Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    	This is an interesting topic. My son will be 4 this fall.
    	My wife and I were watching a graphicly violent movie and
    	thought he was asleep, but had seen the whole thing.
    
    	Now, whenever he get's mad at me, he says he will kill me with
    	a gun and watch blood come out of my head. I'm not too pleased
    	with this kind of talk.
    
    	Also, we don't let him see the "Night of the Living Dead" type
    	of movies because we live next door to a cemetary and don't him
    	getting mightmares. *I* get the nightmares :-(.
    
    	Guy
    
    
        

    My wife and I consciously tried never to shield our kids from the
    reality around them.  We spoke to them when they were little just as we
    would speak with other adults.  We would never try to hide or cover up
    alcohol and drug abuse by family members, instead we'd ask them what
    they thought, or how they felt about it.  We brought them to wakes and
    allowed them to see the dead person.  Gay friends and relatives felt
    free to speak of their relationships.  We tried our best to be
    emotionally honest in front of them.
    The results, so far- they seem more adept at making decisions than
    their average peers.  They have astute powers of observation, and 
    are shrewd about the world around them.  They call a spade a spade,
    though they realize that to be tactful, they may have to do it
    privately at home.  Drugs and alcohol have little allure.  They
    adjusted quicker to the deaths of my wife's parents, who we lived very
    closely to, than we did.  They cry when they're upset, and laugh when
    they're happy.  The repressive school system they are now in sees them
    as polite people who generally speak their minds. I'm very happy with
    our choices, and thrilled to have such great people as my family.
    Society gives kids few or no rights, but the parents don't have to
    behave that way.  The more respect you show them, the better off they
    are.
    		Tom

    Tom,
      I am really curious about how you explained the "in order to be
    tactful, do it at home" part to your kids.  If kids are brought
    up in unconventional ways, do you tell them to do what they have
    to to fit in, or to avoid offending other people's sensibilities,
    or do you tell them to say what they would say at home, and if they
    lose a few friends or get censured for it, it's worth it.  I'm very
    interested in this topic.
    	Linda

    Well.
    
    I am infuriated by the modern concept that children are little
    people who rights are denied to them by the big people.  First of
    all, children may be little people but that does not make them
    little adults.  No child should have to bear the burden of having
    to make adult-like decisions.  For instance, no four year old should
    have to decide when he or she is ready to go to bed, what he or she
    should eat for breakfast, or wear to school.  You see, children
    are children -- *they do not have the maturity needed to make
    decisions, and by forcing them to "have responsibility," is in
    effect, abusing them.*  I know of parents who are just oh so
    sophisticated that they let their little children decide what to
    eat, where to go on weekends, etc. etc. and almost always, these
    are the children who throw temper tantrums and feel overburdened
    and overworked.  Yes, I know 4 year olds who are overburdened and
    overworked, and they do not look like "abused" children, nor would
    anyone say that there parents abuse them.  BUT, they are abused
    for they are too young to have so much responsibility.
    Does the term adult child ring a bell?  Well, this term refers
    to children who grow up in alcoholic homes, but it can refer
    to any child who grows up having to make decisions that are
    too adult too *early* in their lives.  And for small children,
    practically everything is too adult.  
    
    Another biggie is that children are physically immature to
    understand that what they see is not always reality.  For instance, all
    the brouhaha about violent cartoons is valid; a 4 year old
    cannot separate what he/she sees on TV from real life -- to a
    small child, TV is reality -- in other words, there is a merging
    or they don't have the ability to set up boundaries yet; so you
    can be sure that if a 4 year old watches a Freddie kill some one
    on TV, this 4 year old can expect to see Freddie come to his house
    and do the same to him.  Their little brains are simply too immature
    to know the difference.
    
    Do a kid a favor and treat him like a kid.
    
    Maia
    

    I have told my 6 year old daughter that she must have respect for other
    people's feelings.  That she should try to avoid hurting their
    feelings.
    That she should therefore think before she speaks.
    
    In other words - we're big on compassion.  This is fine with her - she
    has no problem with it.  She doesn't feel that she is being
    duplicitous.
    
    With rights come responsibility.  She must accept the responsibility
    for the effect that her words and actions have upon others.
    
    She is learning that she is not the center of the universe and that she
    does not exist in a vacuum.  
    
    I don't tell her what to think or what to say.  But I tell her that she
    MUST think.
    
    The result - \
    
    She is a compassionate person.  She is a steadfast friend.  She is an
    advocate for those who are singled for ridicule. She has a mind of her
    own.  She dares to be different.  She doesn't feel compelled to fit in
    At times it hurts her when she is singled out because she is different
    - but she doesn't consider following the crowd to be an acceptable
    course of action.  There are all her own choices.
    
    

    re: .4
    I have to agree.  Children have the right to be children!  How often
    have you heard adults complain about "never having a childhood" or
    "I was born an adult" because for whatever reason they assumed too
    much responsibility too quickly and feel robbed of childhood
    experiences.
    
    As far as any age where children suddenly have the rights associated
    with being adults, that depends entirely upon the child.  As a
    child is able to accept responsibility and deal with the results of
    making their own choices, then that's the age for *that child*.
    
    I'm certainly not an advocate of "children should be seen and not
    heard" or parenting like a dictator.  But *my* experience has been that
    the children *I* know who have been given a free hand at making their
    own decisions is that they become self centered, self indulgent, often
    overbearing...and for *a child* who is not born with adult maturity,
    maybe that's a normal response to having to, in essence, become an
    adult before their time.
    

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about "Children as Little People" being a modern
concept, Maia. Several books I have read state in an authoritative manner that
separation of children from adults, and their activities from adult activities,
started around the same time chivalry did (maybe someone can add more?). Then
came separating children from each other, based on age, and dressing boy
children in 'feminine' clothing (like dresses), until they were 'men'.
	Mez

    
    Well I definitely think that the glorification of violence, the
    association of sex with violence, and the objectification of women
    can't be internalized too early. If this isn't accomplished by
    toddlerhood at the latest, our economy is going to suffer.
    
    While we're at it, why not engage the Little People in the actual
    production of these images? Cheap labor, y'know.
    
    Dorian

>    people who rights are denied to them by the big people.  First of
>    all, children may be little people but that does not make them
>    little adults.  No child should have to bear the burden of having
>    to make adult-like decisions.
 
Did you read what I said?!?!  I said I did *not* think that children should
be treated as full adults.  I said they should be treated as *people*.
This means treating them with respect!  No where, not once, did I say we
should make four year olds responsible for their own life.  But even a
four year old deserves respect!  This mean listening to what s/he says,
evaluating it as you would the statement of an adult, taking it into
consideration and not writing it off merely because it comes from the mouth
of a child.  It means when you make decisions for the child, you should
to the best of the child's ability to understand, explain your reasons.
And yes, it means that some decisions children should make for themselves.


>    effect, abusing them.*  I know of parents who are just oh so
>    sophisticated that they let their little children decide what to
>    eat, where to go on weekends, etc. etc. and almost always, these
>    are the children who throw temper tantrums and feel overburdened

Letting a child *run* the family is very different than letting the child
have a part in family decisions.  Temper tantrums are a result of spoiling
a child - but spoiling doesn't mean you are giving the child rights.  Quite
the opposite, spoiling a child means hiding them from the reality that
you can't always get what you want (with apologies to the Stones.)

>    Another biggie is that children are physically immature to
>    understand that what they see is not always reality.

*Physically* too immature?  Sources, please?

>    Do a kid a favor and treat him like a kid.

The the kid a favor and treat her like a person.  Grant to her all those
"unalienable rights" and "self-evident truths" that merely being human is
supposed to guarantee.

D!

    re: topic
    
                 *Thank you D, this is a subject that *NEEDS* to be hashed
    out!
    
    
    RE: .4 & .6
    
                Let me tell you about a small part of my childhood and see
    if you still feel as you do.  The very first funeral I was *ALLOWED* to
    attend was my own mothers when I was 16 years old.  I didn't know how
    to morn, I didn't even know how to act.  Today I am  still paying the
    price for that "bit" of shielding from reality and I am 37 years old!
    When are children allowed to take *some* responsibility for being an 
    adult.  Parents will not be perfect or even close until we begin
    teaching perenting in the schools, home and church.  Childhood is a
    time where you are able to "try" out being an adult without the
    consequences when you fail.  I always thought, that was the reason for
    childhood....a preperation time and *NOT* a 17 or 18 year vacation!
    
    
    Dave

    
            One more thing before I let this topic go.  If our children
    are not allowed to see reality (in small doses) they won't be able 
    to cope with the reality of this world when they have to.  This idea
    that you should "allow children to be children", only fosters
    immaturity and sets the child back in his or her development process.
    
    
    RE:.0    D, you are very right...children have no rights in this
             society.
    
    Dave

    it can be just as destructive to require children to accept
    responsibility before they are able to shoulder it.  A man I know, now
    in his 60s, at 8 yrs old, was made to choose whether to live with his
    mother and her new husband who did not like him, and with whom he no
    doubt had some problems, or to live with and be raised by his
    grandmother.  He chose his grandmother.  He has never stopped being
    angry at his mother, rightly so IMO; no 8-yr-old child should be made
    to take responsibility for such a choice.  In his mind, the mother
    chose her new husband over her child, and made the child bear the
    burdon of responsibility for the choice.
    
    So all this topic seems to be about is that people differ over what is
    appropriate for children at different times.  You may see the above
    example as child abuse, or as piffle.  Bottom line is, the working
    assumption of our society seems to be that parents have the best
    interest of their children at heart, and are best able to decide for
    their children.  (within some limits, of course, generally defined as
    abuse, but these limits are admittedly fuzzy.)  Parents are humanly
    fallible, but are better at it for their own kids than the state is.
    
    Are there specific proposals to change this?

    RE: .12
                What would I change?  Well for one give children a "bill of
    rights".  Let them know that they "count" in our society.  As for your
    example.....We see judges at divorce trials asking the same questions 
    of kids the same age.  Allowing a child to decide is not IMO abuse. It
    only makes them relize that reality is a part of growing up.  If, I
    were to divorce (not just a possibility but a probability) and my kids
    were to choose another parent other than me I would try to understand
    and not make them feel guilty in any way.

    
    I am happy with the way I was raised. I was shielded from some things,
    but not everything. I saw weddings and funerals. I saw my parents
    split. I did not get "input" as to my parents splitting. I don't think
    it would have been very appropriate. Our family went on a vacation when
    I was 5. I didn't choose where to go or how or what to do. I went along
    with the game plan. I think that's appropriate.
    
    Mom wasn't big on letting us see gore, Dad felt swearing was
    inappropriate. I swear my face off these days,  but not in front of
    Dad. I still don't like gore. The amount of people who die in this
    world is a part of "reality", but not one that I can affect very
    easily. I don't like being shown people's deaths. Not in life, not on
    screen. I was shielded from that as a child, and I'm very happy about
    it.
    
    I had to eat my vegetables - they were good for me. Right now, that
    sounds like a pretty good reason. It was in my best interest. Could I
    understand that as a child? Probably not. But I have my health today in
    part because of the nutrition "forced" on me as a child. I would have
    eaten Fritos for breakfast lunch and dinner! I think Mom made better
    choices than I would have.
    
    TV was pretty much banned in our home. It meant that I couldn't follow
    half the conversations in the schoolyard. But at this point in my life,
    I still find reading more enjoyable than TV, and I can appreciate my
    mother's feeling that the mind should be active and entertain itself,
    not let itself be entertained. That wasn't how I felt then. Frankly, I
    think my feelings on TV were not well informed, and don't count much in the
    big picture.
    
    I think  that in general, the decisions that my parents made for me
    were based on a lot more information and experience than I had, and I
    don't think that much of it would have sunk in if they'd tried
    explaining everything to me so that I could make a choice. And the time
    it would have taken would have been a waste. The times that I did make
    my own decisions, I often made those of a spoiled brat. Many of them I
    truly regret.
    
    Not everyone has a wonderful set of parents. But I think mine did one
    heckuva job considering what they had to work with. The best thing they
    did for me was treat me like a child. A smart one, but definitely a
    child.
    
    

I think most people here are badly misinterpretting what I said/what 
I want to talk about here.

I *never* said that kids shouldn't have rules, that they should be treated
like adults, that they should go out and get jobs and pay rent, that they're
permission should be requested for every family decision or anything else
absurd.

I was pointing out that kids have no rights.  Children shouldn't necessarily
have the same rights as adults but they should have *some* rights.

My parents had particular rules in the house - like when we could watch
tv, what we could and couldn't eat, etc.  I have no problems with this.
I think this is important - an unstructured environment isn't healthy
either.  That's not the point.

The point is that we, as a society, don't treat them as people.  their
opinions carry no weight.  (This doesn't mean you have to obey your
kid.  If your kid has the opinion that spinich is horrible, s/he has
the right to that opinion; you, as a parent, have the right to make hir
eat it anway.  But I think their opinion should be taken into account,
and when deciding whether to make hir each spinich, you should consider
whether s/he likes it.)  They aren't protected by any of the laws that
supposedly apply to all people.

So where does childhood differ from slavery?  Children are truly property
to their parents, whether their parents choose to raise them as such or
not.  I am not trying to critisize the individual choices any of youhave
mde in how you raise your children. I am trying to point out their place
in society that I think is wrong.

I think respect for children doesn't mean obeying them, or letting them
run *your* life. It means listening to what they say with an open mind.
It means evaluating their decisions and opinions on their own merits,
rather than writing them off.  It means being honest with them.  Does this
preclude deciding that they *will* eat their vegetables?  No.

I guess, think about it this way.  you work for your boss, and you are
obligated to do what s/he says.  However, you at least have the option of
leaving.  There it differs from slavery/indenturement.  If your boss
told you to do something but wouldn't answer questions about why you
had to do it, you'd be justifiable upset. But parents say that to kids
all the time.  If you tried to give your boss some feedback, and she
said "What do you know, you are just an employee, keep your mouth shut"
you would also be justifiably upset.  You could take it to personnel. But
forkids, there *is* no personnel to complain to, and they have to stick
to their jobs for 18 years with no vacations.

Finally, many of you are saying things like "3 year olds shouldn't have
decide the family budget."  No, they shouldn't.  Why choose extreme
examples.  Replace 13 with 3!  13 year olds are a lot more responsible
and a lot more mature than 3 year olds, and yet they have no more rights.
Children evolve gradually toward full-personhood, and yet gain none of
the rights until one day they happen to be 18 years old, and them *boom* they
are handed all of them (almost.)

D!

		This issue was discussed in V2 of Parenting note 1202.
Hit KP7 or select to add this conference to your notebook.

	My, my, I must be getting old.  I swore I'd never say things like this, 
but my first reaction  to the basenote was "This person is NOT a parent! Let her
come back and talk to me after she's had a child."   
	
	After jerking my knee back into place... :-) 

	While I don't mean to say that you can't have a valid opinion in this 
matter if you're not parent, I do think you'll feel at least a bit differently
when/if you become a parent.  (I could possibly have written a note similar to 
the base note before being a parent.)  

	While it is true, that the legal age of consent is arbitrary, my opinion
is that this is a least common denominator that functions for the protection of 
the *child*.  If the system works right, (ie. if the parents are doing a good 
job) children get exposed to responsibilty and knowledge when it is appropriate
for them as individuals.  At this point, I know my child better than anyone else 
does.  Nobody, not her daycare teachers, not my parents, not (generic)you, 
knows better than I what she can handle.  I'm fortunate in that (so far) Katie
seems to be bright and adaptable and I think that we'll be able to introduce her 
to "things" and limited responsibility at an early age.  But I've seen children 
with good parents, whose siblings could handle exposure to "things" at an early
age, yet they can't.  Being given responsiblity at early age stresses them out.
The way you deal with a child like that is gently.  Just as you deal with a shy 
child *not* by throwing her into the spotlight, but be encouraging her and 
helping her development self-esteem.

	Deciding when and how to expose a child to responsibilty and "adult"
issues is a continuing tough decision for parents.  If you're a responsible
parent it can be terrifying.  But I don't think there is anyone more qualified 
than the parents.  Certainly, the child is NOT qualified.

Tracey



 

    Sure children have rights: the right to food, clothing, and shelter.
    They have the right to an education from the age of 5. They have the
    right to live without physical abuse, emotional abuse or neglect. Kids
    do have rights. It's just too bad the government can't afford to pay
    those people who fight for children's rights.
    
    My mother was the oldest girl of 6. She had an alcoholic father and a 
    mother who worked herself to the bone. Mom had to make decisions. The
    sad part is that she never remembers being a child. Now that's sad.
    
    Some kids seem so mature. They act like they know everything and can 
    handle the world. Well, I remember a pretty insecure 14 year old girl
    about 1,000 years ago. But I would put on a good front of
    self-assurance.
    
    Kate

    I would also argue that the legal system *does* recognize that kids
    mature over time, and hands over responsibility in a more graduated
    fashion than we generally recognize.  I've become more aware of
    this in the last few weeks, as my almost 17-year-old has hit a couple
    of these milestones.
    
    Examples:
    
    You get a driver's license (big responsibility) at 16.5, but can't
    drive between 1:00 am and 4:00 am until 18.
    
    Checking/savings accounts are free of fees until 19.
    
    You can vote at 18.
    
    You can legally buy alcohol at 21.
    
    Generally, 12 is the age when a court will let a child decide which
    parent to live with in a divorce, and the child's opinion carries
    the majority of the weight.
    
    There is some age, around late grade school, certainly by 12, when
    a child can be left home alone and it is not considered abusive.
    
    18 is a biggie - but consider that it also closely corresponds with
    graduation from high school.  Until recently, that was the end of
    formal education for a majority of the citizens of the US.  The
    anticipation was that at that point, the individual was ready to
    step out on their own and start their life's work.
     
    
    I have always recognized that my son is a person in his own right.
    I respect his opinions and make allowances for his immaturity when
    it is appropriate.  As he has grown, the structure of the decisions
    he is allowed to make has changed and grown - always with the thought
    in the back of *my* mind that the consequences must be things that
    won't hurt him and that I can survive.

    Alison

    Another "right" that children have that I'd like to point out is
    the right to visit and know their Non-custodial parent no matter
    what the custodial parent may think of the nc parent.  Whether
    the child-support is paid up or not is also not an exucse to violate
    the child's rights even further by preventing him from seeing his
    nc parent.
    
    Violation of visitation rights is a violation of the child's rights
    as well as those of the nc parent.
    
    fred();

    
    The way I tend to look at this, as a non-parent, the idea of giving
    children too many more "rights" on paper is not doing children nearly
    as much of a service as giving parents more assistance in raising them
    would.
    
    It seems that the problem that D! is pointing out has to do with
    quality of parenting. Putting children's rights on paper just makes
    parenting more complicated. Making sure that you're taking "the rules"
    into account when raising children. On the other hand, if we as a
    nation made an effort to help the people who have chosen to raise
    children, perhaps with better social services, more preparation for
    parenting in the school systems, etc, I think we would come closer to
    achieving the overall goal of dealing with children with respect.
    
    The best way, in my view, to respect a child, is to be the best parent
    you can. Some weird mixture of love, understanding and discipline.
    I don't know the ratios.
    
    To shield or not to shield is not something I think an outsider should
    really tamper with. I think the bottom line is more: what kind of
    relationship do you want with your child. If you know yourself, and you
    know that you can't discuss certain things or explain them, then you
    have to go from there. And its going to affect the child, but it may
    also help you keep your sanity.
    
    Many people had parents who couldn't discuss sex or death, etc. And
    sometimes, it caused some estrangement, the child learned not to bring
    up these things. But these people as adults aren't automatically
    crippled, and as children, I don't think that they were any less loved.
    
    I'm rambling again...

    reply 212.21
    
    Yes there are legitimate times when the child really does not
    want to visit his/her non-custodial parent.
    
    Unfortunately the decision to visit or not to visit is STRONGLY
    influenced by the custodial parent.  Can you say RETALIATION.
    Can you say BRAINWASH.
    
    fred();

	RE:20 ASHBY::FOSTER

	Thank you.  Very close to what I was trying to say but ran short of 
time and eloquence.

	The way I feel about "legislating" more rights for children that parents
have to deal with whether or not the child is ready, is similar to way I feel 
about the government getting involved in reproductive decisions.  Yes, it's a 
tough decision and people make mistakes, but ultimately, no one is in a better 
position than myself to decide.

Tracey

    I am aware that the right to see or not see custodial and noncustodial
    parents is pertinent to this discussion, but if people feel very
    strongly about it it may also deserve a topic of its own, where it can
    be explored more fully.
    
    Just a suggestion....
    
    -Jody
    

    
    You know, I think there is a difference between what I, as a parent,
    might *wish* for my child and what I, as a parent, must provide for my
    child.
    
    I might *wish* that childhood could be a time of fantasy and roses
    where young people can develop in their own times and their own ways
    and can be gradually introduced to the hard facts of reality.
    
    I might *wish* that.
    
    However, unless I keep him locked in his room sans TV, sans friends,
    sans all contact with the outside world...I *must* provide him with the
    amunition to make decisions about the input he is going to recieve.
    
    And I *must* strive to let him be as much a child at the same time that
    is possible.
    
    Eric is a precocious little bugger...he makes some startlingly sangine
    decisions about the input he recieves, but we do have our odd moments.
    And, I must admit, that *sometimes* I see him as a child but there are
    other times that he is, in fact, merely a small person.
    
    We could debate the issue of what 'should be' until the cows come home.
    But what *is* is a mutlifaceted world that abounds in audivisual input
    that debunks that theory for any 3 year old with his eyes open. Geven
    the *reality*, I think parents need to provide the protection that
    understanding can impart.
    
    Just a very short story.
    
    I have a wonderful friend who has two little daughters who she has
    protected from nasty things [her definition...but then, we all have to
    use our own...] I loaned her some video tapes. She returned them
    because they were too violent for her children...they cried and were
    afraid because it was so real. [We are talking 'Amercan Tale' here..
    for the unintiated a cartoon about mice...with the prerequisite cats,
    of course...in which nobody gets hurt...]
    
    Eric, upon being mistakenly treated to Alien at a friend's house
    reported that the monster was scary but it was obviously 'blue-screen'
    here and here....
    
    Sure, if I had been there...Eric would not have allowed to see Aliens.
    But I wasn't...and he did. But he knew it was make-believe...and knew
    it was a mechanical monster. Those are his weapons.
    
    I have carried on long enough here...just my view as a struggling
    parent.
    
    Melinda

    
    
    D!  Can you say more about what you think children aren't getting
    that you think they should be getting?  I've been away at school this
    week, so I just read all 26 replies to this note in a row, and it
    struck me that some folks jumped to all sorts of conclusions about
    what you meant about rights and respect for children.  
    
    I know that in my own childhood, I had lots of responsibility and
    was very independent, but I didn't really feel respected.  I didn't
    feel that my pain and issues and problems were taken very seriously
    because I was a child, so my job was to act like a little adult
    so I would be taken seriously.  I wish it had been possible for me
    to feel respected and still be a child.  I spent a lot of energy
    hiding who I really was from my own family.
    
    Justine

>    D!  Can you say more about what you think children aren't getting
>    that you think they should be getting?  

Well, for starters, respect.  To be treated like people.

There is a lot of talk in this conference about how people should
be treated, what "rights" (in a moral, not legal, sense) people have,
etc.  I can't *count* the number of times people have said things
like "Well, we disagree, but I have a right to my opinion and your have
a right to your opinion, and niether of us should devalue other people's
opinions."  But it seems children are often excluded from the definition
of "people" in the above.

A couple of people in here have told me I basically have no right to 
defend children in here because I'm not a parent, I don't know what I
am talking about.  I say I know *more* what I am talking about, because
I am closer to *being* a child than just about anyone else in here.
At the grand age of 22, I can remember my childhood, especially my
teenage years, a lot more vividly than you folks with teenagers who
are telling me that you *know* what it is like to be a teenager.

I figure if I am going to defend children's rights, it has to be *now*.
As time goes by, I think people loose perspective on their own childhoods.
It becomes idealized ("Oh, for the joyful carefreeness of childhood!")
or horrilized ("I had a dysfunctional childhood and never had one minute
of happiness and my parents were monsters.")  But I am fresh out of
teenagehood and I remember what being a teenager is like and I identify
strongly with teenagers.

Specifics are hard to give.  Despite what people have said, I do not
advocate giving full legal adulthood status at birth.  "Respect" is
a very vague term, the kind of "I'll know it when I see it" type of
thing.  I could give examples from my own childhood but that would
come across as if I have some sort of crusade against my own parents
or authorities in my past, which I don't.  (Looking back I am amazed
at the level of respect for my personhood my parents gave me while
I was growing up.)

>I didn't
>    feel that my pain and issues and problems were taken very seriously
>    because I was a child, so my job was to act like a little adult
>    so I would be taken seriously.  I wish it had been possible for me
>    to feel respected and still be a child.  

*Bingo*.

I guess what I really want is to remind people, *especially* parents,
that kids are people too.  There is more kid deserve than to be fed and
not to be beaten up.  (Though they, like the rest of us, deserve that too!)

Teachers, parents, adults who interact with kids, remember while you are
doing it that you have a *captive* audience.  That childhood is legally
slavery.  That you are in a positin of utter control merely by being
older.  Kids have to live with it every day, being at the bottom of the
heap.

On a more legal aspect, something has to be done about this ridiculous
idea of "the age of consent".  It's bogus. I'm not sure what the practical
solution is.  Ideally, I think there should be some sort of test, that
*everyone* must pass to be given the rights/responsibility of certain
aspects of adulthood, just like a driver's test.  But that leads for too
much room for abuse, where certain segments of the population (like women,
if this had been implemented earlier in the century) would never be granted
adult status.  So that isn't practical.  But the "solution" in effect now
is *not* right.  (We give people the power to shape the country [vote]
but not to drink!!)

I know a lot of 16 year olds who are more capable of making decisions
than a lot of 24 year olds I meet.  

[BTW, when I say "age of consent" I really mean more than ability to have
sex.  I mean ability to sign a contract, to own property, etc.]

D!

	Children are going to be adults someday.


	Either we can prepare our children for what they will encounter
	as an adult....or we can protect them from it.


	Were I to ever have a child, that child would face all the things
	I face as an adult, and we will work together to understand those
	things.  My child, should I ever decide to have one, will learn
	to make her/his own decisions and will live with these decisions,
	because that is what they will do as adults.  I will not
	hide anything from my child.......nor will I deny them the chance
	to explore and to grow.

	I will offer my child guidance, based on my values and will present
	the values of others for voluntary consumption by my child.  I will
	not feel I've failed if my child decides not to accept my values
	but rather applaud them for being their own person.

	I will be a mentor to my child, I will guide my child and help
	my child whenever possible.  I will not "protect" my child from
	being an adult.


	kath

    I mean this with no disrespect, but perhaps at the "tender" age of 22
    you identify more with teenagers than with adults.  As a 38 year old
    adult with four children I know what it feels like to be responsible
    for four very young, quite immature lives.  And I can say it is a
    feeling of incredible responsibility.  Us parents I think quite
    reasonable jump to the conclusion that you cannot know the
    responsibilities associated with parenthood until you become one.
    
    It is not like babysitting, being a daycare worker, an older brother or
    sister, an infatuated aunt or just loving children.  Being a parent
    means YOU are the one in charge of providing for the health and
    happiness of that child, and you do it in the ways you best see fit... 
    often based on your own upbringing, plus hopefully some things you've
    learned along the road to adulthood.
    
    Respecting children is wonderful.  Respecting people is wonderful but
    something you certainly cannot legislate.  I too have known many quite
    responsible teenagers/young adults.  Also many irresponsible ones.  But
    somewhere our society must draw the line and say legally at this age
    you are to be considered a minor/adult.
    
    

    Perhaps the reason for not having additional legally defined rights for
    children is that those definitions are EXTREMELY difficult to
    objectively define.   I'd like to make a few miscellaneous statements
    that might make you laugh, might offend you, or just might make my
    point.
    
    Whoever said we should not shelter children from "realistic" violence
    on, say TV, probably never had to sleep with 2 kids and a dog in their
    bed after a horror show on a dark and stormy night.  Censoring is not
    one of those things that I as a parent take lightly.  But I do know
    what disturbs my children unnecessarily, and I try to take into account
    what they should and should not see or experience. (I don't do a lot of
    this now - my children are 15 and 17.  but I STILL don't let them see
    "R" movies, etc... unless I know what they are getting into.  I TRY
    not to put restrictions on their music - ugh!)  I do NOT feel that TV
    or movies or music changes their values.  
    
    My children are  not "little people" - they are both much larger than
    either my husband or myself.  They still do not have all the rights of
    an adult, or even all the rights of their sibling.   Age has little to
    do with it - demonstrated capabilities has a lot to do with privileges.
    The legal system cannot define objectively at what age everything can
    be handed over to a child, but as previous replies indicate, the courts
    and lawmakers tend to make some good guesses.
    
    We all know adults who behave like children, and children who behave as
    adults. And one of the best rights children have (I believe) is to
    allow them to stay with their family/parents.   We all make mistakes
    with our children (if you say you have not, then I respectfully reserve
    the right to say I don't believe you have children - or they are just
    too young to have demonstrated the results of your mistakes yet), but I
    don't think a series of additional rights definitions would change that 
    much. 
    
    I, too, am happy with the way my parents raised me - but they didn't do
    much of a job on my sister & brothers (that's a joke).   
    
    And just one more comment - I am not at all sure that a 13 year old is
    more mature and capable of making rational decisions than a 3 year old.    
    Somewhere around puberty, rational decision making is replaced with
    very passionate feelings of what's "fair".   If you haven't experienced
    this yet, you really don't understand what I am talking about. 
    
    So - if the ages of consent, right to choose parent, drivers licenses,
    voting, etc... are not valid ways to define the rights of children, 
    how would you advocates of Childrens' rights define them?   And how
    would you enforce them?  
    
    
    
    -m

>    I mean this with no disrespect, but perhaps at the "tender" age of 22
>    you identify more with teenagers than with adults.  

Uh, you seem to have missed my point.  My whole point *was* that at 22
I identify more with teenagers than parents.  (I am translating your 
"adults" to "parent adults" because I think that is what you meant.  I
sincerely *hope* that is what you meant, because I *am* an adult...I
don't have to "identify" with them, I belong to and think like that group.)

That's my point.  *You* know what it is like to have kids.  *I* know what
it is like (more than you do) to *be* a kid.  I'm at the in between stage
where I am (to a limited extent) able to be taken seriously by adults
and also (to a limited extent) to identify with children.

The things I am saying I am not saying from the perspective of parenthood.
I am not saying "I know how to be a parent better than you parents." I'm
saying "I know how to be a kid better than you parents, and this is what
I think kids need."

Yeah, only a parent can know the responsibility of being a parent. I
don't claim to know.  Only a parent can know what it is like the first
time they let their adolescent daughter go out on a date.  I don't know
what it feels like.  But I know what it feels like to *be* that 
adolscent daughter on her first date.  (At least, more than a mother
of 35, who is many more years past her adolescence than I am.)

>But
>    somewhere our society must draw the line and say legally at this age
>    you are to be considered a minor/adult.
    
Why?  (ie; not why can't kids take on the responsibility of being an
adult, by why should there be an arbitrary age determined by the state
as being that age?)

D! 

    Maybe I missed them D!. What are your suggestions for how to implement
    the idea of "greater respect for minors" across the board. Is it
    "yearly responsibility tests" for the right to vote or drink or drive?
    Is it a test for whether you are mature enough to make decisions about
    who to stay with if the parents divorce?
    
    Or, is it something closer to home? Are there specific things that you
    want parents to do with/for their children that you feel could be mandated
    by a bill of rights? And what are you proposing if the parents don't
    live up to their responsibilities?
    

>What are your suggestions for how to implement
>    the idea of "greater respect for minors" across the board. 

I don't have them.  i said in my last response I didn't have them.  I want
to do things like get rid of arbitrary "age of consent" and "age of
majority".  I said that I didn't think the "responsibility" tests was
a workable alternative, though I like the sound of it.  What *is* a
workable alternative? I dunno...this topic seems like a good place for
ideas...

>    Or, is it something closer to home? Are there specific things that you
>    want parents to do with/for their children that you feel could be mandated
>    by a bill of rights? And what are you proposing if the parents don't
>    live up to their responsibilities?
    
I wasn't proposing legislative changes, as I said a few times.  I didn't
suggest punishing parents for not doing what I think is right, either.
(In fact, I have argued against just such an idea in other topics in the
past.)

Yes, the ideas I have for change are closer to home.  And how can I get
more specific than "treat children like people?"  I can't be specific
because everybody treats people differently.  What I said was more a
"something to think about" - ie: next time you say in =wn= - "...we
deserve this just because we are people" ask yourself if you apply the
same principle to the children in your life.

A child Bill of Rights is an interesting idea.  I didn't suggest it, but
I could be convinced that it is a good thing.  Ideas for what to put on
it?

[Our founding fathers who worked up the Bill of Rights in our constitution
did not do it overnight, nor alone.]

D!

    I have a 20 year old son.  I have always taught him to respect other
    people and to respect older people. Teachers, parents, grandparents,
    whoever. I have also taught him to expect the same type of respect and
    treatment from those folks.  Just because he is a child, teenager
    whatever it never means not to respect my son's values, feelings,
    ideas.  Respecting how one feels tends to open up communication between
    people.  I'm not sure if this is what D means in her feelings about
    respect but if it is I tend to agree with her.
    
    My feelings about age of consent.  Unfortunately it is hard to decide
    who is ready for what and clearly the arbitrary "age of consent" does
    make it easier but I think it should depend on the individual and the
    maturity level.
    
    denise

    "Age of consent" may appear arbitrary, but I know of no other way to
    protect the right of a minor to be free from undue influence (how many
    of you believe that the age of consent is irrelavent in the case of
    statutory rape, for instance?).  This concept was not invented to keep 
    minors from accepting responsibility, it was developed to assist in 
    protecting them from "adults" who would take freedoms away from them.
    This "arbitrary" law keeps them safe.  It is no more arbitrary than the
    length of the term of office for a senator, and it has more foundation
    in real needs.
    
    And as to a 22 year old who insists that he/she knows more about being
    a teenager than I (who am over 40, anyway) - I am not sure I believe you.  
    Not only have I also been a teenager, I have two of my own, and have
    observed and assisted in raising others - troubled and otherwise.  And
    my experiences as a teenager (I do remember being a teenager) are
    tempered with a knowledge of consequences of my actions.  My kids 
    aren't perfect, but that's the point - when they make mistakes, they 
    need help, not additional "rights" and "privileges" that put more pressure 
    on their lives.  One note in this conference talks in an extremely 
    sensitive manor about assisting a woman who is suicidal, with lots of 
    responsibilties/pressures, etc...  I believe we should be equally 
    sensitive to our children - don't put MORE pressure on them.   They have 
    enough.  I Just  don't believe that giving children  more responsibility 
    disguised as rights will help society or children within society.  The 
    pressure is on them NOW - and removing the laws that  protect the 
    children's right to be children serves little purpose. 
    
    
    
    -m

    As a professional fence-sitter, I can agree with points being made on
    both sides of this issue.  Perhaps it is because of my "middle"
    position that I have to wonder if the two opposing sides aren't missing
    some of the good being proposed by the other side.  For example, I
    agree with D! that children deserve a bill of rights of their own.  I
    suspect, however, that my bill of rights wouldn't be quite as liberal
    as hers.  At the same time it might be more acceptable to Madeline than
    she would expect, since it wouldn't add undue responsibilities to our
    children, but rather responsibilities to their parents and to society.
    
    Just as an example, and to start some discussion around the rights our
    children should have, let me propose the following:
    
    1.  Each child has a right to a loving and supportive home.
    2.  Each child has a right to sufficient food and medical attention to
        ensure his/her healthy growth and development.
    3.  Each child has a right to a quality education that will prepare
        her/him to assume the duties of being an adult in her/his society.
    4.  Each child has a right to ethical training that will teach the
        difference between right and wrong and the reasoning behind these
        distinctions so that, when faced with a moral dilemma, he/she will 
        be able to make an appropriate choice.
    5.  Each child has a right to loving discipline while young so that
        there will be a solid foundation for self-discipline when older.
    6.  Each child has a right to a positive regard for self, so that when
        mature she/he will have the confidence and the courage to be
        self-sufficient.
    
    I'm sure there could/should be additional rights added to this list. 
    Those with a strong religious leaning would probably want to add
    something about spiritual training and growth, for example.  I offer
    these as a beginning point.
    
    Have at 'em.
    Karen
    

    I may be missing something here but I think D!'s points are that
    children's opinions should be given more weight, not that they should
    be given more rights or responsibilities.

Actually, what I thought of when this topic began was the invasions of privacy
allowed in schools. It's one thing to have your parents look in your drawers
(heck, anyone I live with has access to my belongings); it's another to allow
searches in a public building the kids are forced to attend anyway.
	Mez

    Marty
    
    I think that is exactly what she is saying..not to 'pooh, pooh' or
    dismiss thoughts and ideas just because they are from a child, not
    to be rude to children in a fashion you wouldn't be to adults..
    
    ect.
    
    Bonnie

>It's one thing to have your parents look in your drawers
>(heck, anyone I live with has access to my belongings); it's another to allow
>searches in a public building the kids are forced to attend anyway.

They search kids lockers at school?  Oh ick, ug.

Well, I guess I can't argue too hard, because the lockers are the posession
of the schools.  DEC cuts locks off lockers and empties them in the Wellness
Center if you leave locks on overnight - they can, because they own the 
lockers.  But you have a point, we aren't *forced* to go to the Wellness
Center, whereas kids are forced to go to school.

But you brought up an *excellent* example of exactly what I am trying to
say.  Parents looking through kids drawers. I think it sucks.  I thinks
it is a violation of their privacy, and one of those "rights" i keep
insisting kids have is privacy.  I am not talking about the parent who
is still folding and putting away clothes for a 7 year old, but the parent
who searches hir 13 year old's drawer for "illicit material".  That is
*exactly* the sort of thing I mean when I talk about adult disrespect for
the personhood of their children.

D!

>     What if you are pretty sure that despite your daughter's denials, she is
>    taking drugs. You feel pretty certain that you will find her stash in a
>    couple of minutes of looking through her things. 

Yeah, what then?  I still don't see the point.  What can you do if your kid
is on drugs?  Do those things (I don't know what they are.)  It seems to
me that, just as with an adult, if the kid doesn't *want* to get help for
hir drug problem, forcing hir won't help the situation.

If you think s/he is on drugs, ask hir.  If s/he says no, and you *prove* s/he
is lying, what good will that proof be?  A drug program will be no more or
less effective for your having painted hir into a corner with hir lie.

Anyway, I realize that there are balances and extremes involved.  But s/he
hs the right to privacy, as does an adult.  There are some things so extreme
they might cause you to violate an adult's right to privacy.  If you judge
the situation to be such, then go ahead and do what you think is necessary.

D!

    Ah, but that's where I think you're taking too strong a stance, D!. 
    Forcing a kid to confront a problem and get "help" can/does work.  Ok,
    maybe not always but enough of the time that I'd consider this the
    approach of choice.
    
    Its one thing to treat kid's opinions etc. as adults and give them some
    feeling of control over their own destiny, but I don't think that
    should translate into a "do whatever you want" strategy.

    
    I don't think D! is saying "do whatever you want"  In the last
    paragraph of her .43 (emphasis mine) she says:
    
    >>	Anyway, I realize that there are balances and extremes involved.  
    >>  But s/he has the right to privacy, as does an adult.  There are 
    >>  *some things so extreme* they might cause you to violate an adult's 
    >>  right to privacy.  If you judge the situation to be such, then go 
    >>  ahead and do what you think is necessary.
        
    I think D! acknowledges that there may be situations where
    confrontation is necessary -- just as it is with some adults.
    
    I'm uncomfortable with the idea of anyone saying, "I'm x years old,
    so I know better" (that always made me mad when I was a kid).  But
    I suspect that at 22 D! may be in closer touch with some of the
    pain of adolescence (than some of the rest of us are) -- pain which, 
    thank goddess, does seem to fade with time.  
    
    I don't think D! is suggesting that we should stand by and do nothing
    while our children become drug-addicted criminals, but doesn't it
    make you cringe to see how some parents treat their kids?  I don't
    mean just the ones who scream at or "spank" their kids in public
    but the ones who don't seem to *see* their kids, who don't listen
    to them or consider their needs, wants, likes.  
    
    D!, I suspect that I might be more conservative than you with regard to the
    issue of consent for sex.  I think young people (young men and women)
    are apt to be exploited by adults -- especially because children
    are treated with so little respect.  I think if children felt respected
    and loved and valued, they could make wiser choices about whom to
    trust.  An older person could really take advantage of a young person by 
    just appearing interested in their ideas.  You might think that's a fair 
    exchange, that it is a mutual relationship -- but I have a problem with 
    say a 14 year old having sex with an adult (18, 19, 20) no matter how 
    poised and mature s/he might seem.
    
    Justine
                      

>    Forcing a kid to confront a problem and get "help" can/does work.  Ok,
>    maybe not always but enough of the time that I'd consider this the
>    approach of choice.
 
But I still say, why do you need the "proof"?  If you know your kid is doing
drugs, you can confront them without their stash in your hand.  The only
thing "evidence" is need for is if you are going to prosecute them in a court
of law, which you aren't.  My point wasn't that you shouldn't do anything if
the kid has a drug problem, bt that I don't think in most cases it
is necessary to violate their privacy, or any other right.  In the Doctah;s
hypothetical situation, I still don't see the necessity of going through
hir things.

Besides, the existence of grey areas and fine lines between rights and
protection doesn't invalidate my stance.  I say, kids have rights like
adults do.  But areas of contraversy about the rights of adults have always
existed!  Whether it is drugs, right to die, what consenting adults do 
behind closed doors, capitol punishment, "commiting" so-called insane
adults, etc, etc.  There have *always* been conflicts between an individual's
rights, and the rights of society and the responsibility of protecting
individual.  That doesn't mean those rights aren't real.

>    feeling of control over their own destiny, but I don't think that
>    should translate into a "do whatever you want" strategy.

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

Sorry, Jim, don't mean to jump on your in particular, but I am TIRED OF
THIS.

No where, NO WHERE!!!! in this whole discussion have I said, insinuated,
hinted or implied that children should have the right to "do whatever
they want", that parents should never make decisions for or about their
children, that children should be given the full legal status of adults,
that children should take on the burden of raising themselves, or anything
else.  And you are about the fifth person to imply that I *have* said it,
and I have denied it as many times!!!!!!

Arg!

D!

    Sorry, I must have read it into your response.
    
    I'm not so old to not remember my teen-age years either; suppose the
    parent did talk with the kid because of a suspected drug problem and
    the kid denied that s/he did drugs.  Then what?  At least with Mark L's
    approach the parent does have proof supporting the suspicion and
    therefore something does have to be done, regardless of the denials. 
    Without the proof, do you assume that the kid is guilty because they
    "seem like someone who's doing drugs?"

> In the Doctah;s
> hypothetical situation, I still don't see the necessity of going through
> hir things.

    Actually, in this particular hypothetical situation, I think it would
    be necessary, at least some of the time.  The key is that you are
    "pretty certain" your kid is doing drugs.  You are *not* positive.
    Depending on why you are pretty certain (their friends? lifestyle?
    odors coming from their room?), it might be a better idea to check
    first before you alienate them by steering them into a drug treatment 
    program they don't need, because of something they've already told
    you they don't do.

    This is known as "trust but verify" (dover'at' no prover'at'), and is 
    frequently used by adults, in arenas varying from people hiring private 
    detectives to check out prospective spouses to superpower foreign policy.
    The idea is not necessarily to confront the other party with the 
    "evidence", but to make your own decisions based on the best evidence 
    available.

	Sharon

    
    re .46, D!:
    
    >In the Doctah;s
    >hypothetical situation, I still don't see the necessity of going through
    >hir things.
    
    Well, I do see the necessity.
    
    You should know that anyone who lives in a household where there are
    illicit drugs are can be held accountable!
    
    For years my husband had to go out of his way to find roommates who
    didn't do illegal drugs and he had to insist on not having any of it
    in the house.  Why?  Not because he's a pious fanatic.  But because if
    found in the house, the police would legally be able to confiscate all
    of Steve's firearms, even though the drugs were *not* his and he hadn't
    used any!!
    
    

>    You should know that anyone who lives in a household where there are
>    illicit drugs are can be held accountable!
 
Ah yes, I can see the logic of that!

However, it makes no difference if 1) the persons being searched are
children, or 2) whether you happen to be their parents.  If you feel
at risk for being charged with drug posession, and you feel that this
justifies a violation of another's privacy, then that applies equally
to children and to adults, right?  

That isn't really the situation under discussion.

D!

    I think the problem that I'm having is that since I was respected as a
    child, I don't want anything more for myself than what I had. My fear
    is that someone would misinterpret the things my parents did out of
    love and take away their right to "pull rank". I think that right was
    and is important.
    
    I don't know what its like to be a kid on drugs, guarding my privacy,
    hoping my parents won't go through my things. I can't relate. I grew up
    in a home where we all shared clothes. Rifling through underwear
    drawers was pretty standard if one of us forgot to do laundry. We
    shared money, and snatched food from each other's plates with the
    age-old "did you see that bird in the window!" line. Maybe that's "lack
    of respect". What can I say.  When I think of kids going through
    closets when their parents aren't home, searching for Christmas toys 
    or dad's stack of Playboys, or parents' sex paraphenalia, I don't get
    hysterical. Its just something kids do. And in return, when I hear
    about parents going through their kids drawers looking for clues about
    drawers, it doesn't get me hysterical either. In fact, to me its an act
    of love. If the parents didn't care, they wouldn't do it.
    
    The way the law is written, the parent is responsible for EVERY act a
    child commits, and can be held accountable by law. If your child
    steals, commits vandalism, etc., its YOUR butt that gets hauled into
    court along with the child. YOU are going to have to pay the damages.
    I don't see anyone asking for children to be more respectful of their
    parent's stress-level, do I??? No one's coming up with a bill of rights
    for parents:
    
    1.) No child shall do anything which would cause un-due worry or
    trigger concerns about child-kidnapping, rape or molestation: COME HOME
    ON TIME!
    
    2.) No child shall do anything that would lead to necessary court
    appearances on the part of the parent: DON'T BREAK THE LAW. 
    
    3.) No child shall do purposely do anything which which tests the
    body's tolerance of chemical substances, possibly leading to
    hospitalization: DON'T DRINK AND NO DRUGS.
    
    4.) No child shall conduct behavior which could lead to pregnancy, for
    which they cannot be fiscally responsible: NO UNPROTECTED SEX.
    
    Lists can cut both ways. For all the rotten parents we can think of,
    kids can also do some EXTREMELY UNNECESSARY things which cause the 
    pre-mature greying of their parents. And I don't think giving children
    a "bill of rights" is going to curb their rebellion, even when it
    crosses the lines of the law. 
    
    Last of all.... this stuff about school being "slavery". D!, children
    of other nations would kill for the educational system we have, perfect
    though it ain't. History tells us that a ton of adults fought for that
    system because they wished they had had it as kids. In the long run,
    American citizens are better off with a high school diploma than
    without one. And you CAN graduate early if you want to.
    
    Looking at school as "slavery" seems like an extremely short-sighted
    attitude. At best its indentured servitude, and even that ignores the
    fact that the school gets NOTHING out of it. Its the student who gets
    as much or little as s/he puts in. Maybe we need to take a poll of
    Americans who didn't finish high school, at least 10 years later,
    and ask how many wish they had. I have a feeling that most regret it.
    But I'll admit I'm wrong if you've got the stats.
    
    Sometimes we "force" people, not just children, to take or do something that
    they don't like. In the case of education, this seems to be in the best
    interests of the majority.
    If 

    D!
    
    Kids doing drugs would in 9 cases out of 10 lie about it to their
    folks..
    
    and if the folks wrongly accused a kid of doing drugs when they
    weren't that would also damage the parent child trust..
    
    my 12 year old daughter lit several books of matches a few nights
    ago after the mother of a friend made up some lies about her and
    ended up with our brining her home.
    
    with the evidence of the fresh books of matches, still sooty,
    a brand I'd just bought, she told us they'd been under her bed
    and she did it a long time ago..
    
    my answer was three fold
    
    1. I understood that she was very very angry at the way she'd been
    treated
    2. what she did however statisfying was dangerous, and concerned me
    (in fact I suggested that if she *had* to do that again to do it
    in a metal bowl)
    3. that I was concerned enough to strongly suggest we find someone
    other than her father and I for her to talk to..
    
    she still denys the matches and doesn't want to talk to anyone.
    
    so I'm biding my time right now
    
    (there have been other things than the matches, btw, but I'm not
    going into that here)
    
    Bonnie

     [copied without permission from "What Every Kid Should Know"
        by Jonah Kalb and David Viscott, M.D.]
    
    	A Bill of Rights for Kids 
    	But remember rights carry responsibilities...
    	
    you have a right to pick your own friends
    you have a right to an explanation
    you have a right to privacy
    you have a right to property
    you have a right to your own opinion
    you have a right to be taken seriously
    you have a right to your own thoughts
    you have a right to feel the way you do
    you have a right to spend time with you parents
    you have a right to money of your own
    you have a right to your own tastes

    	Parents Have Rights Too
    
    Parents have the right to be treated as people
    Parents have the right to set limits
    Parents have the right to enforce their rules
    Parents have the right to make suggestions
    
    "Dealing with parents is not really that much different from dealing
    with other people. Remember respectm courtesy, and mutual rights."
    Parents have the right
    
    
    

Beautiful.  Thanks.

D!

    .53: yes! 

    
    RE: .56
    
>    you have a right to be considered the most important person in the
>    world by someone
    
    Not only important but valued and held in esteem.  
    
    It seems that most of the Bill of Rights for kids are simple outgrowths
    of respect and liking.  Not loving, although that too, but the feelings
    of connectedness, approval, and admiration that makes us enjoy the 
    company of another.
    
        Margaret