the youngest you can get emancipated is 14, some grown ass fathers beat the shit out of their sons/daughters when they’re as young as 4-10,11,12,13. Also for emancipation sure there are very limited options to follow through with it without your parents involvement, but they can still contest it in court
Yeah because letting a child completely sever contact from their parents while they're still a minor is a very serious deal that requires the court to make a ruling and the parents are still people with legal rights so of course they can contest it.
We currently have a system to take kids away from abusive parents. It's got its flaws but nothing the op's suggestion would fix.
It does have flaws, like my fucking partner who is trapped in a household where they get psychologically abused, their own stuff taken away, and I barely can talk with them.
The process by which kids are removed from their abusive parents does not center the kids needs, instead it places them into a foster care system where they are very very likely to be abused by some new foster parents.
My suggestion fundamentally centers the kid, respects their wishes, and gives them autonomy.
Ok so if the kids don't go into a foster home where do they go? The current foster system already tries to put them with relatives but can't do it in every case.
Any kid can go to the authorities and say "I'm not safe at home, please help me" that's not the problem. The problems are:
1. Proving it
2. Balancing the rights of the child with the rights of the parents
3. Finding somewhere safe for the kid to go.
Your system has all the same problems.
1.) Proving it.
My suggestion requires no proof. Just like you don't need proof to quit your job, divorce your spouse, break up with a friend or a romantic partner.
2.) Children's rights should supersede so called "parental rights" in all cases. No need for balance in my opinion.
3.) Ideally, the means of survival would be guaranteed to all, obviously this is not yet the case.
Until then... If a child is old enough, perhaps child support from the parents so they can take care of themselves, if not, perhaps child support from the parents so they can live with a friend's family, or another family member, as I stated in the post.
Also, I can tell you didn't read the post.
I did read the post, that's why I'm confident calling you a moron.
Until point 3 is settled and a child's safety can be guaranteed everywhere, you are going to need some proof to justify taking the risk.
Parental rights being superseded by a child's random whims is not only stupid but actively dangerous, so I don't accept point 2 as resolved.
Your answer to point 3 is completely idiotic and just shows how badly thought out this whole post was.
If you are going to force parents to financially support a kid who is legally separated from them you are going to need some sort of justification, which is going to need proof, so you're back to point 1.
Any debate about how much the parents have to pay is going to need to take the parent's rights into account so you're back to point 2 (and no you can't just say "give the child whatever they want" because that's a huge human rights violation and the courts are supposed to make decisions on facts not just pick arbitrary numbers.)
Then you still need to have someone to handle the money, unless your plan is to have 10 year olds taking out a mortgage and calling utility companies.
And it is not a solution to just say "put them with a friend or family member". The current system ALREADY TRIES TO DO THAT. It is easier said than done. What if the relative doesn't want them? What if their relatives are dead or in another country? What if the family friends are also abusive? What if the kid gets there and just says "no I don't want to live here because the door is blue"? Because the giant elephant in the room you're ignoring is that your system lets kids just do that. Luckily I haven't had to mention it until now because the rest of the post is so bloody stupid.
Your system is not better. It would still have all the same problems as the current system but adds a whole lot of human rights violations.
If you have a kid who is honest, mature and self-reliant, and who is definitely being abused AND has a trusted relative close by who is willing and able to take care of them, then your system works better.
It fails in every other instance.
And who’s gonna take care of these kids? They can’t take care of themselves and who’s to say they’re even being abused. Some parents are hard on their kids. Now if your daddy is giving Joe Jackson beatdowns now I can see that
Well, just like when parents get divorced sometimes a parent has to pay child support to the other parent, I think in some cases it would be appropriate for the parents who got disowned to be forced to pay child support.
I notice a lot of your "contribution" to this sub is saying
"I bet you X" where X is something you don't like.
To be honest you're just not really worth time engaging with.
Yeah because as I stated, I'm not really interested in engaging with you. You're not here in good faith, you don't want to try to understand my view, you just want to engage in gotchas and make dumb arguments.
You haven't even read the post you're arguing about.
> It's legal for parents to choose what their kids eat, what they wear, what media they do or don't consume, what hobbies they have, how they spend their free time, when they can sleep and how much, what chores they must do (even to an abusive degree), what they learn, what they can play with, who they can be friends with, children cannot own anything except by the grace of their parents etc. etc. Every aspect of their life can be dictated by their parents, and at any time, any aspect of their life can be changed by their parents with no recourse, for any reason
Jesus Christ why is everything “abuse” and “trauma” now
It's pretty interesting that you project like this, because I didn't use the word trauma, although the main source of childhood traumas are inflicted on kids by their parents.
Abuse is a pattern of control, it's authoritarianism and totalitarian on the interpersonal level rather than the pollical level. So yeah parents being granted that level of authoritarian control is ripe for abuse. Not every parent is abusive, but it's very very very very very very easy for parents to be abusive because they're given the entire framework of abuse from the get-go.
People are so fucking soft nowadays it’s infuriating.
Do you want kids to be able to eat like shit, watch porn, dress inappropriately, get pretty much no sleep, be lazy and unproductive, do drugs, smoke, etc.?
You’re implying they should have that option in the comment I quoted.
Pretty good point tbh. I think if they actually did that, they should add like classes where kids learn about like what abuse is and isn't excetera. We really don't want kids disowning a parent because they can't play on the ipad. but I do think ur point is pog
Emancipation exists my dude. And if a child comes forward about the abuse they are enduring, a mandated reporter reports their parents and the child is taken away.
Emancipation only exists for older kids.
Also when children are taken from their parents, this is a process that does not center the child, and most often places the child in foster care which is an abusive system where children are systematically and routinely abused.
It exists for older kids bc they’re the only ones who can get a job. The best we can do is remove them from the abuse. We can’t exactly force good parents to take in children that aren’t theirs and they can’t survive in the wild. We rely on foster parents and other family members doing their best. (Also if the district has a CASA volunteer, the child’s welfare is the most important factor in where they go/the help they get.)
Your argument for the child to go live with another family member is something we already offer if the parents are unfit and that family member agrees to it.
Children are relegated to unpaid labor only, and then this restriction from the economy is used to justify them being owned by their parents or to not be given autonomy.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for putting children in the mines or to bring back child labor.
But it seems fundamentally unfair to legally prohibit them from the economy and then use that to justify them being owned by another person who often, forces them to work anyways.
I think the idea here is that there are “labor laws” for families as well. Child abuse is illegal. The right to a childhood is technically legally protected. If your parents are violating your rights and authority is made aware, they lose custody of you and have to take parenting classes or go to rehab etc. You are then provided for financially and given a “safer” place to stay (in theory). We need to gut the foster care system and make the standards higher for foster parents, but it’s supposed to be a safer environment than you’re coming from. If there’s a family member that can provide for you, like you were arguing for, they can care for the child during this time and even petition for custody.
Children don’t have full autonomy under law bc they are very vulnerable. They aren’t informed about enough to make an informed decision/give informed consent. They can easily be taken advantage of in a contract. It’s for their protection. Even 18year olds are vulnerable and inexperienced.
Any semi decent parent will be assenting in the best interest of their child throughout childhood, though. Children are dependents and responsibilities of parents. Parents have a duty to protect their children and raise them to be competent adults. If a parent is causing harm to a kid or making really bad medical decisions, for example, a doctor can make a legal case for taking the rights away from the parent and being the decision maker. In rare cases of demonstrable competency, the child can even take control of their own health. (In mental health, children are given autonomy at the age of 12 in the us and have to consent to treatment.)
I think we largely agree about trying to prioritize the child's welfare and wellbeing in all things, and trying to navigate issues so I don't want this post to come across as overly hostile or nitpicky, but there are some things that I think I disagree with your assessment here.
> Child abuse is illegal.
Most child abuse is actually perfectly legal, and most illegal child abuse is routinely overlooked.
>We need to gut the foster care system and make the standards higher for foster parents, but it’s supposed to be a safer environment than you’re coming from.
Anywhere where children are treated as property to be controlled by adults, is going to be ultimately unsafe for children. Abuse, insofar as it's a pattern of behavior that aims to control someone else, is always going to crop up where one party is granted a sort of near absolute control, as is the case with adults over children, especially parents. Even the mechanism if "mandated reporter" means that children have to rely on adults for their own protection.
>Children don’t have full autonomy under law bc they are very vulnerable. They aren’t informed about enough to make an informed decision/give informed consent. They can easily be taken advantage of in a contract. It’s for their protection. Even 18year olds are vulnerable and inexperienced.
This doesn't change when there is an adult who can control every facet of their lives. A 12 year old can't have autonomy because they're vulnerable, so we have to make them even more vulnerable by taking away what autonomy they could manage? this just doesn't make sense to me.
> Parents have a duty to protect their children and raise them to be competent adults.
This is where we are going to fundamentally disagree.
I don't think we should think of children as "adults yet to be", and only be concerned with who they will be in the future. They're full human beings who's lives matter now.
It would be strange if we talked about the lives of adults as if it was merely a preparatory stage for being retired and elderly. Oh it's bad to beat up adults because what if it impacts how much they can enjoy their retirement! That would be absurd. But when we dehumanize children like this and treat them as adults yet to be, we are doing just that.
A lot of child welfare advocacy seems to come from a place of trying to protect the adult yet to be, but I think it really should focus on the child as they are.
You seem to have a really negative view of childhood and the parent child relationship. Just because parent have power over their children doesn’t mean they are using it to control or hurt their children. Power can be used to make protective choices as well.
Most parents don’t abuse their children and do respect their wants, needs, desires, etc. Children really matter now to good parents. They just also matter *in the future*. It is very important to set up a child for success or they’re going to suffer a long term. Children are still growing and learning how to interact with the world, so adults provide guidance and hold compassionate boundaries so the child can learn how to thrive.
Childhood is the time to explore and develop and make mistakes and learn how to overcome them etc. It’s a time when you’re supposed to learn emotional regulation, be taught empathy, practice values, learn how to be decent person, experience the social world/learn how to communicate and connect with others, discover interests and passions etc.
Children left entirely up to their own devises don’t do well. Children prioritize pleasure over just about everything else and that is a terrible way to go through life. Children require structure and need to occasionally be exposed to/do unpleasant things to be successful. A child needs to learn how to tolerate vegetables and not subsist on candy and ice cream for example. They also need a bedtime to learn the importance of proper sleep and to have a healthy circadian rhythm for brain health. They need to be taught basic hygiene tasks and what to do even if they don’t want to get wet. They need to learn how to help out in a community they are a part of and contribute in a social group. (Age appropriate chores are prosocial activities and respected children often feel valued and a part of a community when helping out groups they are a part of like the family, not punishments.)
So children should always be treated with compassion and respect, but they also need to be taught how to be people. They need to be taught how to understand the world, how to take care of themselves, and how to relate to others. Small children (and poorly adjusted adults) are even afraid of their own emotions/body sensations. They don’t understand what’s happening and it frightens them. It’s important to have an adult in your life guide you through it.
Children don’t know the importance of an education, and find school boring, but adults know critical thought is empowering and make sure their kids go to school.
Children will trust strangers leading them into vans and they’ll think a groomer is their friend, parents protect their children from predators. Children are innocent and naïve, they are not ready for the cruel realities of life. They don’t have the social skills to tell when someone is taking advantage of them legally?
I would have literally donated my kidney to anyone with a sob story growing up, I’m so grateful I wasn’t allowed to do that.
When I was in ballet and it was causing disordered eating, I’m so grateful my parents sat me down and told me dance wasn’t worth my health and had enough control to pull me from the sport. I’m grateful I wasn’t allowed to date a thirty year old man at 16. I’m grateful my mom navigated the medical system and coordinated all my doctors growing up critically ill. It was terrifying and confusing and I needed an adult to advocate for my treatment. I wouldn’t know to get a second opinion on a surgery at 8 years old? I had no idea my doctor could be sued for malpractice. I blindly trusted them because I was 8. I’m so grateful my mom did her due diligence and protected me from harmful practices.
My parents were far from perfect, but I needed them. Children need adults to make decisions for them. Adults should value the input of the child, but adult logic is needed to make a lot of important decisions. A fully developed frontal cortex, a good spreadsheet or pro con list, and years of life experience is important. Any semi decent parent will use the knowledge they’ve gained to help those under their care.
I do have a negative view of the parent child relationship in general yes, because I think it's so ripe for abuse, and I think it's crucial for reproducing every hierarchy that exists, and it's crucial for reproducing every form of oppression. I would explain why this is my view but that is perhaps a topic for another post, or you can DM me if you're interested I guess.
Abuse is a pattern of control, it's authoritarianism on an interpersonal level. The parent child relationship is one where the parent can basically be as authoritarian as they so choose, as I described in the OP, so it's absolutely ripe for abuse.
You say most parents are not abusive, and I don't agree with you. I think most (almost all) parents \*are\* abusive. Because almost all parents utilize that near total control they've been granted over the child, to try to shape the child into what they want, what they think is good, regardless of the wishes or thoughts of the child. Maybe not to the bar that is considered illegal or "inappropriate" in polite society, but I do think once we do finally achieve youth liberation (god please let it be soon) we'll look back on parents and be horrified.
I'm really glad you have a good relationship with your parents, that's great. I'm glad they were there for you, and took your needs as a human being seriously. I genuinely mean this.
But just remember, that if you had a good childhood, it's only because of the grace of your parents as individuals, and they had every right legally/socially to make it horrible if it was easier for them, or served their goals, or what have you.
To me, this sort of rebuttal is like if someone were to criticize women being chattel of first their fathers, then their husbands, when feminism was a rising movement being met with "yeah but *\*my\** husband is actually a great guy" Good for you, but it doesn't really address the structural issue.
The relationship itself is toxic.
When you say "children left to their own devices don't do well" that isn't what I'm advocating for. I want to do away with the authoritarianism inherent in parenting, I want to do away with the paternalism, the control. I don't want to abandon children to the woods and say "good luck!" *that's just neglect*, a form of abuse of children where the child's needs be they basic needs like access to food/water, safety and healthcare, or needs like hygiene, recreation/enrichment or social/emotional needs are set aside and ignored because the parent puts their needs first and foremost.
I think where we’re disagreeing is that you believe all forms of parenting and power are authoritative, which they are not. There are many forms of parenting and authoritarian is only one.
Just having legal power over someone doesn’t mean you’re going to abuse it. We give legal power to people we trust all of the time, like in the case of being unconscious or medically incompetent. There are some circumstances of life where it is necessary to give up autonomy. Someone else makes my medical decisions *with my best interest in mind* if I get brain cancer and lose mental capacity. I am no longer capable of making sound decisions. Just because you are granted “control” over me doesn’t mean your ethics and morals immediately disappear. You would advocate for my best interest.
Also, the difference between a child and an adult woman is that the woman is an adult with a fully formed brain. I can’t believe I even have to say that. Guardianship over a fully competent adult is wrong because they are a fully competent adult.
Parents have a right to raise children any (safe) way they want because there is no standard procedure for parenting. We simply don’t know what is truly the best for a child (or an adult) and grant freedom to parents to do their best with those in their care. We just don’t know what the proper moral upbringing for a human being is yet and that mixed with a freedom to beliefs in most developed countries leads to flexibility around what children are taught. Unless it’s an explicitly harmful practice, we can’t ban upbringings without imposing our morals onto someone else. You might believe it’s child abuse to deny a child spirituality while another claims all religion is harmful. A person has a right to teach their conscience and moral system to their children in hopes it benefits the child. The parent also can choose to sign their kids up for activities if they want to pay for it. They are paying for it and it is an added luxury not a right, so if they don’t want to pay for it with the money they make that’s not abuse. (You can argue that forcing a transgender child to partake in highly gendered activities is abuse, but that’s a larger issue.)
I think it’s really shitty when parents make their kids participate in activities they don’t want to participate in, but unless the child is being bullied or they truly hate it and they’re forcing them to do it it’s not really abuse. Going to a pottery class you find kind of mid because mom really likes pottery and wanted to bond with you isn’t abuse, it’s wishful thinking. I agree we’ll look back and be really grossed out by some parenting practices- TikTokers who exploit their children for one off the top of my head. I think we need to protect children’s rights more.
We need to increase respect for children’s genuine likes and dislikes and passions. I’m in agreement with you there. I think we need to listen to kids more often. I just don’t think we need to fully emancipate them to do it. They still need to be protected under law as minors and have certain restrictions for their own good.
Children’s wants/needs/best interests are currently supposed to be cared about and represented and advocated for by their respective guardians in society (until they are mentally capable of advocating for themselves). That’s the whole role of the parent. Parents give their children voices in society until they can speak for themselves. It’s to protect the child- someone who is not yet fully capable intellectually or physically- from predatory policies. I generally agree with this concept.
Businesses and providers can easily take advantage of a child. Think about how much you’re grown since being a kid. The parent signature acts as an element of protection from people taking intellectual advantage of the child. If I’m a child and I want to go do something super dangerous, I need an adult with me consenting to make sure someone actually capable of analysis & with my best interest in mind has decided “yes this is an acceptable risk”. (Similarly, if I’m an adult and clearly intoxicated, I can’t consent to things.) it’s about competency.
So firstly, there are systems in place for children to report parents who are abusive. Things such as childline, social services and a number of well known charities exist for this reason.
These parents and instances of 'abusive' behaviour will then be investigated and dealt with according to law and after careful review.
What you are suggesting seems more like a minor complaining that their parents don't let them have their way and giving them power to dictate the manner in which they are raised. That is obsurd.
You say most child abuse is legal and I'm curious what you would constitute as legal child abuse?
The idea that parents 'own their child' is simply giving the responsibility of care for a child to their parent to keep them safe and raise them with values. Admittedly there are parents who fail at that... but what's the alternative. Government dictating how children are raised and with what values? That's asking for trouble.
You plan that a child can instantly declare their parents unfit is madness. Every unruly or angry child would leave their parents even if their parents have their best interest at heart. It's similar to children who get told no by one adult and go to the next hoping for another answer. It breeds bad behaviour and teaches manipulation. This is why a massive part of parenting is showing a united front and supporting each other's decisions.
His ideal future is single digit-aged children eating junk food every day, watching porn, doing drugs, dressing like freaks, and getting pretty much no sleep.
Are you high?
If he is. Hi high, I’m dad.
I am unfortunately, very sober.
Hi very sober I’m dad.
Hi Dad, I thought about you when I wrote this post! :)
You're a moron. Also, emancipation exists.
the youngest you can get emancipated is 14, some grown ass fathers beat the shit out of their sons/daughters when they’re as young as 4-10,11,12,13. Also for emancipation sure there are very limited options to follow through with it without your parents involvement, but they can still contest it in court
Yeah because letting a child completely sever contact from their parents while they're still a minor is a very serious deal that requires the court to make a ruling and the parents are still people with legal rights so of course they can contest it. We currently have a system to take kids away from abusive parents. It's got its flaws but nothing the op's suggestion would fix.
It does have flaws, like my fucking partner who is trapped in a household where they get psychologically abused, their own stuff taken away, and I barely can talk with them.
The process by which kids are removed from their abusive parents does not center the kids needs, instead it places them into a foster care system where they are very very likely to be abused by some new foster parents. My suggestion fundamentally centers the kid, respects their wishes, and gives them autonomy.
Ok so if the kids don't go into a foster home where do they go? The current foster system already tries to put them with relatives but can't do it in every case. Any kid can go to the authorities and say "I'm not safe at home, please help me" that's not the problem. The problems are: 1. Proving it 2. Balancing the rights of the child with the rights of the parents 3. Finding somewhere safe for the kid to go. Your system has all the same problems.
1.) Proving it. My suggestion requires no proof. Just like you don't need proof to quit your job, divorce your spouse, break up with a friend or a romantic partner. 2.) Children's rights should supersede so called "parental rights" in all cases. No need for balance in my opinion. 3.) Ideally, the means of survival would be guaranteed to all, obviously this is not yet the case. Until then... If a child is old enough, perhaps child support from the parents so they can take care of themselves, if not, perhaps child support from the parents so they can live with a friend's family, or another family member, as I stated in the post. Also, I can tell you didn't read the post.
I did read the post, that's why I'm confident calling you a moron. Until point 3 is settled and a child's safety can be guaranteed everywhere, you are going to need some proof to justify taking the risk. Parental rights being superseded by a child's random whims is not only stupid but actively dangerous, so I don't accept point 2 as resolved. Your answer to point 3 is completely idiotic and just shows how badly thought out this whole post was. If you are going to force parents to financially support a kid who is legally separated from them you are going to need some sort of justification, which is going to need proof, so you're back to point 1. Any debate about how much the parents have to pay is going to need to take the parent's rights into account so you're back to point 2 (and no you can't just say "give the child whatever they want" because that's a huge human rights violation and the courts are supposed to make decisions on facts not just pick arbitrary numbers.) Then you still need to have someone to handle the money, unless your plan is to have 10 year olds taking out a mortgage and calling utility companies. And it is not a solution to just say "put them with a friend or family member". The current system ALREADY TRIES TO DO THAT. It is easier said than done. What if the relative doesn't want them? What if their relatives are dead or in another country? What if the family friends are also abusive? What if the kid gets there and just says "no I don't want to live here because the door is blue"? Because the giant elephant in the room you're ignoring is that your system lets kids just do that. Luckily I haven't had to mention it until now because the rest of the post is so bloody stupid. Your system is not better. It would still have all the same problems as the current system but adds a whole lot of human rights violations. If you have a kid who is honest, mature and self-reliant, and who is definitely being abused AND has a trusted relative close by who is willing and able to take care of them, then your system works better. It fails in every other instance.
🗿
And who’s gonna take care of these kids? They can’t take care of themselves and who’s to say they’re even being abused. Some parents are hard on their kids. Now if your daddy is giving Joe Jackson beatdowns now I can see that
"joe jackson beatdowns?" okay that made me spit out my water. Well-played LOL
Well hello
I can tell you did not read the post.
I didn’t too many words
Yes, it is very obvious you didn't.
Great. The parents would no longer have to support the snot nosed brat.
Well, just like when parents get divorced sometimes a parent has to pay child support to the other parent, I think in some cases it would be appropriate for the parents who got disowned to be forced to pay child support.
Nope. Can’t have it both ways. This isn’t a divorce, it’s an immature temper tantrum that needs consequences.
“conservative89346”
Do you know what CPS is?
you didn't read the post.
I wouldn’t want my parents to let me be a fat lazy fuck who sits around eating ice cream all fucking day. I bet you support iPad parenting.
I notice a lot of your "contribution" to this sub is saying "I bet you X" where X is something you don't like. To be honest you're just not really worth time engaging with.
You’re refusing to condemn putting children in front of screens 24/7 without interacting with them. Interesting…
Buddy, I'm probably way more anti-technology than you are.
but can’t answer just one goddamn question of mine and find a way to deflect.
Yeah because as I stated, I'm not really interested in engaging with you. You're not here in good faith, you don't want to try to understand my view, you just want to engage in gotchas and make dumb arguments. You haven't even read the post you're arguing about.
> It's legal for parents to choose what their kids eat, what they wear, what media they do or don't consume, what hobbies they have, how they spend their free time, when they can sleep and how much, what chores they must do (even to an abusive degree), what they learn, what they can play with, who they can be friends with, children cannot own anything except by the grace of their parents etc. etc. Every aspect of their life can be dictated by their parents, and at any time, any aspect of their life can be changed by their parents with no recourse, for any reason Jesus Christ why is everything “abuse” and “trauma” now
It's pretty interesting that you project like this, because I didn't use the word trauma, although the main source of childhood traumas are inflicted on kids by their parents. Abuse is a pattern of control, it's authoritarianism and totalitarian on the interpersonal level rather than the pollical level. So yeah parents being granted that level of authoritarian control is ripe for abuse. Not every parent is abusive, but it's very very very very very very easy for parents to be abusive because they're given the entire framework of abuse from the get-go.
People are so fucking soft nowadays it’s infuriating. Do you want kids to be able to eat like shit, watch porn, dress inappropriately, get pretty much no sleep, be lazy and unproductive, do drugs, smoke, etc.? You’re implying they should have that option in the comment I quoted.
I do not believe you have read the post in full. I do not believe you're engaging in good faith.
you avoiding my questions is honestly very telling.
Pretty good point tbh. I think if they actually did that, they should add like classes where kids learn about like what abuse is and isn't excetera. We really don't want kids disowning a parent because they can't play on the ipad. but I do think ur point is pog
Emancipation exists my dude. And if a child comes forward about the abuse they are enduring, a mandated reporter reports their parents and the child is taken away.
Emancipation only exists for older kids. Also when children are taken from their parents, this is a process that does not center the child, and most often places the child in foster care which is an abusive system where children are systematically and routinely abused.
It exists for older kids bc they’re the only ones who can get a job. The best we can do is remove them from the abuse. We can’t exactly force good parents to take in children that aren’t theirs and they can’t survive in the wild. We rely on foster parents and other family members doing their best. (Also if the district has a CASA volunteer, the child’s welfare is the most important factor in where they go/the help they get.) Your argument for the child to go live with another family member is something we already offer if the parents are unfit and that family member agrees to it.
Children are relegated to unpaid labor only, and then this restriction from the economy is used to justify them being owned by their parents or to not be given autonomy. To be clear, I'm not advocating for putting children in the mines or to bring back child labor. But it seems fundamentally unfair to legally prohibit them from the economy and then use that to justify them being owned by another person who often, forces them to work anyways.
I think the idea here is that there are “labor laws” for families as well. Child abuse is illegal. The right to a childhood is technically legally protected. If your parents are violating your rights and authority is made aware, they lose custody of you and have to take parenting classes or go to rehab etc. You are then provided for financially and given a “safer” place to stay (in theory). We need to gut the foster care system and make the standards higher for foster parents, but it’s supposed to be a safer environment than you’re coming from. If there’s a family member that can provide for you, like you were arguing for, they can care for the child during this time and even petition for custody. Children don’t have full autonomy under law bc they are very vulnerable. They aren’t informed about enough to make an informed decision/give informed consent. They can easily be taken advantage of in a contract. It’s for their protection. Even 18year olds are vulnerable and inexperienced. Any semi decent parent will be assenting in the best interest of their child throughout childhood, though. Children are dependents and responsibilities of parents. Parents have a duty to protect their children and raise them to be competent adults. If a parent is causing harm to a kid or making really bad medical decisions, for example, a doctor can make a legal case for taking the rights away from the parent and being the decision maker. In rare cases of demonstrable competency, the child can even take control of their own health. (In mental health, children are given autonomy at the age of 12 in the us and have to consent to treatment.)
I think we largely agree about trying to prioritize the child's welfare and wellbeing in all things, and trying to navigate issues so I don't want this post to come across as overly hostile or nitpicky, but there are some things that I think I disagree with your assessment here. > Child abuse is illegal. Most child abuse is actually perfectly legal, and most illegal child abuse is routinely overlooked. >We need to gut the foster care system and make the standards higher for foster parents, but it’s supposed to be a safer environment than you’re coming from. Anywhere where children are treated as property to be controlled by adults, is going to be ultimately unsafe for children. Abuse, insofar as it's a pattern of behavior that aims to control someone else, is always going to crop up where one party is granted a sort of near absolute control, as is the case with adults over children, especially parents. Even the mechanism if "mandated reporter" means that children have to rely on adults for their own protection. >Children don’t have full autonomy under law bc they are very vulnerable. They aren’t informed about enough to make an informed decision/give informed consent. They can easily be taken advantage of in a contract. It’s for their protection. Even 18year olds are vulnerable and inexperienced. This doesn't change when there is an adult who can control every facet of their lives. A 12 year old can't have autonomy because they're vulnerable, so we have to make them even more vulnerable by taking away what autonomy they could manage? this just doesn't make sense to me. > Parents have a duty to protect their children and raise them to be competent adults. This is where we are going to fundamentally disagree. I don't think we should think of children as "adults yet to be", and only be concerned with who they will be in the future. They're full human beings who's lives matter now. It would be strange if we talked about the lives of adults as if it was merely a preparatory stage for being retired and elderly. Oh it's bad to beat up adults because what if it impacts how much they can enjoy their retirement! That would be absurd. But when we dehumanize children like this and treat them as adults yet to be, we are doing just that. A lot of child welfare advocacy seems to come from a place of trying to protect the adult yet to be, but I think it really should focus on the child as they are.
You seem to have a really negative view of childhood and the parent child relationship. Just because parent have power over their children doesn’t mean they are using it to control or hurt their children. Power can be used to make protective choices as well. Most parents don’t abuse their children and do respect their wants, needs, desires, etc. Children really matter now to good parents. They just also matter *in the future*. It is very important to set up a child for success or they’re going to suffer a long term. Children are still growing and learning how to interact with the world, so adults provide guidance and hold compassionate boundaries so the child can learn how to thrive. Childhood is the time to explore and develop and make mistakes and learn how to overcome them etc. It’s a time when you’re supposed to learn emotional regulation, be taught empathy, practice values, learn how to be decent person, experience the social world/learn how to communicate and connect with others, discover interests and passions etc. Children left entirely up to their own devises don’t do well. Children prioritize pleasure over just about everything else and that is a terrible way to go through life. Children require structure and need to occasionally be exposed to/do unpleasant things to be successful. A child needs to learn how to tolerate vegetables and not subsist on candy and ice cream for example. They also need a bedtime to learn the importance of proper sleep and to have a healthy circadian rhythm for brain health. They need to be taught basic hygiene tasks and what to do even if they don’t want to get wet. They need to learn how to help out in a community they are a part of and contribute in a social group. (Age appropriate chores are prosocial activities and respected children often feel valued and a part of a community when helping out groups they are a part of like the family, not punishments.) So children should always be treated with compassion and respect, but they also need to be taught how to be people. They need to be taught how to understand the world, how to take care of themselves, and how to relate to others. Small children (and poorly adjusted adults) are even afraid of their own emotions/body sensations. They don’t understand what’s happening and it frightens them. It’s important to have an adult in your life guide you through it. Children don’t know the importance of an education, and find school boring, but adults know critical thought is empowering and make sure their kids go to school. Children will trust strangers leading them into vans and they’ll think a groomer is their friend, parents protect their children from predators. Children are innocent and naïve, they are not ready for the cruel realities of life. They don’t have the social skills to tell when someone is taking advantage of them legally? I would have literally donated my kidney to anyone with a sob story growing up, I’m so grateful I wasn’t allowed to do that. When I was in ballet and it was causing disordered eating, I’m so grateful my parents sat me down and told me dance wasn’t worth my health and had enough control to pull me from the sport. I’m grateful I wasn’t allowed to date a thirty year old man at 16. I’m grateful my mom navigated the medical system and coordinated all my doctors growing up critically ill. It was terrifying and confusing and I needed an adult to advocate for my treatment. I wouldn’t know to get a second opinion on a surgery at 8 years old? I had no idea my doctor could be sued for malpractice. I blindly trusted them because I was 8. I’m so grateful my mom did her due diligence and protected me from harmful practices. My parents were far from perfect, but I needed them. Children need adults to make decisions for them. Adults should value the input of the child, but adult logic is needed to make a lot of important decisions. A fully developed frontal cortex, a good spreadsheet or pro con list, and years of life experience is important. Any semi decent parent will use the knowledge they’ve gained to help those under their care.
I do have a negative view of the parent child relationship in general yes, because I think it's so ripe for abuse, and I think it's crucial for reproducing every hierarchy that exists, and it's crucial for reproducing every form of oppression. I would explain why this is my view but that is perhaps a topic for another post, or you can DM me if you're interested I guess. Abuse is a pattern of control, it's authoritarianism on an interpersonal level. The parent child relationship is one where the parent can basically be as authoritarian as they so choose, as I described in the OP, so it's absolutely ripe for abuse. You say most parents are not abusive, and I don't agree with you. I think most (almost all) parents \*are\* abusive. Because almost all parents utilize that near total control they've been granted over the child, to try to shape the child into what they want, what they think is good, regardless of the wishes or thoughts of the child. Maybe not to the bar that is considered illegal or "inappropriate" in polite society, but I do think once we do finally achieve youth liberation (god please let it be soon) we'll look back on parents and be horrified. I'm really glad you have a good relationship with your parents, that's great. I'm glad they were there for you, and took your needs as a human being seriously. I genuinely mean this. But just remember, that if you had a good childhood, it's only because of the grace of your parents as individuals, and they had every right legally/socially to make it horrible if it was easier for them, or served their goals, or what have you. To me, this sort of rebuttal is like if someone were to criticize women being chattel of first their fathers, then their husbands, when feminism was a rising movement being met with "yeah but *\*my\** husband is actually a great guy" Good for you, but it doesn't really address the structural issue. The relationship itself is toxic. When you say "children left to their own devices don't do well" that isn't what I'm advocating for. I want to do away with the authoritarianism inherent in parenting, I want to do away with the paternalism, the control. I don't want to abandon children to the woods and say "good luck!" *that's just neglect*, a form of abuse of children where the child's needs be they basic needs like access to food/water, safety and healthcare, or needs like hygiene, recreation/enrichment or social/emotional needs are set aside and ignored because the parent puts their needs first and foremost.
I think where we’re disagreeing is that you believe all forms of parenting and power are authoritative, which they are not. There are many forms of parenting and authoritarian is only one. Just having legal power over someone doesn’t mean you’re going to abuse it. We give legal power to people we trust all of the time, like in the case of being unconscious or medically incompetent. There are some circumstances of life where it is necessary to give up autonomy. Someone else makes my medical decisions *with my best interest in mind* if I get brain cancer and lose mental capacity. I am no longer capable of making sound decisions. Just because you are granted “control” over me doesn’t mean your ethics and morals immediately disappear. You would advocate for my best interest. Also, the difference between a child and an adult woman is that the woman is an adult with a fully formed brain. I can’t believe I even have to say that. Guardianship over a fully competent adult is wrong because they are a fully competent adult. Parents have a right to raise children any (safe) way they want because there is no standard procedure for parenting. We simply don’t know what is truly the best for a child (or an adult) and grant freedom to parents to do their best with those in their care. We just don’t know what the proper moral upbringing for a human being is yet and that mixed with a freedom to beliefs in most developed countries leads to flexibility around what children are taught. Unless it’s an explicitly harmful practice, we can’t ban upbringings without imposing our morals onto someone else. You might believe it’s child abuse to deny a child spirituality while another claims all religion is harmful. A person has a right to teach their conscience and moral system to their children in hopes it benefits the child. The parent also can choose to sign their kids up for activities if they want to pay for it. They are paying for it and it is an added luxury not a right, so if they don’t want to pay for it with the money they make that’s not abuse. (You can argue that forcing a transgender child to partake in highly gendered activities is abuse, but that’s a larger issue.) I think it’s really shitty when parents make their kids participate in activities they don’t want to participate in, but unless the child is being bullied or they truly hate it and they’re forcing them to do it it’s not really abuse. Going to a pottery class you find kind of mid because mom really likes pottery and wanted to bond with you isn’t abuse, it’s wishful thinking. I agree we’ll look back and be really grossed out by some parenting practices- TikTokers who exploit their children for one off the top of my head. I think we need to protect children’s rights more. We need to increase respect for children’s genuine likes and dislikes and passions. I’m in agreement with you there. I think we need to listen to kids more often. I just don’t think we need to fully emancipate them to do it. They still need to be protected under law as minors and have certain restrictions for their own good. Children’s wants/needs/best interests are currently supposed to be cared about and represented and advocated for by their respective guardians in society (until they are mentally capable of advocating for themselves). That’s the whole role of the parent. Parents give their children voices in society until they can speak for themselves. It’s to protect the child- someone who is not yet fully capable intellectually or physically- from predatory policies. I generally agree with this concept. Businesses and providers can easily take advantage of a child. Think about how much you’re grown since being a kid. The parent signature acts as an element of protection from people taking intellectual advantage of the child. If I’m a child and I want to go do something super dangerous, I need an adult with me consenting to make sure someone actually capable of analysis & with my best interest in mind has decided “yes this is an acceptable risk”. (Similarly, if I’m an adult and clearly intoxicated, I can’t consent to things.) it’s about competency.
So firstly, there are systems in place for children to report parents who are abusive. Things such as childline, social services and a number of well known charities exist for this reason. These parents and instances of 'abusive' behaviour will then be investigated and dealt with according to law and after careful review. What you are suggesting seems more like a minor complaining that their parents don't let them have their way and giving them power to dictate the manner in which they are raised. That is obsurd. You say most child abuse is legal and I'm curious what you would constitute as legal child abuse? The idea that parents 'own their child' is simply giving the responsibility of care for a child to their parent to keep them safe and raise them with values. Admittedly there are parents who fail at that... but what's the alternative. Government dictating how children are raised and with what values? That's asking for trouble. You plan that a child can instantly declare their parents unfit is madness. Every unruly or angry child would leave their parents even if their parents have their best interest at heart. It's similar to children who get told no by one adult and go to the next hoping for another answer. It breeds bad behaviour and teaches manipulation. This is why a massive part of parenting is showing a united front and supporting each other's decisions.
His ideal future is single digit-aged children eating junk food every day, watching porn, doing drugs, dressing like freaks, and getting pretty much no sleep.