(09-09-2015 02:24 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 11:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another example of unfounded and totally arbitrary age statues snagging people that have in no way violated any principle of non aggression.

Yep. My son is now a HS senior, but is relatively young compared to some in his class. A year ago he had a GF who was a year ahead of him, a Senior herself and I know they were *ahem* "involved". Nothing surprising there. Should she have been locked up?

By the near end of the school year last Spring she had turned 18, he still only 16. How many years do we give this little tart?

I honestly don't know what some of these people are thinking sometimes.

Where the heck and when did these people grow up? This is hardly anything new other than the ease with which to transmit the pics.

Depends on where you are. NC has sort of a sliding scale with regards to age and relationships that started when both were under 18. Basically it ends up where a 21year old cant be charged with anything as long as the other is less than 4 years younger and they were involved when both were <18 to start with. Example a 17 and 15 year old start dating and later one is 19 but the other is still 17 there's no problem because of an existing relationship.

(09-08-2015 04:24 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 04:19 PM)fsquid Wrote:  http://abc11.com/news/high-school-quarte...ge/964620/

Geeeez. A FELONY charge for consensual pics between BF/ GF?!? Man, that's a law that needs to change.

As I was clicking I had to hope I wasn't going to open it and see my nephew.

Agree if it's consensual between two minors it should not be a felony. Terrible law.

(09-09-2015 02:24 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 11:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another example of unfounded and totally arbitrary age statues snagging people that have in no way violated any principle of non aggression.

Yep. My son is now a HS senior, but is relatively young compared to some in his class. A year ago he had a GF who was a year ahead of him, a Senior herself and I know they were *ahem* "involved". Nothing surprising there. Should she have been locked up?

By the near end of the school year last Spring she had turned 18, he still only 16. How many years do we give this little tart?

I honestly don't know what some of these people are thinking sometimes.

Where the heck and when did these people grow up? This is hardly anything new other than the ease with which to transmit the pics.

If the sexes were reversed, would you still feel the same? If that was your 16 year old daughter dating an 18 year old boy does that sound different to you? Right or wrong, for many people it changes the perception of the situation.

(09-09-2015 09:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 02:24 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 11:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another example of unfounded and totally arbitrary age statues snagging people that have in no way violated any principle of non aggression.

Yep. My son is now a HS senior, but is relatively young compared to some in his class. A year ago he had a GF who was a year ahead of him, a Senior herself and I know they were *ahem* "involved". Nothing surprising there. Should she have been locked up?

By the near end of the school year last Spring she had turned 18, he still only 16. How many years do we give this little tart?

I honestly don't know what some of these people are thinking sometimes.

Where the heck and when did these people grow up? This is hardly anything new other than the ease with which to transmit the pics.

If the sexes were reversed, would you still feel the same? If that was your 16 year old daughter dating an 18 year old boy does that sound different to you? Right or wrong, for many people it changes the perception of the situation.

Well, my daughter happens to be 16. So would I "vet" her suitor perhaps a little more closely? Yes, of course. The roles are reversed.

Did the parents of my sons girl give him a walkthrough? Oh, yea.

First Gen Greek family, and this is their "Angel". Only child.

Would I do the same with my daughter when she is 18 and a Sr?

Yep. Would I press charges, or nark them out, if I were to discover pics she and a BF had going back and forth?

C'mon. What possible good does that do? Wreck a teenage kid doing what all (or most, if not fat, dumb, or lazy) teen age kids have done forever. This is nothing new, other than the method of transit.

Now this guy is a "predator" for life.

Stop. Just stop.

(09-09-2015 09:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 02:24 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 11:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another example of unfounded and totally arbitrary age statues snagging people that have in no way violated any principle of non aggression.

Yep. My son is now a HS senior, but is relatively young compared to some in his class. A year ago he had a GF who was a year ahead of him, a Senior herself and I know they were *ahem* "involved". Nothing surprising there. Should she have been locked up?

By the near end of the school year last Spring she had turned 18, he still only 16. How many years do we give this little tart?

I honestly don't know what some of these people are thinking sometimes.

Where the heck and when did these people grow up? This is hardly anything new other than the ease with which to transmit the pics.

If the sexes were reversed, would you still feel the same? If that was your 16 year old daughter dating an 18 year old boy does that sound different to you? Right or wrong, for many people it changes the perception of the situation.

It should be up to the individual parents who have the right to decide where their minor child, who the parents are responsible for, can and cannot be. If my minor son or daughter defies my order to be somewhere and an adult takes him or her in, that is kidnapping. It doesn't matter if he is 18 and she is 17. Rape is not necessarly the appropriate charge, but it is a crime.

(09-10-2015 12:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 09:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 02:24 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 11:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another example of unfounded and totally arbitrary age statues snagging people that have in no way violated any principle of non aggression.

Yep. My son is now a HS senior, but is relatively young compared to some in his class. A year ago he had a GF who was a year ahead of him, a Senior herself and I know they were *ahem* "involved". Nothing surprising there. Should she have been locked up?

By the near end of the school year last Spring she had turned 18, he still only 16. How many years do we give this little tart?

I honestly don't know what some of these people are thinking sometimes.

Where the heck and when did these people grow up? This is hardly anything new other than the ease with which to transmit the pics.

If the sexes were reversed, would you still feel the same? If that was your 16 year old daughter dating an 18 year old boy does that sound different to you? Right or wrong, for many people it changes the perception of the situation.

Well, my daughter happens to be 16. So would I "vet" her suitor perhaps a little more closely? Yes, of course. The roles are reversed.

Did the parents of my sons girl give him a walkthrough? Oh, yea.

First Gen Greek family, and this is their "Angel". Only child.

Would I do the same with my daughter when she is 18 and a Sr?

Yep. Would I press charges, or nark them out, if I were to discover pics she and a BF had going back and forth?

C'mon. What possible good does that do? Wreck a teenage kid doing what all (or most, if not fat, dumb, or lazy) teen age kids have done forever. This is nothing new, other than the method of transit.

Now this guy is a "predator" for life.

Stop. Just stop.

Yep, and it should end right there. However, you may feel differently if the adult boy was someone you told to stay away from your child and under no circumstances communicate with her again. As an adult, he has to honor that. This is a clear parental right either way.

If they really want to punish that boy without making a child predator out of him. By court order make him give up his cellphone for a year, no exceptions. Not see the girl either. If he doesn't abide by the court order then the standard punishment should prevail.

(09-10-2015 12:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 09:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 02:24 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 11:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another example of unfounded and totally arbitrary age statues snagging people that have in no way violated any principle of non aggression.

Yep. My son is now a HS senior, but is relatively young compared to some in his class. A year ago he had a GF who was a year ahead of him, a Senior herself and I know they were *ahem* "involved". Nothing surprising there. Should she have been locked up?

By the near end of the school year last Spring she had turned 18, he still only 16. How many years do we give this little tart?

I honestly don't know what some of these people are thinking sometimes.

Where the heck and when did these people grow up? This is hardly anything new other than the ease with which to transmit the pics.

If the sexes were reversed, would you still feel the same? If that was your 16 year old daughter dating an 18 year old boy does that sound different to you? Right or wrong, for many people it changes the perception of the situation.

Well, my daughter happens to be 16. So would I "vet" her suitor perhaps a little more closely? Yes, of course. The roles are reversed.

Did the parents of my sons girl give him a walkthrough? Oh, yea.

First Gen Greek family, and this is their "Angel". Only child.

Would I do the same with my daughter when she is 18 and a Sr?

Yep. Would I press charges, or nark them out, if I were to discover pics she and a BF had going back and forth?

C'mon. What possible good does that do? Wreck a teenage kid doing what all (or most, if not fat, dumb, or lazy) teen age kids have done forever. This is nothing new, other than the method of transit.

Now this guy is a "predator" for life.

Stop. Just stop.

I'm not making a value judgement either way. However, giving the parents the power to either nail the boy's ass to the wall or to slap him on the wrist is not right either. If you make enforcement arbitrary, then the law does not promote equal protection to all. Tough situation to be honest. I can see both sides.

(09-10-2015 09:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 12:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 09:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 02:24 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 11:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another example of unfounded and totally arbitrary age statues snagging people that have in no way violated any principle of non aggression.

Yep. My son is now a HS senior, but is relatively young compared to some in his class. A year ago he had a GF who was a year ahead of him, a Senior herself and I know they were *ahem* "involved". Nothing surprising there. Should she have been locked up?

By the near end of the school year last Spring she had turned 18, he still only 16. How many years do we give this little tart?

I honestly don't know what some of these people are thinking sometimes.

Where the heck and when did these people grow up? This is hardly anything new other than the ease with which to transmit the pics.

If the sexes were reversed, would you still feel the same? If that was your 16 year old daughter dating an 18 year old boy does that sound different to you? Right or wrong, for many people it changes the perception of the situation.

Well, my daughter happens to be 16. So would I "vet" her suitor perhaps a little more closely? Yes, of course. The roles are reversed.

Did the parents of my sons girl give him a walkthrough? Oh, yea.

First Gen Greek family, and this is their "Angel". Only child.

Would I do the same with my daughter when she is 18 and a Sr?

Yep. Would I press charges, or nark them out, if I were to discover pics she and a BF had going back and forth?

C'mon. What possible good does that do? Wreck a teenage kid doing what all (or most, if not fat, dumb, or lazy) teen age kids have done forever. This is nothing new, other than the method of transit.

Now this guy is a "predator" for life.

Stop. Just stop.

I'm not making a value judgement either way. However, giving the parents the power to either nail the boy's ass to the wall or to slap him on the wrist is not right either. If you make enforcement arbitrary, then the law does not promote equal protection to all. Tough situation to be honest. I can see both sides.

Why not? The parental right seems clear to me.

(09-11-2015 06:55 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 09:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 12:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 09:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 02:24 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Yep. My son is now a HS senior, but is relatively young compared to some in his class. A year ago he had a GF who was a year ahead of him, a Senior herself and I know they were *ahem* "involved". Nothing surprising there. Should she have been locked up?

By the near end of the school year last Spring she had turned 18, he still only 16. How many years do we give this little tart?

I honestly don't know what some of these people are thinking sometimes.

Where the heck and when did these people grow up? This is hardly anything new other than the ease with which to transmit the pics.

If the sexes were reversed, would you still feel the same? If that was your 16 year old daughter dating an 18 year old boy does that sound different to you? Right or wrong, for many people it changes the perception of the situation.

Well, my daughter happens to be 16. So would I "vet" her suitor perhaps a little more closely? Yes, of course. The roles are reversed.

Did the parents of my sons girl give him a walkthrough? Oh, yea.

First Gen Greek family, and this is their "Angel". Only child.

Would I do the same with my daughter when she is 18 and a Sr?

Yep. Would I press charges, or nark them out, if I were to discover pics she and a BF had going back and forth?

C'mon. What possible good does that do? Wreck a teenage kid doing what all (or most, if not fat, dumb, or lazy) teen age kids have done forever. This is nothing new, other than the method of transit.

Now this guy is a "predator" for life.

Stop. Just stop.

I'm not making a value judgement either way. However, giving the parents the power to either nail the boy's ass to the wall or to slap him on the wrist is not right either. If you make enforcement arbitrary, then the law does not promote equal protection to all. Tough situation to be honest. I can see both sides.

Why not? The parental right seems clear to me.

Again, that's highly arbitrary. I'm surprised that you of all people would think this way considering your thought that the age of consent is arbitrary in and of itself as well as the age of adulthood.

I think HOD had the right idea earlier in the thread concerning the DA and whether this is a case worthy of bringing to the court or should have been dismissed. A municipal court has only so many resources. Was this a case worthy of pursuing given finite resources?

(09-11-2015 08:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 06:55 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 09:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 12:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 09:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If the sexes were reversed, would you still feel the same? If that was your 16 year old daughter dating an 18 year old boy does that sound different to you? Right or wrong, for many people it changes the perception of the situation.

Well, my daughter happens to be 16. So would I "vet" her suitor perhaps a little more closely? Yes, of course. The roles are reversed.

Did the parents of my sons girl give him a walkthrough? Oh, yea.

First Gen Greek family, and this is their "Angel". Only child.

Would I do the same with my daughter when she is 18 and a Sr?

Yep. Would I press charges, or nark them out, if I were to discover pics she and a BF had going back and forth?

C'mon. What possible good does that do? Wreck a teenage kid doing what all (or most, if not fat, dumb, or lazy) teen age kids have done forever. This is nothing new, other than the method of transit.

Now this guy is a "predator" for life.

Stop. Just stop.

I'm not making a value judgement either way. However, giving the parents the power to either nail the boy's ass to the wall or to slap him on the wrist is not right either. If you make enforcement arbitrary, then the law does not promote equal protection to all. Tough situation to be honest. I can see both sides.

Why not? The parental right seems clear to me.

Again, that's highly arbitrary. I'm surprised that you of all people would think this way considering your thought that the age of consent is arbitrary in and of itself as well as the age of adulthood.

I think HOD had the right idea earlier in the thread concerning the DA and whether this is a case worthy of bringing to the court or should have been dismissed. A municipal court has only so many resources. Was this a case worthy of pursuing given finite resources?

It is arbitrary, but it is the law and age is really the only objective measurement we can use and is used when it comes to responsibility. At 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days, I am fully responsible for my child. The child cannot enter into a contract. I cannot kick the child out of the house. I am responsible for health costs, living costs, etc. If the child throws a football through your window, I pay for the damages. You cannot legally so much as take my child out for ice cream if I decide you cannot. The next day, the child becomes an adult and is responsible for his/herself.

Was this a case worthy of pursuing given finite resources? This particular case? No because there was no adult involved. This thread got taken to a point where I was not commenting on the OP and I apologize for the confusion. The case of a 19 year old boy and a 17 year old girl? Only if the child's parents press charges. I agree that this isn't something a DA needs to be pursuing on their own, but if the parent is responsible for the child, they need to be able to have authority over the child and that authority needs to be respected by adults.

Bottom line is it is my right as a parent to tell your 19 year old son to stay the phuck away from my 17 year old daughter. As an legal responsible adult, it is his responsibility to stay the phuck away from my daughter.

(09-11-2015 08:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bottom line is it is my right as a parent to tell your 19 year old son to stay the phuck away from my 17 year old daughter. As an legal responsible adult, it is his responsibility to stay the phuck away from my daughter.

Technically it depends if they were involved before the 19 year old turned 18. If it was a continuous relationship that started when he was 17 and she was 15, they are protected under law in some states. It's the whole Romeo and Juliet thing. As the parent of the daughter, you could fuss all you want in NC but would have no legal right to prevent them from seeing one another.

(09-11-2015 09:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bottom line is it is my right as a parent to tell your 19 year old son to stay the phuck away from my 17 year old daughter. As an legal responsible adult, it is his responsibility to stay the phuck away from my daughter.

Technically it depends if they were involved before the 19 year old turned 18. If it was a continuous relationship that started when he was 17 and she was 15, they are protected under law in some states. It's the whole Romeo and Juliet thing. As the parent of the daughter, you could fuss all you want in NC but would have no legal right to prevent them from seeing one another.

I don't think that would stand against the constitution, if challenged.

(09-11-2015 09:30 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bottom line is it is my right as a parent to tell your 19 year old son to stay the phuck away from my 17 year old daughter. As an legal responsible adult, it is his responsibility to stay the phuck away from my daughter.

Technically it depends if they were involved before the 19 year old turned 18. If it was a continuous relationship that started when he was 17 and she was 15, they are protected under law in some states. It's the whole Romeo and Juliet thing. As the parent of the daughter, you could fuss all you want in NC but would have no legal right to prevent them from seeing one another.

I don't think that would stand against the constitution, if challenged.

On what constitutional basis?

(09-11-2015 09:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:30 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bottom line is it is my right as a parent to tell your 19 year old son to stay the phuck away from my 17 year old daughter. As an legal responsible adult, it is his responsibility to stay the phuck away from my daughter.

Technically it depends if they were involved before the 19 year old turned 18. If it was a continuous relationship that started when he was 17 and she was 15, they are protected under law in some states. It's the whole Romeo and Juliet thing. As the parent of the daughter, you could fuss all you want in NC but would have no legal right to prevent them from seeing one another.

I don't think that would stand against the constitution, if challenged.

On what constitutional basis?

The basis is the 9th amendment. Here is some precedence:

Quote:In 2000, the Supreme Court cited a long train of previous cases which showed that the right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children is a fundamental right. The following passage, taken from Troxel v. Granville, highlights the rich history of this fundamental right:

In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'" (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978) ("We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected"); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) ( "Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course"); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (discussing "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child"); Glucksberg, supra, at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258 ("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce)). In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. (emphasis added)

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?...0083244D13

(09-11-2015 09:40 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:30 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bottom line is it is my right as a parent to tell your 19 year old son to stay the phuck away from my 17 year old daughter. As an legal responsible adult, it is his responsibility to stay the phuck away from my daughter.

Technically it depends if they were involved before the 19 year old turned 18. If it was a continuous relationship that started when he was 17 and she was 15, they are protected under law in some states. It's the whole Romeo and Juliet thing. As the parent of the daughter, you could fuss all you want in NC but would have no legal right to prevent them from seeing one another.

I don't think that would stand against the constitution, if challenged.

On what constitutional basis?

The basis is the 9th amendment. Here is some precedence:

Quote:In 2000, the Supreme Court cited a long train of previous cases which showed that the right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children is a fundamental right. The following passage, taken from Troxel v. Granville, highlights the rich history of this fundamental right:

In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'" (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978) ("We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected"); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) ( "Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course"); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (discussing "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child"); Glucksberg, supra, at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258 ("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce)). In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. (emphasis added)

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?...0083244D13

Good to know and I presume could be applicable here even though is seems to be directed specifically towards education.
If a challenge were brought to the "Romeo and Juliet" law I suppose a big question would be whether or not the parents approved before the older turned 18. I would think that if the parent did approve of the relationship when they were both under 18 that they wouldn't have much to stand on if the sole reason for not approving now is explicitly cited as age.

I think it would again turn into a question of whether or not it was worth pursuing and wasting money over.

Just because I let my son hang out over at Billy Badass's house yesterday doesn't mean I'm going to let him go back today after he came home last staggering and smelling like booze. As long as the parent is the responsible party, s/he has the right to make the determination of the care, custody, and control of their children.

(09-11-2015 10:24 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Just because I let my son hang out over at Billy Badass's house yesterday doesn't mean I'm going to let him go back today after he came home last staggering and smelling like booze. As long as the parent is the responsible party, s/he has the right to make the determination of the care, custody, and control of their children.

Im not sure I get the point of your story. It's not the same as being okay with a daughter thats 15 dating a 17 year old today and suddenly not being okay with it tomorrow because he turned 18. It would seem that there has to be some rational reason behind the change in attitude regarding the relationship and I'm not sure that him being 18 instead of 17 would stand up in court. The difference in age and maturity (very general and relative use of the word) between the 15 year old and the bf the last day the boy is 17 and first day of being 18 is zero. There is a lack of a trigger (in your story your son coming home drunk).

(09-11-2015 10:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:24 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Just because I let my son hang out over at Billy Badass's house yesterday doesn't mean I'm going to let him go back today after he came home last staggering and smelling like booze. As long as the parent is the responsible party, s/he has the right to make the determination of the care, custody, and control of their children.

Im not sure I get the point of your story. It's not the same as being okay with a daughter thats 15 dating a 17 year old today and suddenly not being okay with it tomorrow because he turned 18. It would seem that there has to be some rational reason behind the change in attitude regarding the relationship and I'm not sure that him being 18 instead of 17 would stand up in court. The difference in age and maturity (very general and relative use of the word) between the 15 year old and the bf the last day the boy is 17 and first day of being 18 is zero. There is a lack of a trigger (in your story your son coming home drunk).

There really doesn't need to be a rational reason. If I say my daughter or son can't be somewhere or do something, they can't. It really isn't that difficult. As far as the 18 year old is concerned, we were taught in school our rights and responsibilities in becoming adults. Not sure if they still do that, but it was always clear to me not to touch the jail bait, and if I did, the potential consequences were clear. I do think legally equating it to violently raping someone in the stairwell of a parking garage is overboard, but parents need to have recourse.