Dutch girl, 13, blocked from global solo sail, put under state supervision

[disorderlyvision]

...

[malkusm]

No no, we wouldn't want children to grow up having big imaginations and imagining that they could accomplish anything they please. After all, what good does sailing around the world do for the state?

[coyote_sprit]

The main concern here is that she won't be in a government run school? :rolleyes:

[Objectivist]

She missed her court hearing... she was out sailing instead. BBC reported on this.

[fisharmor]

So, mom and dad sail for the first 12 miles, and then get in another boat and go home... what's the problem?

More proof that the Dutch really don't understand freedom... they just let you get high as they're micromanaging your life.

[Sandra]

So, mom and dad sail for the first 12 miles, and then get in another boat and go home... what's the problem?

More proof that the Dutch really don't understand freedom... they just let you get high as they're micromanaging your life.

Even the Constitution here doesn't give the green light for a juvenile to endanger herself. What the hell are you thinking?

[coyote_sprit]

Even the Constitution here doesn't give the green light for a juvenile to endanger herself. What the hell are you thinking?

This girl is probably more competent to sail then you are...

[Sandra]

This girl is probably more competent to sail then you are...

Nice comeback. :rolleyes: The girl's parents are idiot stage parents.

[coyote_sprit]

Nice comeback. :rolleyes: The girl's parents are idiot stage parents.

The girls parents are idiots? Why, because they have faith in their daughter? Because they want to raise their daughter the way they see fit?

Also I wasn't insulting you by saying she was more competent merely pointing out that this girl was practically raised in a boat and would therefore be a better sailor then most people. Similar to how children raised by musicians tend to become musicians on average more then other children.

[moostraks]

Even the Constitution here doesn't give the green light for a juvenile to endanger herself. What the hell are you thinking?

Maybe that this article embodies the nanny state around the world that most of us here detest? What you may read into the constitution allowing the state to decide for the parents what their child is capable is your issue, but I dare say more than a few will disagree vehemently with you.

10 second google search pulls this for recent 'dangerous' american teen records accomplished or pending recently:
http://www.thegrio.com/2009/07/teen-pilot-sets-record.php

"A teenaged pilot flies into the record books. She's the youngest African American female to pilot an airplane transcontinentally. It was a record she set over the weekend.

It was a flawless landing for a single engine plane piloted by a teen who isn't old enough to drive. But 15-year-old Kimberly Anyadike is determined to make history, and become the youngest African American girl to fly cross-country."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sunderland19-2009aug19,0,3308989.story

"A month after Zac Sunderland, at 17, became the youngest person to sail around the world by himself, his younger sister has announced plans to try to break that record.

Abby Sunderland, who will turn 16 in October, is hoping to embark on a nonstop, unassisted voyage in November aboard a 40-foot cruising vessel, and complete the trip in about six months."

It doesn't seem like social services got involved with a court order to stay these children's dreams. The best people to make this decision is the parents and the child, not some state paid psychologist who wants to take over the role of parent in society nowadays. And this battle should not be one we feel is limited to the confines of our own society but support those who are oppressed by the nanny state the world over.

Maybe you should ask yourself "what the hell are you thinking"???

Sometimes the rudeness here astounds me.

[LittleLightShining]

Maybe that this article embodies the nanny state around the world that most of us here detest? What you may read into the constitution allowing the state to decide for the parents what their child is capable is your issue, but I dare say more than a few will disagree vehemently with you.

...


Maybe you should ask yourself "what the hell are you thinking"???

Sometimes the rudeness here astounds me.Yes!

This kid was born on a boat for crying out loud.

[Sandra]

There are cases that children NEED protection from a stupid parent, I know from personal experience. Neighbors tried to help but more was needed.

[moostraks]

There are cases that children NEED protection from a stupid parent, I know from personal experience. Neighbors tried to help but more was needed.

So for the sake of the children all parents should be subjected to state oversight. Yeah, we get it. I hate to be cold here, but Darwin. It does not take a village to raise a child. Outsiders, especially child psychologists paid by the state, should not be the ones deciding who may or may not proceed.

It is one thing to be well meaning, but I would not want to embrace a society where people with your attitude control the situation. Sorry about your experience, and I am sure it was tragic for you to be so bitter, but it does not give you the right to decide for parents the world over whether they know the capabilities of their own children.

[amy31416]

If I were her parent I'd be a wreck, but if she is competent and this is her dream--I'd step back (and follow her in my own boat, yelling "are you wearing your lifejacket??!)

[garyallen59]

it used to be that in most cultures by the time the child was 12 or 13 he or she was an adult but not anymore we now have 40 year old children and very few responsible adults it seems. i agree completely with the parents actions of allowing her to sail.

[kahless]

The parents are insane. Here is one case of the state acting appropriately. With all the negative press of the state interfering in family life I wonder if this was highlighted in the media to try to put the state agencies in favorable light.

In other words trying to lump in legitimate protest against the state with these kooks. Just like the media does to the Ron Paul movement here.

[coyote_sprit]

The parents are insane. Here is one case of the state acting appropriately. With all the negative press of the state interfering in family life I wonder if this was highlighted in the media to try to put the state agencies in favorable light.

In other words trying to lump in legitimate protest against the state with these kooks. Just like the media does to the Ron Paul movement here.

I fail to see how these parents are kooks for allowing their daughter to live her own life. The girl was born on a boat and probably knows a lot more about them then you do but I guess age is all that matters.

[brandon]

lmao when I have a 13 year old daughter I'm not even going to let her wear makeup, let alone sail around the freaking world.

[coyote_sprit]

lmao when I have a 13 year old duaghter I'm not even going to let her wear makeup, let alone sail around the freaking world.

Good for you but don't expect others to raise their kids the same way.

[kahless]

Iage is all that matters.

Yes, she is still a kid too young to make a life and death decision required for such a voyage. I agree with the article that the result of such stress at that young age could "pose risks to Dekker's psychological development" not to mention risking the childs life.

[brandon]

Good for you but don't expect others to raise their kids the same way.

Everyone should have to raise their kids the same way as me, or suffer my wrath.

[acptulsa]

Everyone should have to raise their kids the same way as me, or suffer my wrath.

YouTube - Children (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo)

[coyote_sprit]

Yes, she is still a kid too young to make a life and death decision required for such a voyage. I agree with the article that the result of such stress at that young age could "pose risks to Dekker's psychological development" not to mention risking the childs life.

I presume she'll have a year supply of food and all the other necessities. Where does stress factor into this?

[kahless]

I presume she'll have a year supply of food and all the other necessities. Where does stress factor into this?

Being able to handle the boat taking a beating hour after hour in rough seas and in bad weather. Like keeping the boat from cap sizing.


the longest time she would be alone at sea

this to.

[coyote_sprit]

Being able to handle the boat taking a beating hour after hour in rough seas and in bad weather. Like keeping the boat from cap sizing.

Her and her parents clearly think she is competent to do it.


this to.
If she didn't want to be alone she wouldn't be going on this trip.

[disorderlyvision]

...

[Sandra]

Why do I think the ones that think this kid sailing solo is so cool are just a couple to five years older than her.

[kahless]

The state has absolutely no business in child rearing.

I agree here with the above with the exception being in extreme cases such as this.



The people defending the state either A) don't have kids of their own B) are closet statist or C) or have kids and have no confidence in their child rearing skills.

You missed these.

D. Has kids and has common sense thus does not risk my childs life.
E: Has common sense thus does not risk a childs life.

Those that are for it.

A. Are kids themselves. Thus no more needs to be said here.
B. Has no common sense and does care whether their child lives or dies.
C. Has never been out on the open water thus does not have a clue of the risk involved.

Considering your response below I believe you are a combination of A and B?



Worst case scenario. she doesnt make it. she dies in the middle of the ocean, eaten by shark, digested by shark, shit out by shark, eaten by fish who mistakes sinking shark turd for food, shat out by silly poop eating fish, and finally disentagrates completely.

so what?

not my kid. not your kid. sure as hell not the states kid. She had a dream, she felt she was competent, her parents felt she was competent, she followed her dream which leads to two possible outcomes: 1. she completes her journey, her family and people around the world celebrate her enormous feat and record breaking accomplishment 2. She dies living her dream

millions of adults have died for less noble causes.

btw - I am usually the guy against any form of government intrusion in family life but this really crosses the line. I have also been very vocal against Newt Gingrich and the Republicans interference in family life. Particularly with the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and the Contract with America which effected the liberties of every Americas regardless of whether they are on welfare or not.

[coyote_sprit]

Why do I think the ones that think this kid sailing solo is so cool are just a couple to five years older than her.

Because many old people never got off the state's tit.

[Sandra]

Because many old people never got off the state's tit.

How old are you? Ever heard of personal responsibility?
...let me guess, if the girl turns up lost at sea, the parents are arrested... you'll scream "tyranny".

[coyote_sprit]

How old are you?

That's not relevant what's relevant is the state trying to tell a parent how to raise their child and telling a free thinking invidual how to live their life.

[Sandra]

Because a kid will find for a kid. That's how it's relevant. Again from your past posts it seems you don't feel responsibility in anything is relevant. Since the Liberty movement's core belief is personal responsibility, you've made yourself moot to the Liberty movement.

[disorderlyvision]

...

[coyote_sprit]

Because a kid will find for a kid.

Let me put it this way, I'm old enough to know how to spell fend in the proper context.

[LittleLightShining]

Why do I think the ones that think this kid sailing solo is so cool are just a couple to five years older than her.I'm 35 and I have 3 kids 12, 7 and 3. If my kid wanted to sail around the world next year would I let him? No way. Why not? Because he has little to no experience with boats or sailing. If I had raised my kids on boats it would be a different situation.

Assuming that these parents are irresponsible or that people who support this girl and her mission are irresponsible is unfair. Really it all depends on the kid. Kids are individuals and assigning abilities to them based on a collective assumption is wrong.




You missed these.

D. Has kids and has common sense thus does not risk my childs life.
E: Has common sense thus does not risk a childs life.

Those that are for it.

A. Are kids themselves. Thus no more needs to be said here.
B. Has no common sense and does care whether their child lives or dies.
C. Has never been out on the open water thus does not have a clue of the risk involved.

Considering your response below I believe you are a combination of A and B?



btw - I am usually the guy against any form of government intrusion in family life but this really crosses the line. I have also been very vocal against Newt Gingrich and the Republicans interference in family life. Particularly with the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and the Contract with America which effected the liberties of every Americas regardless of whether they are on welfare or not.

I disagree with you completely. This is a matter for the family to decide based on the maturity and capability of the child and their relationship with each other.

[kahless]

I'm 35 and I have 3 kids 12, 7 and 3. If my kid wanted to sail around the world next year would I let him? No way. Why not? Because he has little to no experience with boats or sailing. If I had raised my kids on boats it would be a different situation.

Assuming that these parents are irresponsible or that people who support this girl and her mission are irresponsible is unfair. Really it all depends on the kid. Kids are individuals and assigning abilities to them based on a collective assumption is wrong.



I disagree with you completely. This is a matter for the family to decide based on the maturity and capability of the child and their relationship with each other.

A 13 year old "kid" will be sailing alone in her yacht for the next two years. Have you really thought about this or are you just another one that does not understand the difficulty level even for experienced sailors that have the psychological development due to age to accomplish it?

[LittleLightShining]

A 13 year old "kid" will be sailing alone in her yacht for the next two years. Have you really thought about this or are you just another one that does not understand the difficulty level even for experienced sailors that have the psychological development due to age to accomplish it?
What I'm saying is you can't judge the situation because you don't know this girl, her parents, her maturity level or her capability.

[fisharmor]

Wow, I hope none of you statists have guns in the house. It's irresponsible, after all, having KIDS around GUNS when they could be HURT!

Also, nobody said anything about the girl getting hurt, lost at sea, or running out of provisions. The nanny state is making the argument that she will not develop "normally" by not going to state-mandated school, and their concern is for her psychological well-being because she will be outside of the state's influence for so long.

There is no other reason specified for why they are trying to force her to stay.

Now, statists, argue the point at hand. Stop telling us how dangerous it is. Nobody's arguing that.

[LibertyEagle]

If I were her parent I'd be a wreck, but if she is competent and this is her dream--I'd step back (and follow her in my own boat, yelling "are you wearing your lifejacket??!)

lulz

:)

[Bryan]

Sandra is right, there are times that children need to be saved- but I ask, how can it be responsible to support "saving" a child from their parents based on news reports? Further, we should keep in mind that to "save" a child it may be necessary to carry out an armed home invasion that requires killing the parents if they choose to defend themselves and their family. One should ask themselves, do you feel strongly enough on the issue to personally partake in this invasion? If you are disabled, would you be willing to pay someone else to do this, and cover any medical / funeral expensive for them? Would it be hypocritical to want the invasion but not support it with your time/money/life?

In this case, I think moonstraks is right one- this embodies the nanny state around the world. How could anyone possibly get from this that her parents are in any way not loving to her? With her father being an expect sailor and knowing his daughters skills who are us to second guess him? I'm not saying she is qualified but in a free society the burden needs to prove a major problem- I can't see how this even comes close.

The quotes by the state "authorities" in the article just highlight their superiority / controlling mentality- "it would be irresponsible" (according to who's standards?), "the trip posed risks to Dekker's psychological development" (everything poses risks, who are you to judge what is OK and not?), "impact on her normal development" (what is the definition of normal and why should we be forced to it?)-- and "It is wonderful to have dreams, but they have to be realistic." (so the state now gets to decide what is 'realistic'?)

And all this for an activity that won't even take place under their claimed "jurisdiction". Wow, we sure need to get that LOST treaty signed so that way the UN can "lawfully" gain "jurisdiction" over the oceans so they can step-in and save her if she goes on the trip against the local authorities demands. :rolleyes: (sarcasm)

[robert9712000]

So to the ones against it,where do you draw the line?

some people say parents that smoke around children should be brought up on assault charges or if the child doesn't eat properly there endangering there health and should be removed from the home because its abuse.Once you start down that road of trying to dictate how someone else should raise there children then there's no limit how far it can go because everyone has there opinion.So why not leave it up to the only opinion that matters,the parents.

Like someone else mentioned 100 years ago alot of 13 year olds were already working and living on there own.You feel they cant make proper decisions because society has done a great job at making sure life is lived according to a socially acceptable standard and if you deviate even slightly, well you automatically must be a lunatic or dangerous.

I call bull crap,I'm surprised on a liberty based forum,so many don't understand what true liberty is,The right to come and go as you please and do what you want weather reckless in your eyes or not.Its none of your business

[kahless]

Wow, I hope none of you statists have guns in the house. It's irresponsible, after all, having KIDS around GUNS when they could be HURT!

Also, nobody said anything about the girl getting hurt, lost at sea, or running out of provisions. The nanny state is making the argument that she will not develop "normally" by not going to state-mandated school, and their concern is for her psychological well-being because she will be outside of the state's influence for so long.

There is no other reason specified for why they are trying to force her to stay.

Now, statists, argue the point at hand. Stop telling us how dangerous it is. Nobody's arguing that.

Just because I disagree in this extreme situation does not make me a statist. Also, no one here is saying they agree with how intrusive the liberals push to be in family life. That I am very much against and have spent years actively fighting against. The collectivist tactic you are using is the same used against Ron Paul by taking the extreme beliefs - actions of the few in the movement and lumping us all in that group.

It could be said if I go by the thinking of some of the replies here it would be ok for a parent to physically harm a child? Like that would be ok since that is what true "liberty" is all about? "The right to come and go as you please and do what you want weather reckless in your eyes or not." :rolleyes:

It is difficult enough for an adult to be alone for 2 years without going nuts. You are supporting doing this to a child at sea that does not have the life experience. No wonder why there is a stigma at the mention of Ron Paul's name. It is the unfortunate association with lunatics that hold such extreme beliefs and are vocal about it.

[2young2vote]

It is not good that the state can decide what a kid can do with his or her own life. This isn't some stupid kid wanting to do something idiotic (like filling a fruit with gasoline and lighting it on fire and hitting it with a baseball bat) just to have fun, she is trying to do something that is mature and good and has meaning to it- its an achievement that she wants to make.

[kahless]

This isn't some stupid kid wanting to do something idiotic (like filling a fruit with gasoline and lighting it on fire and hitting it with a baseball bat) just to have fun, she is trying to do something that is mature and good and has meaning to it- its an achievement that she wants to make.

The example you gave is probably safer since she would not be doing that 24x7 for 2 years. Being at sea alone she is at risk 24x7 so there will be many incidents that put her safety at risk over 2 years.

[malkusm]

Assuming that the 13-year-old has parental approval in all the following cases, should the state step in if....

A) A 13 year old who had been swimming all their life wanted to attempt to swim across the English channel?
B) A 13 year old who had climbed smaller mountains wanted to attempt to climb Mount Everest?
C) A 13 year old who had trained dogs all their life wanted to attempt to run the Iditarod?

Please provide reasons for a yes or no answer.

My personal opinion: if the whole reason for state intervention is to protect the child, why don't we protect adults from partaking in the same activities?

[amy31416]

Funny thing is, she would have done it before if it had been legal.

http://www.thestar.com/article/459375


Girl, 14, smashes week-old record for Lake Erie swim

Caledon swimmer does 19 km route in 5 hours , 40 minutes
Jul 13, 2008 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (1)
Sunny Freeman
Staff Reporter

Jade Scognamillo, 14, didn't let her phobia of slimy seaweed stop her from breaking records only a week old to become the youngest and fastest swimmer to cross Lake Erie yesterday.

Scognamillo, of Caledon, set out from Sturgeon Point, New York at 7:27 a.m. yesterday. She completed the 19.2-kilometre swim to Crystal Beach, Ont., in a record five hours, 40 minutes and 35 seconds, slashing the old record of 7 hours, 47 minutes and 30 seconds – set last Saturday by another 14-year-old – by two hours.

"I wasn't expecting to break the record by so much, so I'm really happy about that," Scognamillo said.

She also broke the record to become the youngest swimmer to cross the lake because she is about four months younger than 14-year-old Natalie Lambert, who last week became the youngest ever swimmer to make the crossing. While Scognamillo used the traditional front stroke, Lambert used the gruelling butterfly stoke for her swim.

Scognamillo said that, legally, she had to wait until she was 14 to cross the lake, and had already set the date for her journey before she heard of Lambert's record-breaking swim last Saturday.

"I feel relieved it's over," said Scognamillo. "There was one part in the middle where my muscles were hurting and I thought my arms and legs were going to fall off, but everyone cheering kept me going ... and also that I was doing it for Sick Kids."

Both girls used their swim to draw attention to charities.

Scognamillo said she is trying to raise $30,000 for a new incubator for the neonatal unit at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children. So far she has raised $10,000, but she hopes her accomplishment will encourage more people to donate.

Lambert dedicated her swim to raising awareness for Y-Knot, a YMCA program that allows physically disabled children and their siblings to participate in sport together. Her 17-year-old sister Jenna, an avid marathon swimmer who crossed Lake Ontario two years ago, has cerebral palsy, and the program allows the sisters to train together.

While Scognamillo is determined to plunge into another long-distance swim soon and has always dreamed of crossing Lake Ontario, she said she isn't sure of when that might be.

Lambert became the youngest person to swim across Lake Ontario and set a new speed record of 23 hours and 15 minutes last year. She is to swim the 52 kilometres across Lake Ontario again next week.

[2young2vote]

The example you gave is probably safer since she would not be doing that 24x7 for 2 years. Being at sea alone she is at risk 24x7 so there will be many incidents that put her safety at risk over 2 years.

The article states "She stressed the longest time she would be alone at sea would be three weeks since she would often call into port."

You just like controlling the lives of other people. It's as simple as that. You are just as bad as the liberals who think they know what is best for the children of other parents. The state has no right to interfere when it is the girl making the choice for herself. If the parents were making her do this then that would be one thing, but they aren't.

[kahless]

Assuming that the 13-year-old has parental approval in all the following cases, should the state step in if....

A) A 13 year old who had been swimming all their life wanted to attempt to swim across the English channel?
B) A 13 year old who had climbed smaller mountains wanted to attempt to climb Mount Everest?
C) A 13 year old who had trained dogs all their life wanted to attempt to run the Iditarod?

Please provide reasons for a yes or no answer.

My personal opinion: if the whole reason for state intervention is to protect the child, why don't we protect adults from partaking in the same activities?

In those cases she would be supervised by adults, she would not be doing it alone nor isolated from people for 2 years. As a parent I would not permit it and still think that is nuts. But for someone else that has the experience, training and a support team for those items on your list it is questionable territory of government intervention. Although I would be against it, the english channel would probably be ok with the right support team in case of a problem.

[malkusm]

In those cases she would be supervised by adults, she would not be doing it alone nor isolated from people for 2 years so although risky I would leave that decision to the parents.

Ok, so address my last point - why do we let an 18-year-old "adult" sail around the world alone, since it's so dangerous? Why doesn't the state stop that 18-year-old from endangering his life? Or how about a 78-year-old?

[kahless]

Ok, so address my last point - why do we let an 18-year-old "adult" sail around the world alone, since it's so dangerous? Why doesn't the state stop that 18-year-old from endangering his life? Or how about a 78-year-old?

An 18 year old is not a child and is old enough to make adult decisions. A 13 year old is not at an age to make adult decisions. The government should never interfere in the parents role unless it is an extreme situation that endangers the welfare of the child. I think putting a 13 year out to sea alone for 2 years qualifies.

btw - I re-read your post and changed my reply that you quoted.

[amy31416]

Not all kids should be treated the same, nor given the same opportunities by their parents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies

[disorderlyvision]

...

[kahless]

Not all kids should be treated the same, nor given the same opportunities by their parents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies

No comparison. None listed required the child to be alone for 2 years in a life threatening environment.

[disorderlyvision]

...

[amy31416]

No comparison. None listed required the child to be alone for 2 years in a life threatening environment.

It's not your call to make for other parents, and there are several athletes on that list that performed with significant danger to themselves.

Worthwhile ventures are often not safe nor easy.

My brother had an opportunity to go and work in Australia when he was 14, he wouldn't go. I was 12 at the time and begged to go but wasn't allowed because of overprotective parents. I lived in Africa when I was 10/11 years old, mostly unsupervised.

Could something bad have happened? Sure. But even after I've matured, if I could go back in time and get the opportunity again, I'd go in a heartbeat. You'd not only like to take opportunities like that away from your own children (if you have any) but from other parents and children as well by mandate of law.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I'm for the kid! - go girl and DO IT!

Odd situation, the Dutch are normally very open minded...

It's also distressing that we have so many Ms Grundies on this board.... :(

-t

[bkreigh]

I see no reason why the state should get involved in this. It is the decision of the parents and the kid.

For those that are with the state on this issue, how is this a reckless situation for the child? Is it because not everyday a 13 year old sails around the world? Im sorry but who are you and the state to say what is dangerous and what is not? There is a first for everything. Kids start racing at around 4 or 5. Is that reckless? What about kids riding bikes with no helmets? Holy hot shit...NO HELMETS!!! Where is the state?

Sure it is dangerous i wouldnt let my kid do it but it is not for me to say if others want to put their child in a vessel and sail around the world. More power to them. I would assume that they take all the necessary precautions and monitor her progress closely. Just because she sets sail to go across the world doesnt mean that they can not call the whole voyage off if something would occur.

[XNavyNuke]

Psychology Today: What To Tell Your Daughter Who Wants To Sail Around The World (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/guilt-manipulation-and-other-helpful-tools/201006/what-tell-your-daughter-who-wants-sail-around)


The key here is to never directly forbid her from said excursion. You want her to change her mind about sailing around the world by herself, and you want her to think that she came to this decision on her own. In a causal way, you will need to merely "mention" all of the horrible things that could happen to a young girl alone at sea. (I deal with this method in greater detail in my book, Raising the Perfect Child Through Guilt and Manipulation, in the chapter entitled, "How To Scare The Crap Out Of Your Child (in a positive way).")

Wow. Sounds like this should be on the public school reading list.

XNN

[VBRonPaulFan]

An 18 year old is not a child and is old enough to make adult decisions. A 13 year old is not at an age to make adult decisions. The government should never interfere in the parents role unless it is an extreme situation that endangers the welfare of the child. I think putting a 13 year out to sea alone for 2 years qualifies.

btw - I re-read your post and changed my reply that you quoted.

You're using an arbitrary number declared by the state as to when someone is suddenly an adult? People aren't equal, and they develop so differently that for all you know this kid is probably more mature and responsible than most 25 year olds, but you'd be okay with some idiot 25 year old doing this just because they're over that magical number?

I think that's completely silly. Also, the child is the one who is pushing to do this, not the parents. It is the kids decision, and if the parents feel that she is capable then by all means that is their call. You can think this is insane all you want, but people are free to make their own judgements regardless of how critical everyone else may be of them.

[MelissaWV]

I see no reason why the state should get involved in this. It is the decision of the parents and the kid.

For those that are with the state on this issue, how is this a reckless situation for the child? Is it because not everyday a 13 year old sails around the world? Im sorry but who are you and the state to say what is dangerous and what is not? There is a first for everything. Kids start racing at around 4 or 5. Is that reckless? What about kids riding bikes with no helmets? Holy hot shit...NO HELMETS!!! Where is the state?

Sure it is dangerous i wouldnt let my kid do it but it is not for me to say if others want to put their child in a vessel and sail around the world. More power to them. I would assume that they take all the necessary precautions and monitor her progress closely. Just because she sets sail to go across the world doesnt mean that they can not call the whole voyage off if something would occur.

Whoops :p That assumption turned out to be kind of wrong. I was shocked, too, that there didn't seem to be vessels "chasing" her ship and keeping an eye on her. Instead, they just had a beacon.

[XNavyNuke]

Why no legal action against the parents? (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/03/why-no-legal-action-against-the-parents/)


16-year old Abby Sunderland of Thousand Oaks nearly lost her life — with her parents’ permission.

Instead of merely questioning the decision of Laurence and Marianne Sunderland to place their daughter in the middle of the Indian Ocean all by herself during storm season, the media should be asking why legal action has not been pursued. California Penal Code 273 states that any parent who “willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered” can be charged with child endangerment.

Why this soapbox and why now?

XNN

[XNavyNuke]

Obviously, retirees should not be allowed to sail either. They're much safer in government run nursing homes. I wonder if we'll see as much outcry about the rescue costs as we did with the teenagers.

Jeanne Socrates in knockdown near Cape Horn (http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Jeanne-Socrates-in-knockdown-near-Cape-Horn/78862)


While information is scarce at this early stage, in the knock down she apparently suffered a broken boom, and there is a line around her prop.

Falmouth Coastguard in the UK have been negotiating with the Chilean Navy and their coastguard to take her yacht in tow to the coastline if necessary. It is currently under tow from a Chilean fishing vessel.

XNN