Found Safe AL - ANF, 13, Pelham, Shelby County, 21 Jan 2020 *Arrest*

[Ontario Mom]

The case for legal parental/guardian responsibility is just one I have particularly strong feelings about and feel it could do a lot to strengthen our society.

RSBM

On that I agree 100%.

 

[rodneymullenmg]

What evidence do you have that she had disconnected from her family? Not trying to pick a fight, but want to know what you are referring to.

We asked that and nothing could be provided. Shameful to think people will passively defend child rape just to engage in an interaction.

 

[rodneymullenmg]

DBM sorry

 

[scapa]

No it’s not. The kid is 13. She going to find a way to access the internet. Throw isn’t going to punish her parents for that. That’s not reasonable and won’t happen.

Yep. It's flat-out impossible. I have a child that age and another 2 years younger, and monitoring their screen-time and viewing habits is just about manageable with both of us on it 24/7, along with our full-time jobs. Tracking their every online and SM encounter just isn't -- and I'm a prof in the tech/CompSci field, with the ability to write programs, apps and scripts expressly for these purposes, a capacity that most parents lack -- and the common, commercially available apps like TeenSafe etc. are broadly fallible, with loads of workarounds, many of which are shared across SM platforms and between kids, the modern equivalent of lying about being at a friend's house. Parents can only do so much, and many do as much as they can.

Kids trade phones, share phones, hack easily into insecure school, library and community-club networks, run multiple SM platforms using multiple aliases, and on and on. There is no way to "online-secure" a child who does not want to be secured. Monitoring helps, frank ongoing discussion helps, education in the classroom helps, but nothing is sure, and to target parents for not doing more than they can do in this respect is unfair and unhelpful (this is not directed at you, Gitana1) and, IMO, skews the discussion back to blame and away from wider and more detailed education on risk management -- and, absolutely, legislation that enhances the security of minors that is aimed squarely at platform owners like FB, IG, TT and so forth.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Yep. It's flat-out impossible. I have a child that age and another 2 years younger, and monitoring their screen-time and viewing habits is just about manageable with both of us on it 24/7, along with our full-time jobs. Tracking their every online and SM encounter just isn't -- and I'm a prof in the tech/CompSci field, with the ability to write programs, apps and scripts expressly for these purposes, a capacity that most parents lack -- and the common, commercially available apps like TeenSafe etc. are broadly fallible, with loads of workarounds, many of which are shared across SM platforms and between kids, the modern equivalent of lying about being at a friend's house. Parents can only do so much, and many do as much as they can.

Kids trade phones, share phones, hack easily into insecure school, library and community-club networks, run multiple SM platforms using multiple aliases, and on and on. There is no way to "online-secure" a child who does not want to be secured. Monitoring helps, frank ongoing discussion helps, education in the classroom helps, but nothing is sure, and to target parents for not doing more than they can do in this respect is unfair and unhelpful (this is not directed at you, Gitana1) and, IMO, skews the discussion back to blame and away from wider and more detailed education on risk management -- and, absolutely, legislation that enhances the security of minors that is aimed squarely at platform owners like FB, IG, TT and so forth.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and your experience on this subject. Very much appreciated.

 

[evilwise]

There's this new thing called discipline and it turns into this thing called responsibility. Establishing fair rules and consequences for breaking them. It ain't require writing programs nor monitoring IP traffic nor maintaining client specific whitelists nor packet sniffing nor keylogging nor nothin' - though it sure don't hurt neither.

 

[gitana1]

There's this new thing called discipline and it turns into this thing called responsibility. Establishing fair rules and consequences for breaking them. It ain't require writing programs nor monitoring IP traffic nor maintaining client specific whitelists nor packet sniffing nor keylogging nor nothin' - though it sure don't hurt neither.

The law is not going to punish parents for not "disciplining" their kids the way you believe they should. Many kids who use the internet at 13 without strict supervision are responsible. The legal system is simply not going to criminalize the failure of parents to raise their kids like the Duggars do.

 

[evilwise]

The law is not going to punish parents for not "disciplining" their kids the way you believe they should. Many kids who use the internet at 13 without strict supervision are responsible. The legal system is simply not going to criminalize the failure of parents to raise their kids like the Duggars do.

I'd be happy if parents were just prosecuted when they allow kids access to loaded firearms and somebody ends up dead. One step at a time.

 

[rodneymullenmg]

The law is not going to punish parents for not "disciplining" their kids the way you believe they should. Many kids who use the internet at 13 without strict supervision are responsible. The legal system is simply not going to criminalize the failure of parents to raise their kids like the Duggars do.

IMO, I wouldnt call the Duggars good parents

 

[evilwise]

She was making a facetious false analogy.

 

[gitana1]

IMO, I wouldnt call the Duggars good parents

Neither would I.

 

[rodneymullenmg]

She was making a facetious false analogy.

What? who?
I didnt see one.

 

[gitana1]

She was making a facetious false analogy.

Nope. It’s not false. The level of helicoptering you’re saying should be mandated by law for fear of charges is what families like the Duggars do.

It is not child neglect to not strictly suppress your children’s internet usage. And it won’t be unless our nation becomes Gilead.

 

[rodneymullenmg]

Nope. It’s not false. The level of helicoptering you’re saying should be mandated by law for fear of charges is what families like the Duggars do.

It is not child neglect to not strictly suppress your children’s internet usage. And it won’t be unless our nation becomes Gilead.

100% agree.

 

[evilwise]

Nope. It’s not false. The level of helicoptering you’re saying should be mandated by law for fear of charges is what families like the Duggars do.

It is not child neglect to not strictly suppress your children’s internet usage. And it won’t be unless our nation becomes Gilead.

Is that what I'm saying? I'm not advocating having 19 kids and I'm DEFINITELY not advocating suppression of molestation in the interest of advancing a bid for reality celebrity. That's all I know about the Duggars.

I am saying that you should be aware if your child is talking to strangers.

 

[rodneymullenmg]

Is that what I'm saying? I'm not advocating having 19 kids and I'm DEFINITELY not advocating suppression of molestation in the interest of advancing a bid for reality celebrity. That's all I know about the Duggars.

I am saying that you should be aware if your child is talking to strangers.

What I believe is being said, and if so I agree, that you can force all these rules, restrictions and monitor your children 24/7 but that wont stop them from doing what kids do, and the best all you can do is make sure they are loved, supported and feel comfortable coming to you to talk.

Being an obsessive, controlling parent likely would have the opposite effect.

 

[gitana1]

Is that what I'm saying? I'm not advocating having 19 kids and I'm DEFINITELY not advocating suppression of molestation in the interest of advancing a bid for reality celebrity. That's all I know about the Duggars.

I am saying that you should be aware if your child is talking to strangers.

Yes. That’s what you’re saying. (No one said anything about having 19 kids and suppressing molestation allegations.) The level of helicoptering and strict suppression of internet usage is what families like the Duggars do. Once again, the law is not going to mandate that kind of internet monitoring unless we are no longer a free nation with the constitution guiding us.

You can’t charge parents criminally for not being able to track every last thing they do on the internet. All you can do is try hard to educate your kids and guide them, set rules and try to track as best as you can. But in the end, parents are human and kids are human. Mistakes will be made.

But what you’re advocating is filing charges against parents if their child contacts a stranger via the internet and things go bad. That’s crazy. That would be unconstitutional. And it doesn’t come close to child neglect to not know if you’re child is contacting strangers on the internet. It just doesn’t.

 

[gitana1]

What I believe is being said, and if so I agree, that you can force all these rules, restrictions and monitor your children 24/7 but that wont stop them from doing what kids do, and the best all you can do is make sure they are loved, supported and feel comfortable coming to you to talk.

Being an obsessive, controlling parent likely would have the opposite effect.

Yes. But I’m actually directly addressing this poster’s demand for laws that charge parents criminally for not being able to strictly control their children’s internet usage.

This is the United States. Not North Korea.

 

[rodneymullenmg]

Yes. That’s what you’re saying. (No one said anything about having 19 kids and suppressing molestation allegations.) The level of helicoptering and strict suppression of internet usage is what families like the Duggars do. Once again, the law is not going to mandate that kind of internet monitoring unless we are no longer a free nation with the constitution guiding us.

You can’t charge parents criminally for not being able to track every last thing they do on the internet. All you can do is try hard to educate your kids and guide them, set rules and try to track as best as you can. But in the end, parents are human and kids are human. Mistakes will be made.

But what you’re advocating is filing charges against parents if their child contacts a stranger via the internet and things go bad. That’s crazy. That would be unconstitutional. And it doesn’t come close to child neglect to not know if you’re child is contacting strangers on the internet. It just doesn’t.

IMO its closer to child abuse to essentially lock them in a room and demand they have no life whatsoever because you are insecure about your own parenting ability.

 

[rodneymullenmg]

Yes. But I’m actually directly addressing this poster’s demand for laws that charge parents criminally for not being able to strictly control their children’s internet usage.

This is the United States. Not North Korea.

I'm agreeing with you. A law like that is unamerican, it's controlling and just bananas nuts.

My questions is, would he be saying all this if the child was a boy and met a woman online? idk