Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

Setting a minimum age or "qualification" makes administering rules easier...

I'm not certain that it does, because in the US it isn't uniform. You've got differing ages of majority, differing ages of consent (That themselves vary according to sexuality and marriage status.), drinking ages that are "enforced", various dropout ages, various emancipation ages...a whole lot of frangibility.

It IS easier to enforce since a person's age is well documented and objective evidence based.

Pointing out the variation of a subjective topic just means a discussion on standardization or more quantitative methods have not been reached yet, it does not mean the whole thing is invalid.
Determining what is a "mature" age would be less controversial than what are reasonable questions to determine a level of maturity sufficient for the activity being assessed.

Yes, it does vary for the very reasons you point out: they are trying to identify when someone is mature enough to do something with sufficient knowledge to not be a danger to others or themselves.
Not easily done and again I see no suggestions.

Driver's license at least involves testing as well as age: gotta be sure when they drive a ton and a bit of killing machine down the road.
Drop-out ages would be controversial: many kids do not like school but it is necessary for many future options, it is not something to be left to short term thinking.

I agree at least in principle that leaving it all to a hard and fast age set is not very satisfactory but unless there is a means of individual assessment with an agreed criteria for evaluation or scoring: a maturity or merit based system is not in reach.

Plus, teaching a daughter manners and not swearing at people on the phone is a good lesson to give: text and the internet remembers forever.

 Talizvar wrote:
It IS easier to enforce since a person's age is well documented and objective evidence based.

What if it isn't? A good number of US children have unverified birth dates, adoptions from abroad immediately spring to mind but the same applies to any immigrant child.

 Talizvar wrote:

Plus, teaching a daughter manners and not swearing at people on the phone is a good lesson to give: text and the internet remembers forever.

That's not entirely true. Text archives are not permanent, and I'll bet GamerGate is a bit of a flashback.

 Wulfmar wrote:
This is.... amazing.

The father would have been neglectful if he allowed to daughter to keep sending and/or receiving inappropriate texts. Be these messages between her friends, with boys OR a paedophile - it matters not, he did the right thing.

The mother went way beyond unreasonable. If he had given the phone back (arguably he should have) then the mother would have just handed it back to the daughter and the issue of safety continued (again, neglect).

Going back to this for a moment, there's a better article now available that contains the content in question.

The inappropriate message in question wasn't to a pedophile or sexting, it was "I don’t like his ratchet girlfriend or her kids." in reference to the father's girlfriend. So, part of his refusal to return the phone was because he was butthurt that his kid didn't like his girlfriend.

Anyway, reading the article, I feel better about my initial read - he should have been charged for not returning the phone, and he seems like a grade-a douchenozzle atop that.

Unfortunately, there isn't really much in there about the girlfriend or her kids, so I can't speculate on whether she or is not in fact, ratchet.

 Ouze wrote:
The inappropriate message in question wasn't to a pedophile or sexting, it was "I don’t like his ratchet girlfriend or her kids." in reference to the father's girlfriend. So, part of his refusal to return the phone was because he was butthurt that his kid didn't like his girlfriend.

It still seems pretty inappropriate for a 12 year old to be saying "ratchet" about another human being so brazenly, and I can't imagine that if your kid (if you have one or not, no idea) started insulting your partner you would just shrug and say "c'est la vie". I'm not buying that it was just him being wrong in being unhappy about it. I'm sure it played a part, but I doubt it was that simple.

It also doesn't say that is a direct quote, just that it is "roughly" what was written.

Are children as well as not having a right to privacy also not allowed to hold opinions?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Are children as well as not having a right to privacy also not allowed to hold opinions?

They're certainly allowed to hold them... doesn't mean gak though. I mean, if they are of the opinion that a dirty room is cool, and I the parent am of the opinion that it needs to be cleaned.... guess who's opinion matters??

And if you divorce and get a new girlfriend, will you check your children's messages in case they say something you aren't going to like, and then confiscate their phones?

 Ahtman wrote:
It still seems pretty inappropriate for a 12 year old to be saying "ratchet" about another human being so brazenly, and I can't imagine that if your kid (if you have one or not, no idea) started insulting your partner you would just shrug and say "c'est la vie".

I simply avoid the whole situation by never being ratchet, in the first place, and trying to be swag instead.

I had to look up Ratchet

Ratchet
A diva, mostly from urban cities and ghettos, that has reason to believe she is every mans eye candy. Unfortunately, she's wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
And if you divorce and get a new girlfriend, will you check your children's messages in case they say something you aren't going to like, and then confiscate their phones?

No, I would look at it to learn new terms like ratchet and such.

Depending on the age of the child and how trustworthy they are, I would imagine people check their kids phones from time to time to make sure they aren't being bullied or harassed or planning on skipping school for a New Kids on the Block concert.

Is that still a thing? Skipping school?

 dogma wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
It IS easier to enforce since a person's age is well documented and objective evidence based.

What if it isn't? A good number of US children have unverified birth dates, adoptions from abroad immediately spring to mind but the same applies to any immigrant child.

Yep and I am sure they will not get a birth certificate or adoption papers or any other document that will give a "best estimate" of an agreed birth date.
I fail to see this as a show stopper or an argument against using a birth date as an "arbitrary" means of setting limits.

 Talizvar wrote:
Plus, teaching a daughter manners and not swearing at people on the phone is a good lesson to give: text and the internet remembers forever.

That's not entirely true. Text archives are not permanent, and I'll bet GamerGate is a bit of a flashback.

No-one has copy/pasted texts before or done a screen grab?
But yes, the carriers do hold them for a limited time: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393887,00.asp
The intent here is to make the child aware that some text or email can be retained for an indefinite length of time or forwarded to any number of people.
It bears some thought and guidance.

BUT it appears with further information the father was unhappy with how his daughter was describing his new girlfriend.
An opinion given in confidence to a friend = none of his business.
Proclaiming it on Facebook to a bunch of friends and family would be a different matter.

I admire your need to stick-up for under-age children's rights but I look at it as needing less freedoms for them and more responsibility and code of conduct on the "guardian" looking out for the interests of the child.

My mother gave me a "choice" of wearing a "full headgear" of braces or not... my choice as a 12 year old (needless to say she was not trying to sell me on them).
I chose not to have them and have a couple nasty crooked teeth as an adult to show for it, you know what my choice would be now right?
I do not give my kids a choice, they get the darn braces.
My eldest son has some mighty fine looking teeth now and the "torment" of wearing braces was a couple years.
Which is the better means of attending to a child's best interests?

Just get yourself Invisalign.

 Ahtman wrote:
It still seems pretty inappropriate for a 12 year old to be saying "ratchet" about another human being so brazenly, and I can't imagine that if your kid (if you have one or not, no idea) started insulting your partner you would just shrug and say "c'est la vie". .

'Brazenly'...? It was a text message, to a friend. I'm not sure what's 'brazen' about that.

Saying it to the girlfriend's face would be somewhat more 'brazen'... but this sounds like it's just a kid complaining to a friend about something that they don't like, that they can't control. As kids were doing for centuries before mobile phones came along.


And sure, just 'shrugging and saying 'c'est la vie' probably wouldn't be a likely response to that situation. Sitting down with the kid and talking about the issue they have with my partner would be the most likely outcome. Confiscating her phone for having an opinion about someone she's forced to share a house with from time to time?

That's a bit out of line, IMO.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
I chose not to have them and have a couple nasty crooked teeth as an adult to show for it, you know what my choice would be now right?

It would be your choice. As it was then.

Which is the better means of attending to a child's best interests?

Whichever better suits the child in question and the situation at hand, I would think.


Here's the thing - You chose to forgoe the braces, and so avoided having to have braces as a teenager and wound up with some crooked teeth that can still be fixed as an adult if you really feel the need. But you also had a demonstration of the fact that your body belongs to you, and it's your choice what happens to it, which is a darned important lesson for kids to learn ... Particularly for girls, IMO.

By contrast, your son has 'mighty fine' teeth, and the knowledge that he has no control over what happens to him, regardless of his own opinion.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not sure what's 'brazen' about that.

Saying outside one's head in a way that others can see.

 insaniak wrote:
As kids were doing for centuries before mobile phones came along.

And they also had to deal with a punishment of some form.


I never defended the parents actions, just the idea that there would be no response seems a bit silly. It is a tough spot when one parent owns the phone and the other pays for it (according to the article). He shouldn't have kept the phone, but then the cops probably were brought out way to early as well. The whole situation seems like everyone did something wrong thing, but not necessarily something illegal.

 Ahtman wrote:
Saying outside one's head in a way that others can see.

Sorry, but... what?

And they also had to deal with a punishment of some form.

Which would have been nonexistent, since the parent wouldn't have known about it.

There's ultimately no difference between the girl sending her friend a text complaining about her dad's partner, or waiting until the next day at school and complaining in person.

Except, of course, if Dad decides to go snooping on the girl's phone and comes across a conversation that is none of his business.


Which brings us back to the whole 'privacy' thing.

So, just to clear up any confusion, are the people who are ok with snooping on their children's phones 'for their own good' also suggesting that parents should follow their kids around all day and listen in on their conversations with their friends?

Going through a kid's messages does seem incredibly creepy. If the guy accidentally saw the message, okay, but then I think the problem would be "why don't you like stepmom and how can we fix it," not "I don't care if you hate her, just watch your smart mouth."

Just because you can surveil your kid's messages doesn't mean you should.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Saying outside one's head in a way that others can see.

Sorry, but... what?

What is so hard about understanding that she said it in a way that the people she was referring to would notice it? If they hadn't this wouldn't even be a story but she did so it is.

 insaniak wrote:
Which would have been nonexistent, since the parent wouldn't have known about it.

So we are going to bring up the past as an example but then pretend it was always about cell phones? I'm pretty sure even before cell phones if one talked gak about there parents spouse there would be repercussions, which has nothing to do with privacy. Obliviously snooping on your kid in such a fashion is problematic, but then if there was one easy way to parent I imagine all parents would follow that path. It wasn't even her phone or her account, which muddies the waters even more.

 Ahtman wrote:

What is so hard about understanding that she said it in a way that the people she was referring to would notice it? If they hadn't this wouldn't even be a story but she did so it is.

I wasn't having trouble understanding the sentiment. I was having trouble understanding what you said, as it wasn't an actual sentence.

She sent a message to a friend. That's not something that other people are likely to notice unless they're snooping on her phone.

So we are going to bring up the past as an example but then pretend it was always about cell phones?

No. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm pretty sure even before cell phones if one talked gak about there parents spouse there would be repercussions, which has nothing to do with privacy.

It has everything to do with privacy, as it required an invasion of said privacy for this whole sorry situation to occur in the first place.

Taking gak about a parent's partner in their earshot should certainly have repurcussions.

Taking gak in private with your friends is a whole different kettle of fish. Being a child doesn't preclude having an opinion.

 insaniak wrote:


She sent a message to a friend. That's not something that other people are likely to notice unless they're snooping on her phone.

One plausible explanation without snooping could be a situation where Dad is asking an innocuous question, like, "what do you want for dinner?" And seeing no response, asks repeatedly, until finally to get her attention, he grabs her phone, and as it's unlocked (as teenage girls are constantly texting) sees the messages directly on the screen.

No real snooping involved in that at all.

Yeah. I'm not really sure that snatching someone's property away from them excuses you for reading a private message that wasn't intended for you.

That would be a physical assault.

If a father is incapable of talking to his daughter without physically assaulting her, there is already something badly wrong with the relationship.

 insaniak wrote:
It has everything to do with privacy, as it required an invasion of said privacy for this whole sorry situation to occur in the first place.

That is some mighty fine assuming you got going on there. I'm also curious what level of privacy a twelve year old has for a phone she neither owns or pays for. It seems like that wouldn't be something so simple to figure out, except on the internet of course, where everyone can solve anything.

No, it's actually really, really simple: If it's not her Dad's phone, he has no good reason to be looking at it without her permission, and him doing so is just as much an invasion of privacy as it would be if he eavesdropped on her private conversations when she's with friends.

 Ahtman wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It has everything to do with privacy, as it required an invasion of said privacy for this whole sorry situation to occur in the first place.

That is some mighty fine assuming you got going on there. I'm also curious what level of privacy a twelve year old has for a phone she neither owns or pays for. It seems like that wouldn't be something so simple to figure out, except on the internet of course, where everyone can solve anything.

The father neither owns nor pays for it either, so if owning or paying for it is some prerequisite to being allowed to look at it then he has no right to see it anyway.

As an example, if a teacher sees a kid on their phone in class they can confiscate the phone. They cannot then look through all of the kids messages in case the kid said something bad about them. Also, the teacher would have to give it back if the parent who legally owned the phone asked for it to be returned.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah. I'm not really sure that snatching someone's property away from them excuses you for reading a private message that wasn't intended for you.

Teachers used to do it all the time in school: get caught passing a note, and the teacher would read it in front of the class.
I'm sure this isn't a thing anymore, since most kids have forgotten how to write with pen and paper. Or because each child is such a special snowflake, that if their note got read aloud the teacher would be fired for embarrassing them.

Also, what if the girl used Siri and did voice-text to her friend? Dad could HEAR her say it, and ask to see her phone to confirm his ears weren't playing tricks on him. Old people's ears do that. But now he's heard her talk out AND has visual proof.

 insaniak wrote:
Which brings us back to the whole 'privacy' thing.

So, just to clear up any confusion, are the people who are ok with snooping on their children's phones 'for their own good' also suggesting that parents should follow their kids around all day and listen in on their conversations with their friends?

I think that's not a fair analogy. So far as whether or not you have the right to search your kids room, look through their belongings, or peruse their phone, my answer is "it depends", because it does.

I have a niece and nephew. They're both more or less good kids, but my niece is the kind who comes home from school on time, does her homework without being told, and so on and so forth. My nephew is also a good kid but he was, for a while, the kind of kid who associated himself with lousy friends, dabbled in light drug use, and got into low level mischief. As a result, my sister would occasionally drug test my nephew, and check his phone to make sure he's wasn't getting into trouble that was beyond her ability to manage. I would argue that not only does she have the right to check his cell phone - which she bought and pays for the plan on - but she also has a responsibility as a parent to occasionally check his room for drugs and his phone. Once he started getting away from those behaviors, she gradually eased up on him and he enjoys about the same privacy as his sister.

I would say that privacy isn't a gimme, and it's contingent upon being earned by making good choices.

As a side note to Malus, the father didn't own the device but he did pay for the plan.

Confiscates phone because finds innappropriate messages on it.
Ex-wife thinks "I'm not having that, she's my daughter and only I get to discipline her." Gets him arrested.

Case closed for me, nothing more to it. What I'm actually surprised didn't happen was an investigation into the messages, as the girl is 12 and that gak is taken seriously, no?

 Deadshot wrote:
Confiscates phone because finds innappropriate messages on it.
Ex-wife thinks "I'm not having that, she's my daughter and only I get to discipline her." Gets him arrested.

Case closed for me, nothing more to it. What I'm actually surprised didn't happen was an investigation into the messages, as the girl is 12 and that gak is taken seriously, no?

You really, really should read the story.

 insaniak wrote:
Whichever better suits the child in question and the situation at hand, I would think.
Here's the thing - You chose to forgoe the braces, and so avoided having to have braces as a teenager and wound up with some crooked teeth that can still be fixed as an adult if you really feel the need. But you also had a demonstration of the fact that your body belongs to you, and it's your choice what happens to it, which is a darned important lesson for kids to learn ... Particularly for girls, IMO.
By contrast, your son has 'mighty fine' teeth, and the knowledge that he has no control over what happens to him, regardless of his own opinion.

I see what you are getting at how purely cosmetic changes can be a slippery slope of forcing our wants on our children.
What next, a nose job?
The "lesson" or knowledge of my body being my own... not all that great when you find out a short time later it was a "one time offer"... "too bad for you!".
It turns out my son was having difficulty with his bite so it may not have been the best example in this regard.

There is the matter of hygene, "forcing" regular shower/baths heck, getting the kid to wipe his behind rather than find poop smears (not skid marks) in the underwear.
We as parents try to teach how to fit in society and teach social norms.
I have seen many a rant on this board about gamer smell and letting my kid smell of body odor and feces would be a hard thing to let them learn the hard way.

To do with this OP, it is a matter of who's property the cell phone was, by law it was the ex-wife's.
Respect of children's privacy, I feel interaction needs to be monitored somewhat mainly received rather than sent, but in this case it was a private opinion made in confidence so should not have been commented on.
To not come to some agreement for releasing the phone and police involvement is a bad example of adult behavior.

It all boils down to what decisions at what time/age children can be considered mature enough to make binding decisions?
The easiest means of dodging that question is to make a surrogate accountable for their best interests.
All you can do then is fall back on the charter of human rights if that surrogate fails in their duty and must be held accountable.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So, father said he took phone from daughter because he found inappropriate messages on the phone. As far as I'm concerned, that's good parenting. Mom doesn't like it? Tough. That doesn't sound like bad parenting to me.

Him confiscating the phone is reasonable. Him withholding it from the mother, who bought it, is not reasonable.

The father should have just returned the phone directly to the mother. Now he's won a court case, but lost his relationship with his daughter as she won't speak to him it seems. Bit of a waste.

^ This.

The daughter, being a minor, doesn't legally "own" anything. All her items, one way or another, belongs to one of her parents. If Mom bought that cellphone for her daughter? Then that's Mom's phone (given the divorce situation). Dad can take the phone from the daughter for whatever reason, but needs to return it to Mom if she asks for it, because it's not his phone.

If dad is paying for the phone bill, then he's certainly paying more for the phone than mom. Somebody mentioned in here that he's fronting the bill. At the very least, he has just as much right as the mother. But, (and here's a freebie for you Dakka-bingo players) I'm sure the SJWs in the crowd will say even if he pays 10x more to maintain it than what she did when she initially bought it, she has more right. Because reasons.