If the child was registered at birth to the State by the parents what does that tell you.

The Govt can do exactly as they choose with our children registered to it at birth because the parents would also vote for these grubs and consent to this exercise of power by the State as the parents are also registered electors ( slaves) on the electoral roll.

Very few on this forum realise how the authority to exercise the power over us and our children, by the State, is created.

As for the child on the pill the parents should have discharged their obligation to the child and spent more time educating the child in the years prior to the incident that appears to have upset so many on this forum.

I have had six children, three girls, and I did not have this problem and my sons did not cause these problems either.

There are two separate issues here: the first is the fact that a child has chosen, apparently entirely of her own volition, to become sexually active; the second, that the nurse at her school has chosen to make a referral to a GP for her to receive advice and possibly a prescription for the pill without informing the parents.

On the first issue, sexual activity among 14 year olds, I can only say that it was always part of our society. An age of consent is a very late invention and many of our forebears would have started having children at that age or earlier. In harsher times, it was regarded as a smart thing to marry off your daughters young so that they would have a better chance of surviving childbirth, which carried off so many women. Today's medical care for expectant mothers is so good that this simple fact is sometimes forgotten. Before anyone starts calling me a paedophile, I'd be disturbed if my daughter (who's 12) turned up pregnant any time in the next 8 or 9 years, but I'm prepared for the possibility, remote as I think it is.

On the second issue, whilst not exactly the same, I've experienced DOCS interviewing my children without notifying me (re a stupid complaint made about the ex by the new boyfriend's ex) and I was quite cross. Nonetheless, I can see the sense in it, given that the children are the ones who are actually experiencing any problem. While my reaction as a parent is to be affronted, my children are their own masters and I am merely a facilitator of their best interests as I see them. The school nurse in this case was doing what I would have done anyway, which was to ensure that the risk to the child as a result of her decision was minimised. I assume that some counselling was offered as well.

Sometimes, we as parents need to step back and allow our kids to tell us what they want, hard as that may be.

Terrific posts from Foxy, Bronwyn, Yvonne and Antiseptic.

I wouldn't want to be a teenager again, hormonally driven and in some cases unable to talk to their parents.

I was such a teenager, sexually active at 15, I went to a GP at my own volition and expense for contraception. Thus avoiding a teenage pregnancy.

It is never easy watching our children take their first faltering steps into the adult world, the best we can do is be there for them if they fall.

While we all hope that it is later that our children become sexually active, if it is sooner, then it is reassuring to know that there are responsible adults such as the school nurse and GP who act with the best interests of our children. Far from removing parental rights these professionals acted with common sense and care for the young girl in question here.

If you do your parental job properly there will not be a need for schools or nurses to take control of issues that should be done by parents. Not all parents are responsible. Some parents don't believe their kids can be sexually active at 13 or 14yo. These kids do have friends of the opposite sex, and probably up to 3 years older than they are. So just be careful, and keep ya head above sand level.

Fractelle, why do you assume that that the state can do whatever it deems "responsible" and in the child's "best interests". Who the hell are they to act in the child's best interests, but the parents are forbidden from doing so? That doesn't make any sense (for good reason) as indicated earlier. For example, the state stole children from aboriginals. Applying your reasoning, they were acting in the child's best interests. Really you must understand what the problem with this country is and where it's going. The state is removing parenetal rights. And the list of reasons for taking away your child or punishing the parent is becoming longer and longer-it's all part and parcel of the mentality I talked about but was rebuked for mentioning.

yvonne,

'Interesting to see the mothers on this thread all fairly pragmatic in regards to their teenage children.'
Why is it interesting? Because mothers aren't normally pragmatic, or because you are attempting to say fathers are not pragmatic?