Young children can't be home alone, BC judge rules

[MAPearce]

please try and debate w/o getting personal. Thanks

I'm working on it Trip....

[flamingfingers]

MAP: The response will be:

"I was just following orders."

Cop out.

[MAPearce]

MAP: The response will be:

"I was just following orders."

Cop out.

Geez.. I don't quite know how to take that ... are you a "social" worker ?

Wait a minute..

Ok D .. Perhaps you'd offer your "expertise" on this ...

How is the arbitrary removal of children from loving homes without reason a benefit to the children ???

NOW I get it ...

You're right ....

[Puddlejumper40]

*removed*

[MAPearce]

*removed*

[Puddlejumper40]

*removed*

[MAPearce]

Lets get this back on track ...

Would a child care "expert" dare to answer this question I have asked more than once ?

How is the arbitrary removal of children from loving homes without reason a benefit to the children ???

It seems in the issue for our Kelowna dad , the reason was that the oldest child was a mere two or three months younger than the ministry "guide lines" ... I doubt I'm the only one who would reject that as a valid reason.

I'll ask this too ... Just because the child was only a few months away from being old enough as per the ministry guide lines , can the ministry arbitrarily remove a child because even though they have reach the guide line age , the ministry, on the basis of a "complaint" by an angry parent for only being a few months older than said guide lines ??

This whole thing is a bunch of hooey IMO.. There is nothing expert about it and the MCFD is only causing more damage to children to prove their "point" and justify their existence ..

[MAPearce]

Experts ???



Hello ??

[dirtybiker]

I have not read every post, this may have been covered somewhere already.

Why is it that at the age of 11 a child can take a babysitting course and be certified
to take care of someones baby yet, still not be old enough to be left home alone???????

As I understand it this gentlemans eldest daughter holds said certificate and was left in
charge of her younger (8) sibling.

I see no issue here.

If the Ministry wants to set an age of 13 yrs. then anyone under that age should not be able to
be certified.

Too much government meddling and double-speak me-thinks!!!!!

-db

[MAPearce]

I have not read every post, this may have been covered somewhere already.

Why is it that at the age of 11 a child can take a babysitting course and be certified
to take care of someones baby yet, still not be old enough to be left home alone???????

As I understand it this gentlemans eldest daughter holds said certificate and was left in
charge of her younger (8) sibling.

I see no issue here.

If the Ministry wants to set an age of 13 yrs. then anyone under that age should not be able to
be certified.

Too much government meddling and double-speak me-thinks!!!!!

-db

Its been asked , but I don't think the "experts" offered an answer...

Our girl has that certificate through H2O and it's interesting that the "experts" in social work think that the sponsor , National Safety Council, doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to age appropriate programmes...

Other wise , the MCFD would lower their left alone guide lines to age 11 as per the NSC age requirement for entry into the programme.

You'd think that if the NSC trains a kid at eleven to take care of younger ones , those kids are ok alone.

[Bsuds]

You'd think that if the NSC trains a kid at eleven to take care of younger ones , those kids are ok alone.

Or they are being trained so that they can babysit as soon as they turn the legal age.

[MAPearce]

Or they are being trained so that they can babysit as soon as they turn the legal age.

But .... BC doesn't have a legal age .

Remember the Kelowna dad did his research Sudsy ..

H2O is here in Kelowna BC ... right ?

[Smurf]

An interesting article that might be related to this topic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... ne/408475/

[MAPearce]

Interesting indeed , but it could NEVER happen here..

As a society , it seems we molly coddle our kids instead of empowering them with tasks that teach them the benefits of family , self reliance and community ..

The judgement in this case and the heavy hand of the MCFD , IMO , are culpable to a degree that can be debated.

[whatwhat]

I think the point of Smurf's article he posted was that we live in an individualistic society who doesn't look out for others. In eastern societies they value the whole and the group. The parent interviewed in the article was saying that if something was to happen to their children out in public, they have faith that others would come to help.

Yes, we may have to coddle our children, but is that because we live in a society, that when we see something wrong happening we just turn away?