Wouldn't This be Considered Child Abuse.

[ConHog]

With your children, yes Yours is the only opinion that counts

and once again for the patently slow, you ARE wrong. YOURS is NOT the only opinion that counts in raising your children or we wouldn't even have department of child services. Is that really that hard to figure out?

Stop crying already... different opinions do not mean abuse.. stop exaggerating ...Drama queen..

You rank right up there in the top10 of stupidest posters on this site. Let me cite you FEDERAL LAW

Each State provides its own definitions of child abuse and neglect based on minimum standards set by Federal law.

How Is Child Abuse and Neglect Defined in Federal Law?

Federal legislation lays the groundwork for States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

* Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
* An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Most Federal and State child protection laws primarily refer to cases of harm to a child caused by parents or other caregivers; they generally do not include harm caused by other people, such as acquaintances or strangers.

What Is Child Abuse and Neglect?

Clearly they failed to prevent their daughter from doing something that presented an imminent risk of serious harm. You can NOT argue with this. It's a law, it's on the books, you don't like it, go petition to have it changed, but the law is the law.

 

[gslack]

and once again for the patently slow, you ARE wrong. YOURS is NOT the only opinion that counts in raising your children or we wouldn't even have department of child services. Is that really that hard to figure out?

Stop crying already... different opinions do not mean abuse.. stop exaggerating ...Drama queen..

You rank right up there in the top10 of stupidest posters on this site. Let me cite you FEDERAL LAW

Each State provides its own definitions of child abuse and neglect based on minimum standards set by Federal law.

How Is Child Abuse and Neglect Defined in Federal Law?

Federal legislation lays the groundwork for States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

* Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
* An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Most Federal and State child protection laws primarily refer to cases of harm to a child caused by parents or other caregivers; they generally do not include harm caused by other people, such as acquaintances or strangers.

What Is Child Abuse and Neglect?

Clearly they failed to prevent their daughter from doing something that presented an imminent risk of serious harm. You can NOT argue with this. It's a law, it's on the books, you don't like it, go petition to have it changed, but the law is the law.

One thing.... You need to show malice or proper cause for a claim of abuse.... And the fact the kid was not abused or mistreated at all, in fact the kid was given sailing lessons and her own boat for christs sake.. A poor choice that is not a pattern or an average of several which result in harm to the child, is not abuse you nitwit reactionary....

Now get over yourself asshole, you are not the dictator you seem to think you are...

 

[gslack]

LOL im off to bed now dumbass... But please DO continue crying and screaming about this until you are blue in the face... We all love drama....

 

[ConHog]

Stop crying already... different opinions do not mean abuse.. stop exaggerating ...Drama queen..

You rank right up there in the top10 of stupidest posters on this site. Let me cite you FEDERAL LAW

Each State provides its own definitions of child abuse and neglect based on minimum standards set by Federal law.

How Is Child Abuse and Neglect Defined in Federal Law?

Federal legislation lays the groundwork for States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

* Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
* An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Most Federal and State child protection laws primarily refer to cases of harm to a child caused by parents or other caregivers; they generally do not include harm caused by other people, such as acquaintances or strangers.

What Is Child Abuse and Neglect?

Clearly they failed to prevent their daughter from doing something that presented an imminent risk of serious harm. You can NOT argue with this. It's a law, it's on the books, you don't like it, go petition to have it changed, but the law is the law.

One thing.... You need to show malice or proper cause for a claim of abuse.... And the fact the kid was not abused or mistreated at all, in fact the kid was given sailing lessons and her own boat for christs sake.. A poor choice that is not a pattern or an average of several which result in harm to the child, is not abuse you nitwit reactionary....

Now get over yourself asshole, you are not the dictator you seem to think you are...

I just cited the law, show me where in that it says you have to show malice moron. In fact you do not. If I hand my 2 y/o a loaded pistol just because I think it would make a cute picture and someone turned me in I would be investigated for neglect. Same difference. Nowhere in that law does it say malice. You just made that shit up to try to cover your own weak ass opinion.

malice.......................................

 

[ConHog]

LOL im off to bed now dumbass... But please DO continue crying and screaming about this until you are blue in the face... We all love drama....

crying and screaming? I am shocked that EVERYONE isn't outraged at the blatant neglect shown towards this child

As for you I'd run from this thread to, mr "you must have malice"

 

[Article 15]

Hey Conhog was is child abuse when you joined the military at 16 like you claimed? I mean, you were a CHILD and in no position to make such a decision.

LOL - You are a total moron.

Understanding the geopolitical reasoning and refusing to serve b/c of your opinion on it are two different things entirely.

As for having the nads to stand up for what I believe in, that's exactly what I did when I signed up for the military when I was 16. That's right I signed up when I was 16, went to boot camp when I was 17 , finished HS, went to further training and have been fighting for what I believe in ever since.

This was a really lame attempt by you to flame me.

I think you can STFU now.

 

[ConHog]

Hey Conhog was is child abuse when you joined the military at 16 like you claimed? I mean, you were a CHILD and in no position to make such a decision.

LOL - You are a total moron.

Understanding the geopolitical reasoning and refusing to serve b/c of your opinion on it are two different things entirely.

As for having the nads to stand up for what I believe in, that's exactly what I did when I signed up for the military when I was 16. That's right I signed up when I was 16, went to boot camp when I was 17 , finished HS, went to further training and have been fighting for what I believe in ever since.

This was a really lame attempt by you to flame me.

I think you can STFU now.

Although I signed up when I was 16, didn't officially join until I was 17 when I went to boot camp and the DAY I officially joined I was considered an adult as far as the USG is concerned and was therefor no longer protected by child abuse laws.

It was a nice try though.

 

[Article 15]

Hey Conhog was is child abuse when you joined the military at 16 like you claimed? I mean, you were a CHILD and in no position to make such a decision.

LOL - You are a total moron.

Understanding the geopolitical reasoning and refusing to serve b/c of your opinion on it are two different things entirely.

As for having the nads to stand up for what I believe in, that's exactly what I did when I signed up for the military when I was 16. That's right I signed up when I was 16, went to boot camp when I was 17 , finished HS, went to further training and have been fighting for what I believe in ever since.

This was a really lame attempt by you to flame me.

I think you can STFU now.

Although I signed up when I was 16, didn't officially join until I was 17 when I went to boot camp and the DAY I officially joined I was considered an adult as far as the USG is concerned and was therefor no longer protected by child abuse laws.

It was a nice try though.

You made the decision at 16. Your parents were negligent in allowing their child at age to make a decision that involved risking their life.

Now go see someone about getting your foot removed from your mouth.

 

[ConHog]

Hey Conhog was is child abuse when you joined the military at 16 like you claimed? I mean, you were a CHILD and in no position to make such a decision.



I think you can STFU now.

Although I signed up when I was 16, didn't officially join until I was 17 when I went to boot camp and the DAY I officially joined I was considered an adult as far as the USG is concerned and was therefor no longer protected by child abuse laws.

It was a nice try though.

You made the decision at 16. Your parents were negligent in allowing their child at age to make a decision that involved risking their life.

Now go see someone about getting your foot removed from your mouth.

again, you are wrong, US Law and emancipated minors. learn it, love it

The third means of becoming an emancipated minor is to enlist in any of the United States Armed Forces. This has been increasingly difficult in recent years, due to the military's new policies concerning minimal educational requirements. If a potential enlistee can produce a valid high school diploma or GED, the chances of enlisting as a minor are somewhat better. During times of a civilian draft, a 16 year old minor may be able to petition the military for an early enlistment. Once a minor is officially inducted into military service, he or she is automatically granted emancipated minor status.

What is an Emancipated Minor?

Now signing the paper at 16 which my parents allowed didn't put me in any imminent danger, maybe you could argue that attending boot camp did, but the day I reported to
the MEPS station at 17 y/o to head to Ft Dix, NJ I became an emancipated minor and therefor they weren't responsible.


Of course an equal argument could be made that joining the military does not automatically put someone at imminent risk either. I know military members who never went to combat in an entire career. And in fact I certainly didn't until age 19 when I got shipped to Iraq the first time.

 

[Article 15]

Like hell signing that paper didn't put you in imminent danger. People have died and will continue to die during BMT.

And I repeat, you made the decision at 16. An age in which you argued people aren't mature enough to make such a decision. It's absurd for you to think that I am going to buy that it's somehow ok for you to make a decision that means the potential loss of your life at 16 but not ok for this 16 year to make a decision that involves the potential loss of her life.

Now dance!

 

[ConHog]

Like hell signing that paper didn't put you in imminent danger. People have died and will continue to die during BMT.

And I repeat, you made the decision at 16. An age in which you argued people aren't mature enough to make such a decision. It's absurd for you to think that I am going to buy that it's somehow ok for you to make a decision that means the potential loss of your life at 16 but not ok for this 16 year to make a decision that involves the potential loss of her life.

Now dance!

No, I didn't argue that she wasn't mature enough, what I have argued is that she didn't have the RIGHT to make that decision. She was not an emancipated minor therefor the right fell onto her parents , who do NOT have the right to place her in imminent risk. You DO have the right to put yourself there, you do NOT have the right to put your children there.

When I signed the paper at 16, ALL it said was that I would join when the summer after my junior year of high school. The day I joined I became a legally emancipated minor, meaning at that point I DID have the right to put myself into an imminently dangerous situation.

It's a subtle difference I grant you, but a difference nonetheless, you are, as usual, fighting a losing battle here.

Here, I'll give you another example, back then you could buy beer at the PXs on base no matter your age if you were in the military, I honestly don't know if that is still the case, why? Because the military considers you to be an adult.

 

[Article 15]

Like hell signing that paper didn't put you in imminent danger. People have died and will continue to die during BMT.

And I repeat, you made the decision at 16. An age in which you argued people aren't mature enough to make such a decision. It's absurd for you to think that I am going to buy that it's somehow ok for you to make a decision that means the potential loss of your life at 16 but not ok for this 16 year to make a decision that involves the potential loss of her life.

Now dance!

No, I didn't argue that she wasn't mature enough, what I have argued is that she didn't have the RIGHT to make that decision. She was not an emancipated minor therefor the right fell onto her parents , who do NOT have the right to place her in imminent risk. You DO have the right to put yourself there, you do NOT have the right to put your children there.

When I signed the paper at 16, ALL it said was that I would join when the summer after my junior year of high school. The day I joined I became a legally emancipated minor, meaning at that point I DID have the right to put myself into an imminently dangerous situation.

It's a subtle difference I grant you, but a difference nonetheless, you are, as usual, fighting a losing battle here.

Here, I'll give you another example, back then you could buy beer at the PXs on base no matter your age if you were in the military, I honestly don't know if that is still the case, why? Because the military considers you to be an adult.

Yeah, the day you joined you became emancipated but before that you made the decsion to join and signed your name. At 16. As a "child."

It sounds to me like you got quite a double standard going for yourself; it's cool for you to make like risking decisions at 16 but not this girl in question.

Or maybe you just like to brag on the Net and tell people you joined the military when you were 16 and didn't think it would ever come back to bite you.

Either way, it's been fun pointing out your hypocrisy.

Have a nice night.

 

[ConHog]

Like hell signing that paper didn't put you in imminent danger. People have died and will continue to die during BMT.

And I repeat, you made the decision at 16. An age in which you argued people aren't mature enough to make such a decision. It's absurd for you to think that I am going to buy that it's somehow ok for you to make a decision that means the potential loss of your life at 16 but not ok for this 16 year to make a decision that involves the potential loss of her life.

Now dance!

No, I didn't argue that she wasn't mature enough, what I have argued is that she didn't have the RIGHT to make that decision. She was not an emancipated minor therefor the right fell onto her parents , who do NOT have the right to place her in imminent risk. You DO have the right to put yourself there, you do NOT have the right to put your children there.

When I signed the paper at 16, ALL it said was that I would join when the summer after my junior year of high school. The day I joined I became a legally emancipated minor, meaning at that point I DID have the right to put myself into an imminently dangerous situation.

It's a subtle difference I grant you, but a difference nonetheless, you are, as usual, fighting a losing battle here.

Here, I'll give you another example, back then you could buy beer at the PXs on base no matter your age if you were in the military, I honestly don't know if that is still the case, why? Because the military considers you to be an adult.

Yeah, the day you joined you became emancipated but before that you made the decsion to join and signed your name. At 16. As a "child."

It sounds to me like you got quite a double standard going for yourself; it's cool for you to make like risking decisions at 16 but not this girl in question.

Or maybe you just like to brag on the Net and tell people you joined the military when you were 16 and didn't think it would ever come back to bite you.

Either way, it's been fun pointing out your hypocrisy.

Have a nice night.

What hypocrisy you simple minded buffoon? If this girl had decided at 5 years old that she wanted to sail around the world at age 16 and went and convinced a judge to emancipate her, she would have EVERY legal right to put herself in danger. See, made the decision, but did not do the action. Just as I did I made the decision to join the military at 16, even signed an agreement to do so, but I didn't put myself in "imminent danger" until I was emancipated. it really isn't that difficult to comprehend, well not for people with brains.

 

[gslack]

You rank right up there in the top10 of stupidest posters on this site. Let me cite you FEDERAL LAW

Each State provides its own definitions of child abuse and neglect based on minimum standards set by Federal law.

How Is Child Abuse and Neglect Defined in Federal Law?

Federal legislation lays the groundwork for States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

* Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
* An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Most Federal and State child protection laws primarily refer to cases of harm to a child caused by parents or other caregivers; they generally do not include harm caused by other people, such as acquaintances or strangers.

What Is Child Abuse and Neglect?

Clearly they failed to prevent their daughter from doing something that presented an imminent risk of serious harm. You can NOT argue with this. It's a law, it's on the books, you don't like it, go petition to have it changed, but the law is the law.

One thing.... You need to show malice or proper cause for a claim of abuse.... And the fact the kid was not abused or mistreated at all, in fact the kid was given sailing lessons and her own boat for christs sake.. A poor choice that is not a pattern or an average of several which result in harm to the child, is not abuse you nitwit reactionary....

Now get over yourself asshole, you are not the dictator you seem to think you are...

I just cited the law, show me where in that it says you have to show malice moron. In fact you do not. If I hand my 2 y/o a loaded pistol just because I think it would make a cute picture and someone turned me in I would be investigated for neglect. Same difference. Nowhere in that law does it say malice. You just made that shit up to try to cover your own weak ass opinion.

malice.......................................

"You need to show malice or proper cause for a claim of abuse..."

If you plan on quoting me douchebag, best do so correctly...

There was no intentional harm, and there was no visible signs of a pattern of deliberate abuse or neglect....

And going to bed is not running tool, and trying to pretend it is, especially after telling me you were done arguing with me and leaving earlier...

you wish I would run then you could bury your ignorance...

 

[ConHog]

One thing.... You need to show malice or proper cause for a claim of abuse.... And the fact the kid was not abused or mistreated at all, in fact the kid was given sailing lessons and her own boat for christs sake.. A poor choice that is not a pattern or an average of several which result in harm to the child, is not abuse you nitwit reactionary....

Now get over yourself asshole, you are not the dictator you seem to think you are...

I just cited the law, show me where in that it says you have to show malice moron. In fact you do not. If I hand my 2 y/o a loaded pistol just because I think it would make a cute picture and someone turned me in I would be investigated for neglect. Same difference. Nowhere in that law does it say malice. You just made that shit up to try to cover your own weak ass opinion.

malice.......................................

"You need to show malice or proper cause for a claim of abuse..."

If you plan on quoting me douchebag, best do so correctly...

There was no intentional harm, and there was no visible signs of a pattern of deliberate abuse or neglect....

And going to bed is not running tool, and trying to pretend it is, especially after telling me you were done arguing with me and leaving earlier...

you wish I would run then you could bury your ignorance...

You don't have to show EITHER . all you have to show is that a parent's neglect allowed a child to enter into a situation that was imminently dangerous. NOWHERE in the law does it say anything about just cause or malice.

 

[gslack]

I just cited the law, show me where in that it says you have to show malice moron. In fact you do not. If I hand my 2 y/o a loaded pistol just because I think it would make a cute picture and someone turned me in I would be investigated for neglect. Same difference. Nowhere in that law does it say malice. You just made that shit up to try to cover your own weak ass opinion.

malice.......................................

"You need to show malice or proper cause for a claim of abuse..."

If you plan on quoting me douchebag, best do so correctly...

There was no intentional harm, and there was no visible signs of a pattern of deliberate abuse or neglect....

And going to bed is not running tool, and trying to pretend it is, especially after telling me you were done arguing with me and leaving earlier...

you wish I would run then you could bury your ignorance...

You don't have to show EITHER . all you have to show is that a parent's neglect allowed a child to enter into a situation that was imminently dangerous. NOWHERE in the law does it say anything about just cause or malice.

BULLSHIT interpretive nonsense...... Grow up asshole you can't just make shit up whenever you feel like it.... THe law does not say any such thing like you just claimed.....

For something to be deemed any crime you have to show cause. If the law was interpreted the way you just did, there would be no need for a manslaughter ruling moron....

 

[ConHog]

"You need to show malice or proper cause for a claim of abuse..."

If you plan on quoting me douchebag, best do so correctly...

There was no intentional harm, and there was no visible signs of a pattern of deliberate abuse or neglect....

And going to bed is not running tool, and trying to pretend it is, especially after telling me you were done arguing with me and leaving earlier...

you wish I would run then you could bury your ignorance...

You don't have to show EITHER . all you have to show is that a parent's neglect allowed a child to enter into a situation that was imminently dangerous. NOWHERE in the law does it say anything about just cause or malice.

BULLSHIT interpretive nonsense...... Grow up asshole you can't just make shit up whenever you feel like it.... THe law does not say any such thing like you just claimed.....

For something to be deemed any crime you have to show cause. If the law was interpreted the way you just did, there would be no need for a manslaughter ruling moron....

You notice that there are only two people arguing this point with me. You and Syrenne? Wonder why. ANd give it up pal, she's not going to send you nude pictures just because you tried to play captain save a ho on a message board.

 

[gslack]

You don't have to show EITHER . all you have to show is that a parent's neglect allowed a child to enter into a situation that was imminently dangerous. NOWHERE in the law does it say anything about just cause or malice.

BULLSHIT interpretive nonsense...... Grow up asshole you can't just make shit up whenever you feel like it.... THe law does not say any such thing like you just claimed.....

For something to be deemed any crime you have to show cause. If the law was interpreted the way you just did, there would be no need for a manslaughter ruling moron....

You notice that there are only two people arguing this point with me. You and Syrenne? Wonder why. ANd give it up pal, she's not going to send you nude pictures just because you tried to play captain save a ho on a message board.

OMG, you unconscionable lying little POS... YOU JUST ARGUED THIS WITH ANOTHER POSTER..... WTF man... You just argued with another person when i came back in....

Are you off your meds asshole?

EDIT: thats it moron make it a childish rant..... Only a true douchebag would act the way you just did... That only proves, this isn't about anything but you being right... Well fuck you pal, you are not right...

 

[ConHog]

BULLSHIT interpretive nonsense...... Grow up asshole you can't just make shit up whenever you feel like it.... THe law does not say any such thing like you just claimed.....

For something to be deemed any crime you have to show cause. If the law was interpreted the way you just did, there would be no need for a manslaughter ruling moron....

You notice that there are only two people arguing this point with me. You and Syrenne? Wonder why. ANd give it up pal, she's not going to send you nude pictures just because you tried to play captain save a ho on a message board.

OMG, you unconscionable lying little POS... YOU JUST ARGUED THIS WITH ANOTHER POSTER..... WTF man... You just argued with another person when i came back in....

Are you off your meds asshole?

EDIT: thats it moron make it a childish rant..... Only a true douchebag would act the way you just did... That only proves, this isn't about anything but you being right... Well fuck you pal, you are not right...

HA , you're talking about art15? he doesn't argue points, he just does fly by insults, read all of his posts and point me to the one where he posted this wasn't neglect? He never made that argument.


poor gslack can't read

Oh and its pretty clear who is acting childish in this thread.............

 

[gslack]

You notice that there are only two people arguing this point with me. You and Syrenne? Wonder why. ANd give it up pal, she's not going to send you nude pictures just because you tried to play captain save a ho on a message board.

OMG, you unconscionable lying little POS... YOU JUST ARGUED THIS WITH ANOTHER POSTER..... WTF man... You just argued with another person when i came back in....

Are you off your meds asshole?

EDIT: thats it moron make it a childish rant..... Only a true douchebag would act the way you just did... That only proves, this isn't about anything but you being right... Well fuck you pal, you are not right...

HA , you're talking about art15? he doesn't argue points, he just does fly by insults, read all of his posts and point me to the one where he posted this wasn't neglect? He never made that argument.


poor gslack can't read

Oh and its pretty clear who is acting childish in this thread.............

Ah going to try and change your claim now?

Okay tool lets settle this...

you said the following...

"You notice that there are only two people arguing this point with me. You and Syrenne?"

then I said this...

"YOU JUST ARGUED THIS WITH ANOTHER POSTER."

then your excuse is....

"HA , you're talking about art15? he doesn't argue points, he just does fly by insults, read all of his posts and point me to the one where he posted this wasn't neglect?"

WTF??? So, if you don't like a person than they don't count? And if they don't say something exactly they way you want them to, then their argument is something else entirely?

WOW, you really are that full of yourself.... I thought you were just an asshole, but I see here you are for worse than that...

First your response about the "beating your wife" was a little telling of you, and now we see you trying to interpret law to suit your own desires, lying about other posts, and altering your own claims to suit your current argument....

you sure do give the "im the boss" vibe pal.... In fact you give a definite sense of a control freak...

Well dickhead, you may be able to bully the women and young people in your life, but you better work on it if you plan on trying it with me or other people with a backbone... Most of us do not knuckle under to bullies, liars, or over bearing men with an overblown sense of self importance...