote the OP:
These comments represent a big part of what I was getting at. Because I agree with them. I’d just been watching South Park (which features 8-year-old boys that are often more level-headed than the adults) when I wrote the OP, and I had a father somewhat reminiscent of SPOOFE’s, so the notion that the parents (or the other adult authority figures) always know what’s best for the kid, without having to ask the kid or get the kid’s input, even in a situation where the kid has access to a lot more direct information (e.g. schoolyard bullies, fashion trends among his/her peers), tends to strike a raw nerve with me.
(And actually, hot dogs and Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs do sound good right about now…)
When I first read this OP, I didn’t think of anything serious, like custody battles. The first thought in my head was the Annual May Fair Program our elementary school had.
Every year, the PE teacher, the Librarian, the music teacher, and the computer teacher (all called the Specialists) would be in charge of putting together this massive program, involving grades K-5. It would all have a theme, there would be about a half dozen songs, and each grade would perform something, like a dance.
I hated it.
Everybody I knew hated it.
And we did not have a choice.
The teachers would say things like “I’m not here for myself” when we were acting up, and I would thing “Well, we are here because of you, you are here because of us…why don’t we all just go home?” We would get yelled at for acting like kids, for not following every lil direction. It was a truly hellish experience, and I dreaded it every year. Yet, none of us could get out of it. For any reason.
So, should teachers be allowed to force students into extra-curricular activities that don’t do anything but cause stress, discomfort, and animosity between everybody?
Good question, pepperlandgirl.
When I was in elementary school, every grade had to perform a few songs for the Christmas Concert. (This was back in the 1970s, when you could still call it a “Christmas Concert” instead of a Holiday Concert.) Personally, I loved being up there on the risers singing the descant part in “Silent Night,” even though I had to wear one of those sissy choir robes. But I’m sure there was more than a fair share of other kids who hated it.
And like the theme program at your school, participation was not optional.
Had the school been a little bit bigger, we probably could have gotten away with a volunteer chorus, or even a “select” choral group. Heck, I’ll bet the prestige of being one of only a handful of kids “chosen” to sing at the Christmas Concert would have made some of those would-be stragglers fight tooth and nail to get in the choir. I know it had that effect in the Senior Chorus and Madrigal Singers when I got to Junior High. And of course, the Jr. High Madrigal Singers met after school.
I do feel that extra-curricular activities should be just that: extra-curricular. You pretty much can’t force a kid to “enrich” him/herself with an activity (s)he hates, and trying to do so just stresses out the teachers and makes everybody hate it even more.
Here in Flint, we’ve got an interesting case going on right now.
There’s this eight year old boy who wants to jump a motorcycle over some cars, for some event that his father is hosting. His father owns an auto-parts store, IIRC (I’ll have to go back & get a link–the little details are escaping me right now). Anyway, the boy has been riding motocross bikes since he was 2 years old, and racing competitively since he was four (the youngest age one can race competitively). Last year, he was the champion for his age group. The boy knows his bikes. He wants to jump over 10 cars, and he’s been practicing. His parents are okay with it. The story of his plan to do this jump made the front page of the local paper.
Well, several angry readers contacted Child Protective Services, and now CPS has told the parents that the boy cannot do this jump. They were supposed to go to court today. The dad offered to cut the number of cars, and place more hay bales around the jump site, but CPS says no, he just can’t do it.
Now, the dad isn’t forcing the boy to do this. It was the boy’s idea. And as I said, the boy does know how to handle a bike. His father has said that if he didn’t think the kid could do it, he wouldn’t let him. The boy has had years of experience riding and jumping these bikes. But no, CPS is more interested in stopping a kid from actually doing something he enjoys and knows how to do than rescing the genuinely abused, neglected, and starving kids in this city.
IMHO, this is a case where the kid should be allowed to have some say, and the parents should be allowed to tell CPS to blow it out their collective butts. Sheesh.
Yeah, kids should be allowed to work, if they want the money.
Perse, stunts like the one you mention are best left to Robbie Kinevel, and older adults who know aspects of safety. The child may have unquestioned ability and talent. However, it takes a certain maturity to make this stunt as safe as possible, especially if it goes wrong. He and the parents will have to consult experts. A 10-car jump is about 100 feet long to clear, a significant leap for any vehicle.
In a stunt like this, wind is a big factor. Even Robbie won’t jump if there are gusts of wind. It is a bigger factor for the child, because he is smaller. Bales of hay, for example, won’t help the child if the bike flips at mid-leap because of a gust of wind.
Let the boy ride in BMX circuits. Let him play in that extreme games motorcycle jumping competition, where he do all of the stunts he can, without worrying about landing on cars. He might challenge that 13-year-old boy who dominates the event.
Yes, I’m aware of all that. But why does CPS have to get involved at all? That’s my beef. It’s not as if the boy has no experience doing this, and he and his family are well aware of all the safety and risk factors. He’s been riding for six years already. They will take all the precautions that are necessary.
Now, if it was my child, even if he’d had all that experience, I sincerely doubt that I personally would let him do it. But, he isn’t my child, and letting this boy make this jump does not, IMHO, constitute abuse or endangerment, especially when all the safety factors that need to be met are going to be met. If you want to call it endangerment, then you have to make him and all the other children who ride motocross in the country stop doing it. For that matter, you have to stop letting them do other things that are dangerous and could hurt them, like climbing trees, swimming, and riding bicycles.
[QUOTE]
Yeah, kids should be allowed to work, if they want the money*
Depends on the child, and the work. It’s a case-by-case thing. I’ve got two babysitters now, one aged 13 and one aged 15. They are still children under the law, but they are working, they are good at it, and my kids love them. When my daughter reaches the age of 12 or 13, and she wants to get a paper route, if she’s proven to me that she’s mature enough to handle it, I’ll let her. She’s 3 right now, so no, she’s not going in to the work force yet. But when she’s older, I’ll pay her to mow the lawn.
You just can’t generalize in a situation like this. No, not all kids should be allowed to jump 10 cars with a motocross bike. But this kid should be allowed to do some kind of stunt, because he is knowlegable and able, and he will be supervised. There are far too many children in my city who desperately need the help of CPS and they aren’t getting it. This boy isn’t one of them.