The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What is a child? > Comments

What is a child? : Comments

By Bob Ryan, published 13/1/2010

A child is defined by age, which is not always consistent with the age of consent, or age of majority.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Now that children are maturing much earlier and only a minority reach the age of 18 as virgins, the age of 18 seems a little archaic.

While not advocating the elimination of restrictions on people in authority, I feel that this is due for review.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 11:43:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob
Good article, I think that it would be impossible beyond the general age of puberty to define what is a child (universally).

I have argued, received the opprobrium of most, in the past that our laws are being largely influenced by our (religious/cultural/learned emotions...unholy trilogy) mores rather than logic or reality.

Specifically our attitudes toward sex is so mired with unholy trilogy that reason considered a hanging offence.

I cited a case of a girl living on the street since 11 1/2, living with a mid twenties man at 15 1/2, were forceably split up and he doing two years, resulting in disastrous consequences for both.

I also posed the question that the law and it's focus on 'black letter' rather than circumstances needed to be reviewed in the cause of equity and common sense.

The problem I have with the media is the difference between salaciousness and need to know in graphic detail and colour.

I cited the case where a news paper described how to where to find and how to get a high from ricin plants. After some pressure they posted a page 10 addendum warning that these activities are fraught with very real danger. Likewise cooking instructions for said (nonantidotable)poison was on the net. To me this is pornographic.
In which case I would mention that, while not absolute, 25 is the maturing point of the brain's ability for reason.

Clearly there are 40 year old children.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 2:36:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't agree with Internet censorship in the name of protecting children. Sensible parents make sure that their children access the internet on a computer in the living room (where everyone in the family can see what they are up to), have taught their children not to give out name and address online under any circumstance, and ensure that they don't know about the existence of social networking sites. My child has enough protection, and Internet censorship is therefore completely unnecessary.

On the issue of "What is a child" however, and related issues such as the age of consent, protecting children is a given:we do need rules about this to prevent adults from exploiting teenagers. As recent well-publicised brain research has established, the adult brain isn't fully developed until the early 20s - this means teenagers simply do not make judgements in the same way as adults. Current laws reflect this reality by having a juvenile justice system separate from the adult justice system.

11 and 12 year olds of my acquaintance are definitely not adults in the way they think and behave (and overwhelmingly not in their level of physical development either).

The age at which some teenagers have their first sexual encounter is also not a good argument for lowering the age of consent (16 in NSW)- you'd need to delve into these statistics further - for example by finding out whether early sexual encounters were regretted, and were they with someone of a similar age (there is some legal debate on leniency in cases of teenagers under the age of consent but of a similar age having sexual encounters). Statistics regarding early sexual encounters may simply reflect teenagers being exploited (or worse).
CK (JohnJ's spouse but couldn't be bothered registering)
Posted by Johnj, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 7:53:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps we should develop a test.

So many other qualifications are competancy based, why not adulthood?

Obviously the test would have many vectors, with perhaps few compulsory components, provided the average score was sufficient.

I see a world where bright 15 year olds vote and their schoolfriends parents do not.

So long as fundy religionists can be prevented from biasing the test *too* much, we should be fine.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 7:57:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've watched a few of Senator Conroy's media interviews. He does not perform well, nor am I at all convinced the man grasps the issues at stake.

After all, the only adjective I feel can really sum up this push toward internet censorship is 'bone-headed'. Not only the intent, but also the application. It. Just. Won't. Work. Find me just one expert with practical knowledge who thinks it will.

Thus, I am exceedingly skeptical that Conroy would take on board such analyses. Furthermore, the disdain for public opinion that has shone through here leads me to believe that even if he could comprehend these issues, they wouldn't be taken on board.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 11:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that post CK/Johnj. I wanted to say the same and you saved me the trouble. Further:

The article says, <"It can be reasonably agreed that a child is one who has not reached puberty but I question why older individuals, (legislated children) from 13 to under 18, should still be called children for the purposes of child pornography law when they, in considerable numbers, clearly understand what they are doing sexually.">

- and the information link in the article points to puberty starting for some people as young as 10 or even 8.
http://www.drpaul.com/adolescent/pubertygirls.html

Based on physical development, the article takes no account of a youngster's emotional development, impulsiveness, or capacity to be assertive against an exploitative and worldly wise adult - such as a child sexual abuser, pornographer or the like.

Proposals to lower age of consent offer nothing whatsoever of benefit to children, but everything to adults who are piggish and selfish enough to prioritize their sexual gratification and profit making over the well being of youngsters.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 14 January 2010 3:00:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL:"the disdain for public opinion that has shone through here leads me to believe that even if he could comprehend these issues, they wouldn't be taken on board."

I think you're being a bit harsh on Conroy: he knows his public and is playing to it for all it's worth.

In fact, one of them chimed in with a post straight after yours...

get used to the fact that we live in a world in which 50% of the voters are women and that these laws are designed specifically to pander to them. All that is required to make them genuinely popularist is a few blokes on side, then the views of the rest are irrelevant and they probably wouldn't vote Labor anyway (or they're "rusted on" and hence can be ignored).

For a truly draconian law based on the same thinking have a look at this: http://www.agd.sa.gov.au/news/pdfs/Intervention%20Orders%20(Prevention%20of%20Abuse)%20Report.pdf
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 14 January 2010 7:23:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic

Exactly what are your objections to the legislation and how would you rewrite it?
Posted by benk, Thursday, 14 January 2010 7:48:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
benk, my principal objection is that like so much of the current wave of legislation it reverses the burden of proof. IOW, all that is required for a site to be banned is for a complaint to be received, while the process for having a site removed from the filter list is far more convoluted.

In a broader sense, I am strongly committed to taking individual responsibility, which this legislation is specifically designed to remove. As I said, that appeals to very many women and some men, so it is a populist measure. I've never been a big fan of populism; it leads to badly flawed decisions that rarely provide a genuine benefit to the populace, but are often masking special treatment for some interest group or other.

How would I rewrite it? By putting a match to it.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 14 January 2010 8:04:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,Johnj
I look at it slightly differently, Experience at the sharp end has taught me not to expect too much from many more parents that one would suppose. If this weren't the case Social Services and many charities would have a far lessor work load than they do. And no, most of SS work isn't tied up in policing marriage break ups etc.

I would argue that the children of "preoccupied,inexperienced, indifferent or just plain bad etc" parents need/deserve protection too. How do you make the above parents act responsibly? And is that the Government responsibility? It is however, the Govts responsibility
to attempt to protect the vulnerable or needy in our society. Mutual protection is the point of society. Without it, we have chaos or a dictatorship of the powerful V the rest. Yes Col, Thatcher missed the point and was wrong, society does exist.

The fact that the legislation is faulty is no justification for doing nothing.

The key issue is as the the headline implies "*HOW* do we define what is a child". I give up, that is beyond my my competence and pay levels. That's why we employ MP's and legislative drafts-persons at big $s isn't it?

The myopic and in some cases paranoid based argument that "*I'm a responsible parent and so are my friends, so no external censorship is warranted* is weak and not true.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:16:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator,

If the legislation had an opt out option for those that did not have children, or who preferred to use their own filter, I would have no issue with it.

However, it proposes filtering sites based on complaints by the vocal moral minority, and a whole plethora of legal sites completely unconnected to child porn makes it probably the most vile piece of legislative censorship I have ever seen.

If I can simply tick the box "unfiltered feed" then the blue rinsed dowagers can look at their knitting sites with the blissful illusion that all the nasties have been purged.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 14 January 2010 11:50:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A child is defined in age, not puberty or anything else. Any moves to lower the adult age would only serve the rogue parents, by kicking their kids out earlier.
Posted by Desmond, Thursday, 14 January 2010 2:58:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

The problem seems to be that magistrates want to play it safe, men can suffer any inconvenience, that is what we do. If they see 1000 applications for AVOs in a year, 800 might look malicious or fraudulent. However, if they knock back those 800, in a few cases, subsequent events will make their decisions look like a mistake. Perhaps this could have been forseen when the AVO was appealed for, perhaps it couldn't. My opinion is that AVOs inconvenience the innocent and only serve to inflame the genuinely violent. I just don't know what system might have more chance of success.
Posted by benk, Thursday, 14 January 2010 4:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes when is a child a child, over the years I have been caught between a rock and a hard place,when my teenage daughters became sexually active, trying to teach them right from wrong,morals and values "all irrelevent" say no when it came to boys staying over, lets say, "if you don't let me mum I will leave" sad really I've missed out on 5 of my teenage daughters growing up,have the grandkids to boot, and their hatred that cuts like a knife...

My god, our kids can lie,by saying they have been treated unfairly, ie (asked to clean their room) or create a situation so they can leave,at the age of 12 yrs old and there is nothing we can do to stop them. What a joke! I still have to foot the bill if they stuff up until their 18yrs old
Posted by shattered.dreams, Thursday, 14 January 2010 4:06:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
you mean you would still have your daughters if you had got them on the pill and let them have their boyfriends.
Posted by Desmond, Thursday, 14 January 2010 4:21:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We cannot force our children to go on the pill, we cannot tell or stop our children from see their class mates,or friends if we feel they could get into trouble, it's classified as abuses, they can treat us parents any way they like without concequence... no I'm not saying I could have stopped or changed my childrens way of thinking,or their future if things might have been different,I will never know,other outside influences, morals and values, robbed me of that so called parental right...It would have been really nice to have had the chance to see at least one child get a degree, have a career, buy a house, get married before having children.

damned if we do and damned if we don't!
Posted by shattered.dreams, Thursday, 14 January 2010 6:17:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benk,

without speaking for antiseptic, the "balance of probabilities" cuts both ways when not biased. The magistrates are more than able to excuse the supposed percentage. Prove that an individual is one of the guilty subset without examining the case.....(wthout costing the accused money)

Those few you mentioned are balanced by the greater few of innocent wrongly (but cheaply) excused...(but expensive to defend)

You *are* innocent until proven guilty, balance of probabilities be damned. Just because the opposition has deep pockets..... is that the only excuse? Cheap to accuse, but expensive to defend. Sounds like the (christian) inquisition all over again.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 14 January 2010 8:45:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My apologies for not responding to this earlier, I've been away for the weekend with my boy.

benk:"magistrates want to play it safe, men can suffer any inconvenience, that is what we do."

The SA law, which will surely become the model for the other States, is frankly demeaning to all parties and I suspect it is also unconstitutional, although that is unlikely to ever be tested, given the cost of doing so.

Firstly, it is insulting to magistrates, since it removes any examination of facts, substituting a summary process which effectively removes his discretion.

Secondly, it is demeaning to women, since it assumes they are passive pawns in all circumstances. Under this law they cannot be held responsible for anything, even telling lies to the court, or conspiring with others to break the AVO they applied for.

Thirdly, it is demeaning to men, because it assumes that they are always aggressors, unable to exercise control unless a police officer with a taser is standing nearby.

Fourthly, it is demeaning and damaging to children, since it provides an easy and completely unaccountable way for a vindictive mother to remove any possibility of them having a normal relationship with their father.

Fifthly, it reverses the burden of proof. Once an application is made, it is certain to be granted, ("These grounds are anticipatory. There is no need for proof of the commission of an act of abuse before an intervention order is issued." as the explanatory notes put it) with no examination of facts unless a man can later prove the proposition that he is no threat. The law offers no guidance as to how this might be achieved, other than to say that it can't be achieved if circumstances remain unchanged.

Sixthly, it overrides Federal Family Law, thereby providing a simple way for a mother who is disgruntled by the outcome of a custody matter to subvert the considered opinion of a Judge and replace it with an untested, but binding, summary judgement by a magistrate or even a police officer.

"Some animals are more equal than others" in SA.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 18 January 2010 7:45:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know your article is about censorship but the question "What is a child?" is very interesting.
Some Australian States allow children (under eighteen years of age)to drive motor vehicles.
And when I pass the sign that says "Slow down when children present" does that mean that I do not have to slow down for those students who are not children (over eighteen years of age).
What a confusion we live in.

Thanks Bob
Posted by Hilily, Monday, 18 January 2010 4:49:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

The yanks effectively suspended or removed habeas corpus, not for genuine reasons, but for convenience. Formerly, this was a pillar of their justice system.

Just because a new law is unconstitutional, demeaning to those it supports and insulting to the population it is aimed at is obviously no reason for lawmakers to make of law not merely an ass but a laughingstock.

Where shall we go next.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 20 January 2010 10:44:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty Catheter:"Where shall we go next."

We'll see more "anticipatory" laws used to ride roughshod over the rights of individuals to a fair defence. We'll see further reversals of the onus of proof. We'll see ever more intrusion into the lives of individuals "for their own good".

Why will we see these things? Because they make State control easier. "Ahah", you say, but the State has always sought easier modes of implementing its rules, what has changed? In a nutshell, the rise of Feminist women to positions of legislative and bureaucratic power. Combining "mother knows best" authoritarianism with a sense of entitled elitism leads directly to the outcome that any kid who tries to talk back to Mum is very familiar with: "go to your room and come out when you're ready to apologise." "But I didn't do it." "I'm not interested, just go. If you argue you'll only make me mad"

The AIHW released its report into child abuse and neglect today. Guess which group perpetrates overwhelmingly the greatest amount of substantiated emotional and physical abuse and neglect? Yep, you got it: it's mothers, especially single mothers, but followed closely by those in relationships with their child's father. Across the country, about 40% of all substantiated cases involve single mothers.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10859

Given that our nation has bought wholesale into the notion of "woman as victim", it's hard to see much being done to help the kids into the future.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 21 January 2010 8:31:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I hope people bother to read both the reports you've linked Antiseptic so that they can consider all of the information in comparison to what you are attempting to portray.

Also, this article is about, "A child is defined by age, which is not always consistent with the age of consent, or age of majority". I don't see how your posts relate to it.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 21 January 2010 10:00:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme:"I hope people bother to read both the reports you've linked"

So do I. here are the links again so noone has to go searching

http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10859

http://www.agd.sa.gov.au/news/pdfs/Intervention%20Orders%20(Prevention%20of%20Abuse)%20Report.pdf

From the first link above: "Single parent—female and two parent intact families had the highest proportions of substantiations across all jurisdictions" just as I said above. It goes on to say: "it is important to note that single parent—female families are over-represented when compared to the family structure haracteristics of the Australian general population(ABS 2008)".

Ah, so it's because there are so many more single parent-female families is it? Actually, no, it isn't; I checked the ABS http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/4442.0 and it says:"Of the 5.9 million families in Australia in 2006-07, 85% (5.0 million) were couple families, 14% (808,000) were one parent families"

Just to make that clear, the 14% of single parent-females are responsible for 40% of the substantiated cases of abuse and neglect, while the 85% of couple families are responsible for another 35%.

IOW, children in single parent-female families are nearly 6 times as likely to experience abuse as those in couple families.

If they're aboriginal, a similar disparity exists, with indigenous kids about 7 times as likely as white kids to experience abuse.

Perhaps you could tell me why, if Aboriginal abuse figures warranted the drastic interventions we have seen, a similar intervention is not warranted for the children of single mothers?

You might also tell me why the SA AVO legislation only mentions males as perpetrators of violence when it is obvious from the AIHW report that far more violence, especially against vulnerable kids, is done by women?
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 22 January 2010 5:33:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic.

First of all those reports don't say what you purport. That's why I hope people read them thoroughly.

Btb: Something that you might not have noticed, or chose to ignore, is that the definitions of child abuse have changed and broadened. One of my concerns is that the definition of child sexual abuse has changed in such a way that children are less likely than ever to obtain safety and justice. Doesn't look like feminists are in charge of this sort of thing after all; more's the pity.

Anyway - one report is on family configuration. The other is on the proportions of victims of different types of abuse. Neither report details perpetrators and factors that constitute or contribute to types of abuse.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/stanley5.pdf

http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/uploads/documents/fatalassault2008.pdf

Regardless of family configuration or sex of the perpetrator (mostly male btw) the characteristics most closely associated with fatal child abuse are: domestic violence (50%) ; drug and alcohol use (approx. 38%) ; other criminal activity (approx. 38%); mental illness as well as poverty and unemployment.

This essay investigates violence and child abuse by women:

http://www.aifs.gov.au/conferences/aifs8/fitzroy.pdf

Australian reports on child deaths as a result of physical abuse:
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/6/6/0/%7B66025EB4-DC26-4B37-803B-BCC1EA184951%7Dti53.pdf

Parallel research from Canada:
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/35/1/74
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 24 January 2010 3:12:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme:"First of all those reports don't say what you purport."

I'm afraid they do dear, which is why I posted the links. Each of my quotes is a direct C&P from the reports I cited.

pynchme:"the definitions of child abuse have changed and broadened."

Yes, they have. So have the definitions of sexual assault and domestic violence. I know you support the broadening in those fields, so why do you not support it in this case? could it be that in the other cases they've been broadened to include normal male behaviours, while in the case of kids they've been broadened to include normal female behaviours in recognition of the damage done to kids by abusive or emotionally manipulative mothers?

The first lnk you posted relies heavily on a study of 50 selected (not random) children from severely dysfunctional families and on US "studies" from back in the 60s. Hardly relevant to anything other than getting grants for the author.

The second report makles no assessment of perpetrator gender and provides no data. it does say "The deaths of children from assault are rare in NSW, accounting for only 1.4 per cent of all the deaths of children and young people aged 0-17 over the ten-year period 1996 to 2005." Are you suggesting we should be basing our child protection policies on 1.4% of situations?

your third link is dated 2003) but contains the following quote:"Women commit between 31-50 percent of physical assaults on children.
Mothers commit almost 50 percent of the recorded infanticide and women perpetrate between 2-7 percent of sexual assaults against children.
It is worth noting that often researchers identify that, for example, 69 percent of perpetrators of such and such crime are men, but then fail to discuss who perpetrated the remaining 31 percent."

The AIC link is from 1996; it is irrelevant, and the last has nothing to do with Australia.

What are you going to post next, Nancy Astor's speech to the suffragettes in 1902?
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 24 January 2010 9:01:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A response of denial and idiocy; unfortunately I am not surprised.
Those reports detail total cases of fatal abuse over several years and provide information on patterns of abuse and on perpetrators. Abuse occurring in single mother households isn't necessarily carried out by the mother. The reports also point out the complexity of factors contributing to fatal abuse - existing abuse, poverty, drug and alcohol use, relationship breakdown, criminal history, ongoing violence. I provided the essay on female perpetration because ANY abuse of any child by ANY adult is unacceptable and that was a comprehensive investigation of the topic.

I didn't say whether I approve or disapprove of broadening of definitions - don't be allowing your biases and lack of knowledge of feminism put words in my post that I haven't written. What you fail to note is that broadening definitions makes women more accountable for abuse towards men and children. I don't see any reason to object to that.

The broadening of definitions of rape, as I have pointed out before, makes women accountable for rape and for child sexual abuse, especially towards boys. The way in which it does that is by redefining rape not just as penis in vagina penetration, but penetration of any orifice by any body part or object. Again, I agree and in fact was one of the early campaigners towards such changes.

The current definition that worries me re: child sexual abuse - and I could rely on you not to pick it up or care about it; defines child sexual abuse as,

"Any act by a person having the care of the child which exposes a child to, or involves a child in, sexual processes beyond his or her understanding or contrary to accepted community standards." (p.109)

Beyond his or her understanding? Compare that definition to others to date. What do you think the implications of a definition like that might be?
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 24 January 2010 12:39:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy