3 ms·
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-define
by 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 agoIf there is no danger, why do you think parental presence is needed at that particular moment?
- asgeir 6y agoAs 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 agoThey 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 agoSo having a unreasonable fixed guideline, that if consistently applied causes CPS intervention in many totally fine situations, is better?
- asgeir 6y agoI didn't say it was. I've merely speculated on why this particular law is in place.
- hurxnid 6y ago16 is hardly a child. 10pm? That’s insane and psychologically damaging to kids.