3 ms·
I don't really see it that way. From a legal perspective, it's just preventing legitimate parenting techniques from being dragged into an over-broad definition
by Invictus0 9y ago
I don't really see it that way. From a legal perspective, it's just preventing legitimate parenting techniques from being dragged into an over-broad definition of neglect.
- d--b 9y agoI understand the intent. And this makes sense. I'm just saying that we're seeing a case of "negligence is everything except what is specifically mentioned as being authorized".
- mieseratte 9y agoWell, we're seeing a case where a type of parenting is viewed as neglectful, so we're adding a law to enshrine it's legality in the face of changing cultural norms among certain sets of the population. This is not the same as "Anything not enshrined in law is unauthorized."
- proofbygazing 9y agoThis seems like a matter of the legislature reining in law-enforcement whose interpretations have become overly broad, something legislatures (and Congress) also sometimes does to the judicial system. I agree that it can be cast in an awkward light but it's not uncommon.
- Naritai 9y agoYeah I think OP is highlighting the presence of the over-broad definition of neglect in the first place.