Social workers out to scupper 13-year-old girl’s round-world voyage
Mike Perham sailed into the record books yesterday as the youngest person to circumnavigate the globe single-handedly but his entry is under threat from a 13-year-old Dutch girl, Laura Dekker, who wants to make her own round-the-world voyage. Today she will find out whether the Dutch courts will let her do it.And predictably enough, the first comment I saw was:
Laura’s parents have agreed to her plans, but the Dutch Council for Child Protection is so concerned about the potential dangers of the trip that it has asked Utrecht District Court to grant it temporary custody of her so that it can keep her on dry land.
Another example of nanny state trying to run people's lives for them. If there is a proper support system in place she should be allowed to go.And MY first reaction was to agree: if she wants to do it, she should crack on -personal responsibility and all that. But, then it occurred to me: She's 13, i.e by any standard metric, a child. And that we prosecute parents with neglect for leaving 12 year-olds on their own and buggering off to Spain for the weekend. How is this different?
I don't think, as Libertarians, we disagree that parents have to take responsibility for their kids until those kids reach an age where they can look after themselves. Further, if those parents fail to look after the kids (however the hell you gauge such things), we don't have any problem with someone -i.e. a social worker or equivalent- stepping in to act in the child's best interests if they have been compromised by the actions or inactions of the parents (see Baby P).
(NB: If anyone has seen an argument contrary to this, point it out to me)
So, is what they're doing, is allowing their child to attempt this 'round the world sailing venture akin to neglect?
It's certainly dangerous, and the fact that the youngest person to do it so far was a 17 year old boy (physiologically very different) doesn't really help matters. I also think that if she were to die in the attempt, the Times' reporting would be a sight more aggressive to the parents, as well as to the social workers (who will never win) for not stopping them after learning of the event.
Would you let her go, if she were your child? Pretty sure I wouldn't.
Is the state justified in stopping her if the parents won't? Probably, at least by any objective standard I can come up with.
What do you lot reckon?
15 comments:
You asked so here is what I reckon:
As a father of three I would not allow any of my children to undertake this at the age of 13. That's my perogative as their parent but If we accept the Dutch authorities stance on this we accept that the state has more authority over our own children than we do as parents. I can-not accept this.
I'm so torn on this one. For completeness then:
So if they did let her go, and she drowned somewhere, would you endorse their prosecution for neglect?
I don't see it as neglect. Did we prosecute as neglect the parents of those scouts who died in canoes, or who slipped and fell off mountains? Life has dangers both for adults and children, we can't legislate every danger away. Would you argue to prosecute the parents of a child killed in a plane crash where the parents didn't accompany them?
For me this is not about neglect, it's about state interferance
Wasn't attempting to legislate away danger, nor was I attempting to increase state interference, which I would love to see reduced to point of barely exisiting, but your examples (the canoes, the mountain claiming, the aircraft journey) aren't really equivalent. The sporting activities are known risks with adult supervison; the plane is a tiny risk irrespective of adult company; Sending a 13 year old kid unaccompanied round the world on a yacht is just this side of suicidal.
So I'll re-phrase in extremis:
How stupid a thing can a parent allow before you would consider it neglectful, if at all?
Get a fucking grip!
We're talking about a thirteen year old girl being permitted by her parents to sail around the world on her own!
The parents are clearly fucking nuts. Like Mr Slug, I am torn on it too. But, someone needed to step in. If not the state, who?
Your question seems to be predicated on the "fact" that the parents in this case are being neglectful. As I said earlier, as a father of three I'd not entertain it for any of my children, but I know my children pretty well and know they are not capable of it. Laura's parents also appear to know their daughter pretty well and I'd argue better than the state does and they've explained quite clearly why they believe she is capable.
My point is, why does the state think it's better qualified to judge Laura's competence than her parents, and as a society should we allow the state to have the final say? - I say no.
I'll decline to answer your explicit question because it's actually very difficult to answer without further thought, but it's a well posed question which I shall give consideration to.
Okey doke.
And for the record: the only place I think we would disagree on the issue -if at all- is at what point on the sliding scale of recklessness(for want of a better phrase) would we want someone to intervene.
Looking at this from a purely financial point of view, the Dutch government HAS to step in. They merely protecting their asset. They have a vested interest in that child living, getting educated, and working until she is 65.
There is more info (and links) over at my place, but the short story is this: within 42 days of our birth, we had to be registered. Several things happened at this time but here are the two most important.
1. Whenever anything is registered, ownership is given away. (children, cars, guns etc). Whoever we registered them with now has title to them.
2. Once we registered our children the government set up Live Birth Trusts (to which only they have access) and every quarter they take a dividend. A standard Brit is reckoned to be worth around 1 million quid over his/her lifetime. The government "mortgages" the value of your labour. Believe this or not, but you (and I) are traded like commodities. Tonight I may appear on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and on Monday I may reappear on the LSE. Later that day my funds could have traveled around the world. (Part of my new mission in life is to gain access to, and control over, this fund).
To answer the original question, I would not allow a child of mine to circumnavigate the world on his own at 13. Purely for selfish reasons: there is now way I could last 2 years without sleep.
That was a thing I didn't pick up on until I read the Beeb version:
2 Years?
Shouldn't she be at school or something?
Agree with Mark Hendy.
And I find it strange that, should they decide to let her have a sexual relationship - even a child - with her boyfriend instead of a round the world voyage, no-one would turn a hair, much less demand the SS intervene.
Yet which course of action is most likely to change her future for the worst?
Erm, given the inherent danger of a child sailing around the world for two years on their own:
The sailing trip?
And I don't disagree with Mark, what I'm trying to establish is how nuts does something need to be allowed to happen before someone else steps in?
Juggling with chainsaws ok?
I think what's interesting is their own justification.
"That it will negativly effect her development"
This isnt about H&S, or it wouldnt be legal for her to drive a boat in the first place, this is about goverment deciding what is heatlhy for a childs *mental* development.
School can always be picked up later, lagging behind by 2 years, whilst having such a title under your belt will not be seen as a disadvantage by any employer or college that i am aware of.
Well Slug, I'm with you on this one. It's insane to let a thirteen year old waif-like girl undertake a trip like this. Quite apart from the isolation the physical demands of this trip are enormous. As you rightly point out the average adventure holiday is in no way comparable. If this trip goes ahead and subsequently goes wrong there will be hell to pay. Sometimes we just need a little common-sense.
I noticed on James Higham's blog that the previous 'youngest' had a back up team which never interfered and was there throughout. This child has been brought up on water and no doubt possesses skills that I and you dream about, so the question, as far as I can see is: is she mature enough to take this on single handed?
But, she already has the ability, so should we judge her by our failings (or non achievements) or should we just give her the same back-up that Dame Whotshername had?
Sounds to me that this girl/young lady knows what she wants, her parents believe she is capable and the rest is , oh, how can I put this? - woo!
If she is more educationally advanced in her chosen field and has a possibility of achieving the record(and she has the cheating back-up that the others had) by all means give her the chance.
Alternatively, name three people, who, when the limit of your life was approx. 35 years, managed to rule the known world?
Oh!
See what I did there?
STB.
If she were my child, I wouldn't let her go.
I don't doubt her ability at the sailing, but I doubt her ability to cope with the corruption, officialdom, pirates, politicians, rip-off artists, etc etc that any trip like this will inevitably encounter.
Having said all that, she's not my child, so it's none of my business; and the same applies to the Dutch (or any other) social workers.
Post a Comment