Law that really don't protect anyone

[fanciful_muse]

Now THIS has me completely stymied: You can't get a kid arrested or committed unless they hurt themselves or someone else with a weapon. Even if the kid is under 13, is a frequent runaway, sexually active, and got herself infected with a serious STD. She may be smoking pot and doing goddess knows what else.

Just what laws protect the rights of the PARENTS? My goddaughter is running roughshod all over her father. He can't sleep a night through because he has to listen to see if she runs away to be with her boyfriend. He has to endure getting hit and sworn at a blue streak. She needs antidepressants badly, and she needs to be evaluated in an inpatient environment to see if she is exhibiting signs of any of the other mental illnesses her mother has.

Her school said he can't come around for a week, because he went to pick her up from school, she tried to run, and he grabbed the hood of her sweater to stop her. Didn't hit her, just grabbed the first thing he could when she started to run.

She runs, he calls the cops, sends them to the boyfriend's house. She runs out the back door, but not before the cops are inside and can smell pot. She waits, and runs back at the first opportunity, but the cops won't lock her in juvenile detention.

Just HOW do these laws serve both parents and children when the child is a demonstrable delinquent and refuses to respond to outpatient help?

WHY does she have to use a weapon to harm someone or herself and, if she does, what if someone dies? WHY does it HAVE to go that far?

Wisconsin. Brown County. Land of the Republicans, site of a recall election on their worst governor in history.

I can't believe this. The girl needs help NOW and from all looks of it she will have to be locked up to get it. But she has to try to kill someone (or herself) before they'll do anything of consequence.

Comments

[sissyhiyah.livejournal.com]

It's the same here in NC. We have countless kids brought in to be evaluated by our psych department, but unless there has been a suicidal gesture or an act of violence, the kid is usually sent home or maaaaybe to a facility that will keep them for three or four days, tops.

It's screwy and makes no sense at all. Some of these kids clearly need help.

[magyarok-saman.livejournal.com]

What is the sense in this? If a parent feels the need to have their kid observed, why can't it be done? Most (not all, but most) parents who would do this have a good reason.

In Faith's case, she is entirely out of control and there is a paperwork history of just how out of control she really is.

[sissyhiyah.livejournal.com]

There is no sense in it. I don't understand why it works this way. Instead of preventing bad things, we wait for them to happen. We just react when we should be acting in the first place. It's insane.

endure getting hit and sworn at

[nebris.livejournal.com]

Violence and threats of violence.

~M~

[moropus.livejournal.com]

If she has actually hit her dad, what heppens if he files assault charges against her? Not that he wants to, but what if he did? Would they do something then?

[mrs-ralph.livejournal.com]

The law is the way it is because the involuntary commitment rules were abused up until the late 70's. Many parents committed children who wouldn't do something or another the parents wanted, pregnant teens and wives who had just come into some money. Ohio still has involuntary commitment and it gets abused frequently...30 days observation, no judge, no jury and no doctors asked.

The father needs to look into what it takes to commit a child in his state. Two doctors signing a legal document is the usual but it varies and it has been a while. Perhaps his best move is to speak to a lawyer. It may be that he needs to sever parental rights so they can commit her to the mercies of the state.