h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In order to minimise the nonsense currently going on elsewhere, this is a thread in which to discuss HYPOTHETICAL child abduction scenarios, and our attitudes to them.

Please do not waste everyone's time by assuming any particular child abducted from any particular place at any particular time is implied.

Most especially do not mention the name of any child who has been abducted, as this will DEFINITELY, demonstrably, result in censorship.

So - HYPOTHETICALLY remember - is leaving a child under the age of four unattended over 100 metres away while you have a meal in a restaurant *criminally* negligent? And if not, shouldn't it be?

SoRB

A plea to those wishing to discuss this subject:

1. Please do not explicitly mention any recent child abduction cases. That way lies pointless nonsense with moderators. Keep it hypothetical.

2. Please be as witheringly sarcastic as possible about the kind of low-brow moron who can't stand to see people who disagree with them discussing something and has to shout them down by any means possible.

3. Please be as creatively ironic as possible in your efforts to make it absolutely clear to these idiots that we are discussing a PRINCIPLE, not a specific case.

Yes, parents should be held liable for the safety and well-being of their children at all times.

If we were discussing a nursery school leaving a group of very young children unattended whilst the staff were off socialising, surely we would be looking for arrests and ambulance-chasing lawyers would be filing court papers within days.

We have clear legislation detailing the Duty of Care workers have towards children. Perhaps it's time that the same principles were codified for parents.

>>Sorry, I'm not hot on sarcasm or irony.

how about we clarify the law?
As far as I know it's not legal to leave children under a certain age alone in a house.

Now, that's difficult - if you're hanging out the washing in the back garden, and the baby is asleep in the front room, you might be 200 or 300 metres away from them.

200 or 300 metres? Big houses in Germany then. 20 or 30 metres maybe. In fact, I make it 15 metres in our house.

I think what is crucial is what can be defined as "reasonable". It's reasonable to hang up washing. It's reasonable to chat with a neighbour in the front garden. It's reasonable to nip across to the ice-cream van. It's reasonable to take a shower.

It's unreasonable to head off on a night out.

eep, I meant 20 or 30... finger trouble
sorry.
(although they are big houses round here)

In principle, it's bad to leave children on their own whilst you go out on the lash.

In practise, it's fine as long as a few criteria are met:

1) The kid's pretty
2) You have the tabloids on speed dial.

3) you're not a Chav

4) Can afford to spend several weeks/months off work 'looking' for said child around the globe after they are abducted.

Wow, what a nasty thread.

OK, it's deffo taking a turn for the worse

How about this: say the unspeakable happens and a child is abducted. What should parents do?
What should the rest of us do?

I'm not sure that absolute distances or times are actually the important thing - it's the real risk (rather than the tabloid-inspired percieved risk) that should be the issue in deciding how responsible a behaviour is.

How many children actually get abducted from inside buildings each year?

How many drown in the bath or a paddling pool while people are distracted a short distance away? How many drown in the sea?
How many die playing with matches?
How many parents/guardians actually get legally blamed for any of the above?

Would it make things worse in blame terms if someone else was involved *even if* the odds of that happening were relatively low?

If, in SoRB's scenario , there were other facilities available for the care/watch of the hypothetical child, then yes, I am inclined towards agreeing with his proposed legal 'adjustment'

Novo

"If, in SoRB's scenario , there were other facilities available for the care/watch of the hypothetical child, then yes, I am inclined towards agreeing with his proposed legal 'adjustment'"



I don't understand. You're saying abandoning a child is criminally negligent only if there's a babysitter you could have used but didn't?

So if you go somewhere where there's no such service, and you abandon a child, it's OK?

Do you really mean that?

Surely criminal neglect is criminal neglect?

Making bad parenting crimnal?

Isnt that the nanny state or PC or something gone mad?

Why bother making it a crime? When it already is. One famous case of a mother leaving her son behind while she went on holiday resulted in no prosecution because the son came to no harm. Knowing something is a crime doesnt stop people doing it, just look at the number of untaxed vehicles and unlicensed drivers on our roads. If something is a crime it only allows us to punish transgressors I imagine the McHypotheicals feelings of guilt go far beyoond any punishment we could dish out to them.


The only two reasons that a crimnal record for child abuse which neglect falls under would have a real and lasting effect is that it could mean you have any other and subsequent children taken away. This already happens in some extreme cases regardless of criminal convictions anyway. The other way is that you are in some cases no allowed to work with children, but what the point of that unless you represent a threat to children. I know one woman who had a really stinky, dirty house but she kept the school I went to clean. Lots of Doctors smoke but tend to be on message about the dangers of smoking when it comes to their patients.

If you are really bad at looking after your children it shows, to me atleast, something other than a criminal intent to get shot of them. If that were the case you could probably make a fair few bob flogging them on the baby market or just drop them off at social services or ont he church doorstep.

Its a waste of time making more things crimes we already have enough laws to protect children we just need to use them effectively.

one love

Elrond,

I agree that you need to look at the real risk, but the questions you ask don't quite get at that. Take this one:

"How many children actually get abducted from inside buildings each year?"

What you really need to know is how many get abducted from inside buildings when (a) their parents are present, and (b) their parents are not present. You also need to know how often and for how long on average parents leave their children unattended.

In other words, the fact that hardly any children get abducted from inside buildings each year doesn't necessarily mean that the risk of leaving a child unattended is small because most parents don't leave them unattended.

Having said that, I'd guess that even taking that into account, the risk of abduction is negligible compared to almost every other danger that children face.

"The only two reasons that a crimnal record for child abuse which neglect falls under would have a real and lasting effect is that it could mean you have any other and subsequent children taken away."

Absolutely. No person who had abandoned a child under the circumstances described is fit to look after children. In any such hypothetical case, I would hope that any other children in their family would be taken into care *immediately*, never to return. No excuses, no second chances, no appeals, you ABANDONED YOUR CHILD, you're not having any more, and if you do, the state will take them from you as well, and have
them brought up by people who give a shit.

Of course, this sort of thing happens all the time to working class families. One can only hope the policy is applied equally and fairly.

SoRB

"One can only hope the policy is applied equally and fairly."

No SoRB

I simply meant, but expressed badly, that in your hypothetical situ, if a service was available it should be used. Not using it would amount to 'criminally responsible'

Novo

And never mind abduction... how about if you leave your child alone while you go out, and the child wakes up from a nightmare, what kind of psychological scarring will that leave? Or what if they fall out of bed and wake up hurting with no-one to kiss it better? Why would anyone think it acceptable to risk a small child waking up alone and scared? Why would you do that to someone you love?

Deb