When should a parent or parents lose authority over their children?

Poll - Total Votes: 24

When deemed unfit by government

When deemed unfit by their children

When deemed unfit by their local community

When deemed unfit by School

When deemed unfit by Social Worker

Something else

Parents in most cases should not lose authority over their children unless neglect or abuse is prove

Show Results

You can only vote on one answer.

With the discussion about parental rights nowadays I think this is a very interesting question to ask. What are your thoughts?

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

revenant · F

Hard to tell when one does not know the context of the situation.

graphite · 61-69, M

Leftists, who don't have children of their own (kids are bad for the environment, you know), want government control over other people's children.

bugeye · 26-30, F

when they stop being reliant on them. if you live un their house and support you by buying food/power then they have authority over you. once you move out, pay your own bills then you become an equal adult.

InHeaven · F

When they ate shooting heroin and giving it to the kids, raping them, beating them

th3r0n · 41-45, M

@InHeaven yeah...or execute them when they do that stuff...at least the raping and possibly the severe beating

TheDisciplinarian · 61-69, M

I think you asked the Question Wrong
That Said
A Parent can be Held Liable for a childs actions
Up to age 25 ( older in some circumstances)

Though..likely your asking for acceptions
Depends then if therecare any outstanding Emotional and or Mental issues

For thise indeed can require Not lose their Paternal Rights

4meAndyou · F

Parents should be in complete control of their children unless neglect or abuse is proven...and abuse can NOT be defined as a refusal to recognize their child's gender if the child is going through a phase where they are experimenting with different ideas...or unsure.

Nihiless

If they're of lower intelligence, realistically and in my country most children are removed from their caregivers/parents care because of this reason alone. De facto, national statistics show these grounds are higher than any other reason. Of course abuse and neglect is a given.

View 1 more replies »

Nihiless

@SW-User Over here its measured through I.Q still I believe typically within the ranges below 80-70s (at least it was) and if a caregivers intelligence is so low that they are unable to meet their childs basic needs they are deemed unable to cope. National statistics show a correlation of those unable to perform these basic needs as unfit, thereby removing their children. Please note, ot is not what 'I' would define as lower intelligence, this is how public authorities define as lower intelligence and with consideration of the potential risks of safeguarding measures, it only makes sense if they cannot literally meet basic needs, their children are ultimately placed into foster care or with other family/friends care.

SW-User

@Nihiless ok I accept some people need long term support. But where that starts is a grey area. I would not rely on the view of a government though.

Nihiless

@SW-User Nor me, I know that a persons capacity to love is not determined by intelligence, but in all fairness and specifically within each case, if they cannot distinguish basic needs then it is only right to place them somewhere where they are at lower risk; the Government only categorizes potential caregivers/guardians.

Add a comment...