5 ms·

They are allowed to be outside after curfew, they just need to have adult supervision to do so.

by asgeir 6y ago

seppel 6y ago
"just"
Shared404 6y ago
That's an awful big "just" you got there. They may as well just be told you can't be outside during curfew.
- asgeir 6y ago
  The child protection law says that a child is entitled to care and protection. It then goes on to define that a child out past curfew is a type of neglect. According to the law the child is not at fault, the parents are for not providing adequate care. Do you really think it's unreasonable to ask that children out after 10pm (midnight during the summer months) have someone looking after their safety?
  - skrebbel 6y ago
    Yes. EDIT: I'll clarify. You refer to safety. I grew up in a place where being outside as a teenager was perfectly safe, also at night. I want the same for my kids, and it's totally achievable. I think the whole idea that the world is somehow "unsafe" and that the parents need to constantly helicopter to guard their offspring from all the evil pedos and thieves and lunatics, is a fundamentally harmful idea. Now, I do recognize that America is pretty scary, with their gun laws ensuring that either a gang member of a cop can shoot you dead on the spot if you dare take a snickers out of your pocket while they see it, but not all places are like that. Iceland sure isn't. There's no good reason, in affluent places at least, for "the outside" to be dangerous. And if it is then that's the problem that needs to be addressed, not parents who want to allow their kids to learn their own life lessons. I think this article has plenty good ideas but I don't think legally enforced helicopter parenting is one of them.
    - asgeir 6y ago
      why? 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).
      - watwut 6y ago
        If there is no danger, why do you think parental presence is needed at that particular moment?
        asgeir 6y ago
        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.
        hurxnid 6y ago
        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.
        detaro 6y ago
        So having a unreasonable fixed guideline, that if consistently applied causes CPS intervention in many totally fine situations, is better?
        asgeir 6y ago
        I didn't say it was. I've merely speculated on why this particular law is in place.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    Some of my favourite memories involve being out with my friends walking around well after midnight, having discussions that would most certainly not be had in the presence of any of our guardians. > Do you really think it's unreasonable to ask that children out after 10pm (midnight during the summer months) have someone looking after their safety? Depends. If it's a _child_ proper, like under the age of 14-15 at the _highest_, then no. If they are old enough to be their own person, then yes, absolutely.
    - asgeir 6y ago
      The law doesn't say parent or guardian. Only an adult. It can be a parent, sibling, friend of the family, whatever. > Depends. If it's a _child_ proper, like under the age of 14-15 at the _highest_, then no The law applies to children aged 16 and younger.
      - ginko 6y ago
        16-year olds aren't children.
        asgeir 6y ago
        According to icelandic law a person under the age of 18 is a child.
        hurxnid 6y ago
        That doesn’t make it true.
      - Shared404 6y ago
        > law doesn't say parent or guardian. Only an adult. ... Same still applies for anyone who is not one of the threeish people I had in my close circle at that point. > The law applies to children aged 16 and younger. I said I disagreed with what the law states, and listed my reasons. I know it's 16 and younger, I said that I believe it should be 14, or 15 at the absolute highest.
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    Yes, I do. In fact, characterizing it as neglect makes me think even less of this. It's essentially "if you don't raise your kids the way you're told then you're neglecting then and we will be forced to intervene".
    - asgeir 6y ago
      You could make the same argument against any definition of neglect. I think that this cutoff point is in there to make sure that the law gets evenly applied. Otherwise CPS would have to make a judgement call and you can't guarantee that everyone gets equal treatment that way.
      - hurxnid 6y ago
        Why stop there? It is obvious that poor diet and lack of exercise is much worse. Maybe if your kid can’t run a certain speed or has a bad BMI you get the jackboots at your door threatening to lock both you and your kid up.
  - reificator 6y ago
    > Do you really think it's unreasonable to ask that children out after 10pm (midnight during the summer months) have someone looking after their safety? Through their 17th birthday? You bet your ass I do. Don't get me wrong I remember what I was like at those ages. But the experiences and pain I had during those years when I had a much larger safety net have paid back many times over in avoiding or safely navigating those same types of experiences without nearly as much support. I was not always safe during those years. But without those experiences I would have made much more irreversible mistakes. Eventually children have to grow up, and part of growing up is being responsible for your own health and safety. Robbing children of practice in a safer environment is not keeping them safe, even if it feels like it in the moment.
    - asgeir 6y ago
      I agree. I think 17 is too long, I would argue that 15 is more appropriate.
      - reificator 6y ago
        Say you're 14, and you're not comfortable with the current situation. If you snuck out, knowing you're breaking the law and will be punished for doing so, that's one more very large barrier preventing you from seeking help. To get back to what I was saying in my previous post, I had some... unpleasant situations when I was 14. (and many other ages) But my family trusted me, and I knew that even if they weren't going to be very happy, if I needed to call and get help I wasn't going to face any meaningful consequences for doing so. In fact I was much more likely to face those consequences if I didn't reach out. So there are a few times I called and got an uncomfortable ride and a few lectures. But I was safe, and I learned how to better take care of myself. Curfews make kids feel like they have fewer options when things already aren't going well. The curfews certainly aren't in place to keep them safer.
        asgeir 6y ago
        Iceland has mandatory education until you are 15 years of age which is why I would pick that as a natural cutoff point. You'll get into the same type of trouble for truancy as for breaking this curfew so I would argue that the curfew shouldn't extend beyond the mandatory education period. EDIT: That type of trouble being you'll have to go with your parents to see a psychiatrist to see if everything is OK at home.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    RE: All children of asgeir's comment directly above this. I think most of the disagreement in this thread comes from when is someone no longer considered a child. According to the applicable laws, anyone under 18 is still a child, and needs to be treated as such. Most people in the thread are arguing that 18 is to high of an age for this, while others are arguing that it is the proper age. I personally believe that setting this age at 18 detrimentally affect those youth, who will become adults who are less individualistic and less capable. I may or may not be wrong about this. Read reificators comment for a better phrasing of this. Those who believe that this is the proper age believe that this is protecting those youth and allowing them to grow into the adults they have potential to become. They may or may not be wrong about this.
    - asgeir 6y ago
      I agree. I think that a curfew until you are 17 is a bit too long. Elementary school education (which is mandated by law) ends after 15 years of age so I think that would be a more natural cutoff for this law and I think that any curfew after that age should be up to the parents.
    - ginko 6y ago
      Personally I don't even disagree about the cut-off date for what constitutes a child. It's the arbitrary 10pm curfew I take issue with. One of my favorite childhood memories from elementary school (I was probably 9 or 10) was me sleeping in a tent in the backgarden of a classmate. We'd go out exploring the town late at night. This was in a ~2000 people town mind you. Do I think having laws prohibiting something like this is overreaching? Damn right I do.
      - Shared404 6y ago
        Fair enough. I can understand where you're coming from and agree, I was just summing up the thread so far because the same conversation was being had multiple places.
      - asgeir 6y ago
        I think that 10pm in winter is derived from the following. Child comes home at 10pm, it might take an hour to get ready for bed, then you get 8 hours of sleep before you wake up at 7am for school at 8am.
  - hurxnid 6y ago
    It is absolutely unreasonable and sad.

They are allowed to be outside after curfew, they just need to have adult supervision to do so.

by asgeir 6y ago

They are allowed to be outside after curfew, they just need to have adult supervision to do so.

seppel 6y ago

"just"

Shared404 6y ago

That's an awful big "just" you got there. They may as well just be told you can't be outside during curfew.

asgeir 6y ago
The child protection law says that a child is entitled to care and protection. It then goes on to define that a child out past curfew is a type of neglect. According to the law the child is not at fault, the parents are for not providing adequate care. Do you really think it's unreasonable to ask that children out after 10pm (midnight during the summer months) have someone looking after their safety?
- skrebbel 6y ago
  Yes. EDIT: I'll clarify. You refer to safety. I grew up in a place where being outside as a teenager was perfectly safe, also at night. I want the same for my kids, and it's totally achievable. I think the whole idea that the world is somehow "unsafe" and that the parents need to constantly helicopter to guard their offspring from all the evil pedos and thieves and lunatics, is a fundamentally harmful idea. Now, I do recognize that America is pretty scary, with their gun laws ensuring that either a gang member of a cop can shoot you dead on the spot if you dare take a snickers out of your pocket while they see it, but not all places are like that. Iceland sure isn't. There's no good reason, in affluent places at least, for "the outside" to be dangerous. And if it is then that's the problem that needs to be addressed, not parents who want to allow their kids to learn their own life lessons. I think this article has plenty good ideas but I don't think legally enforced helicopter parenting is one of them.
  - asgeir 6y ago
    why? 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).
    - watwut 6y ago
      If there is no danger, why do you think parental presence is needed at that particular moment?
      - asgeir 6y ago
        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.
        hurxnid 6y ago
        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.
        detaro 6y ago
        So having a unreasonable fixed guideline, that if consistently applied causes CPS intervention in many totally fine situations, is better?
        asgeir 6y ago
        I didn't say it was. I've merely speculated on why this particular law is in place.
- Shared404 6y ago
  Some of my favourite memories involve being out with my friends walking around well after midnight, having discussions that would most certainly not be had in the presence of any of our guardians. > Do you really think it's unreasonable to ask that children out after 10pm (midnight during the summer months) have someone looking after their safety? Depends. If it's a _child_ proper, like under the age of 14-15 at the _highest_, then no. If they are old enough to be their own person, then yes, absolutely.
  - asgeir 6y ago
    The law doesn't say parent or guardian. Only an adult. It can be a parent, sibling, friend of the family, whatever. > Depends. If it's a _child_ proper, like under the age of 14-15 at the _highest_, then no The law applies to children aged 16 and younger.
    - ginko 6y ago
      16-year olds aren't children.
      - asgeir 6y ago
        According to icelandic law a person under the age of 18 is a child.
        hurxnid 6y ago
        That doesn’t make it true.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      > law doesn't say parent or guardian. Only an adult. ... Same still applies for anyone who is not one of the threeish people I had in my close circle at that point. > The law applies to children aged 16 and younger. I said I disagreed with what the law states, and listed my reasons. I know it's 16 and younger, I said that I believe it should be 14, or 15 at the absolute highest.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  Yes, I do. In fact, characterizing it as neglect makes me think even less of this. It's essentially "if you don't raise your kids the way you're told then you're neglecting then and we will be forced to intervene".
  - asgeir 6y ago
    You could make the same argument against any definition of neglect. I think that this cutoff point is in there to make sure that the law gets evenly applied. Otherwise CPS would have to make a judgement call and you can't guarantee that everyone gets equal treatment that way.
    - hurxnid 6y ago
      Why stop there? It is obvious that poor diet and lack of exercise is much worse. Maybe if your kid can’t run a certain speed or has a bad BMI you get the jackboots at your door threatening to lock both you and your kid up.
- reificator 6y ago
  > Do you really think it's unreasonable to ask that children out after 10pm (midnight during the summer months) have someone looking after their safety? Through their 17th birthday? You bet your ass I do. Don't get me wrong I remember what I was like at those ages. But the experiences and pain I had during those years when I had a much larger safety net have paid back many times over in avoiding or safely navigating those same types of experiences without nearly as much support. I was not always safe during those years. But without those experiences I would have made much more irreversible mistakes. Eventually children have to grow up, and part of growing up is being responsible for your own health and safety. Robbing children of practice in a safer environment is not keeping them safe, even if it feels like it in the moment.
  - asgeir 6y ago
    I agree. I think 17 is too long, I would argue that 15 is more appropriate.
    - reificator 6y ago
      Say you're 14, and you're not comfortable with the current situation. If you snuck out, knowing you're breaking the law and will be punished for doing so, that's one more very large barrier preventing you from seeking help. To get back to what I was saying in my previous post, I had some... unpleasant situations when I was 14. (and many other ages) But my family trusted me, and I knew that even if they weren't going to be very happy, if I needed to call and get help I wasn't going to face any meaningful consequences for doing so. In fact I was much more likely to face those consequences if I didn't reach out. So there are a few times I called and got an uncomfortable ride and a few lectures. But I was safe, and I learned how to better take care of myself. Curfews make kids feel like they have fewer options when things already aren't going well. The curfews certainly aren't in place to keep them safer.
      - asgeir 6y ago
        Iceland has mandatory education until you are 15 years of age which is why I would pick that as a natural cutoff point. You'll get into the same type of trouble for truancy as for breaking this curfew so I would argue that the curfew shouldn't extend beyond the mandatory education period. EDIT: That type of trouble being you'll have to go with your parents to see a psychiatrist to see if everything is OK at home.
- Shared404 6y ago
  RE: All children of asgeir's comment directly above this. I think most of the disagreement in this thread comes from when is someone no longer considered a child. According to the applicable laws, anyone under 18 is still a child, and needs to be treated as such. Most people in the thread are arguing that 18 is to high of an age for this, while others are arguing that it is the proper age. I personally believe that setting this age at 18 detrimentally affect those youth, who will become adults who are less individualistic and less capable. I may or may not be wrong about this. Read reificators comment for a better phrasing of this. Those who believe that this is the proper age believe that this is protecting those youth and allowing them to grow into the adults they have potential to become. They may or may not be wrong about this.
  - asgeir 6y ago
    I agree. I think that a curfew until you are 17 is a bit too long. Elementary school education (which is mandated by law) ends after 15 years of age so I think that would be a more natural cutoff for this law and I think that any curfew after that age should be up to the parents.
  - ginko 6y ago
    Personally I don't even disagree about the cut-off date for what constitutes a child. It's the arbitrary 10pm curfew I take issue with. One of my favorite childhood memories from elementary school (I was probably 9 or 10) was me sleeping in a tent in the backgarden of a classmate. We'd go out exploring the town late at night. This was in a ~2000 people town mind you. Do I think having laws prohibiting something like this is overreaching? Damn right I do.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      Fair enough. I can understand where you're coming from and agree, I was just summing up the thread so far because the same conversation was being had multiple places.
    - asgeir 6y ago
      I think that 10pm in winter is derived from the following. Child comes home at 10pm, it might take an hour to get ready for bed, then you get 8 hours of sleep before you wake up at 7am for school at 8am.
- hurxnid 6y ago
  It is absolutely unreasonable and sad.