Re:How Iceland got teens to say no to drugs (2017)
by watwut on Saturday July 25, 2020 @04:11PM
(#23952030)
If there is no danger, why do you think parental presence is needed at that particular moment?
Re:How Iceland got teens to say no to drugs (2017)
by asgeir on Saturday July 25, 2020 @04:27PM
(#23952124)
As I said. I think that this is to ensure that child protective services have a fixed guideline to work with. If the definition of neglect is specific you have a better chance of the law being applied equally to all.
Re:How Iceland got teens to say no to drugs (2017)
by hurxnid on Saturday July 25, 2020 @05:11PM
(#23952458)
They don’t need to be involved at all. Getting coffee with a friend at 10pm on a Friday when you are 16 is not “parental neglect”. Anyone who thinks that the law should get involved with that has so much wrong with their worldview it is almost impossible to unpack. It is not a healthy outlook. And it hurts kids.
Re:How Iceland got teens to say no to drugs (2017)
by detaro on Saturday July 25, 2020 @05:13PM
(#23952480)
So having a unreasonable fixed guideline, that if consistently applied causes CPS intervention in many totally fine situations, is better?
EDIT: I think that the 10pm/midnight cutoff point is less about some danger switch getting flipped at midnight and more about there being some well-defined point where CPS need to step in and ask the parents why their children are unsupervised. If it's vaguely defined it makes enforcement of the law more difficult or will cause the law to be unevenly applied (something like poor kids get neglected because CPS can't prove neglect).