In some (most?) states, leaving a child under 12 without supervision is considered neglect. I'm sorry, I don't care how "grown up" your 9-year old child is, I can't see letting them traipse across the city of New York unattended as a good thing. While the chance of injury or harm may be "remote", I don't think a reasonable or responsible parent would knowingly take the risk.
Second, I'm not sure I agree (with Anthony or the state of California). Kids can get their socialization and education through home-schooling, whether or not the parents hold teaching certification; I've seen it happen. That being said, I would imagine that if people want this badly enough, they can get the law changed.
I also think the original ruling was pretty screwy. The judge found that the child was being "poorly educated". To me, that should have been enough to warrant ordering the parents to either get better or put the kids in a real school.
Does anyone else find it odd that it is the state of California doing this? And the line about the schools teaching patriotism was rather intriguing, given other recent California news items.
I'll give you a tip if you want to do this for your child. Borrow an overhead projector (work, library) and use transparencies (coloring book pages copied onto transparency sheets work well). Do the whole thing in a day.
I don't know, I don't feel too bad for him. If he sounds like a girl, and the account is noted as belonging to a guy, makes sense for the bank to think something is fishy. They should just make a note on his account that he sounds like a woman and he should get on with his life.
I'll bite: it's ridiculous that this family has 17 children when many children languish in the foster system for years. Instead of an iPhone, someone should get them a vasectomy and tubal ligation. On the "fun facts" page, I'd like listed exactly how much monetary support this family has received, via government or private sources.
The only thing about this that surprises me is the fact that they were originally recruited into the sorority. Sad to say, and I'm not condoning it, but I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this.
Second, I'm not sure I agree (with Anthony or the state of California). Kids can get their socialization and education through home-schooling, whether or not the parents hold teaching certification; I've seen it happen. That being said, I would imagine that if people want this badly enough, they can get the law changed.
I also think the original ruling was pretty screwy. The judge found that the child was being "poorly educated". To me, that should have been enough to warrant ordering the parents to either get better or put the kids in a real school.
Does anyone else find it odd that it is the state of California doing this? And the line about the schools teaching patriotism was rather intriguing, given other recent California news items.
Then I read the blurb.
More coffee, please.