www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News State taking family's livelhood away

Let me start off by providing my perspective on this story. At age 14 I was already a decent carpenter, painter and electrician. At age 16 I was working two part-time jobs. I spent my summers working a 40-hour week in a factory, worked for a caterer on weekends, and did electrical work, carpentry and roofing on the side. I know from my own life experience that the family in this story is attempting to do what is right for their kids. I support them in this effort.

It seems to me that there are two separate issues in this thread:

1) The father and mother have rightly involved their children in their family business, but the father has made some serious mistakes in letting the child ride on top of a moving house, lack of protective gear, and etc.

2) The response from the Department of Labor and Industries is ridiculous considering the violation. They are wrongly using the letter of the law to resolve something that should be resolved through other means. If they believe that there is evidence that parents have repeatedly placed their children in dangerous positions then they would have a right to charge the parents with endangerment. The article indicates bad judgment and doesn�t address what the parents state about the child riding on the top of house. Taking the family�s house and assets and putting them on the street is not an acceptable thing to do.

Parental authority must be respected by the government.

There is a clear trend in the courts away from respecting parental authority and the right to raise your kids (even if poorly).

There are questions that the article does not ask:

Why did the father allow his children to ride on houses and work without proper protective gear?

Has the father acknowledged that this is a problem?

If yes, has he mended his ways to ensure safe working conditions for his children?

If no, why not?

I don�t think that one can really provide a good response to this without knowing all of the details. In reading and re-reading this article, I am now very suspicious of what the reporter left out. Why did the reporter fail to discuss some very obvious and relevant points? Until I get answers on these questions I will keep an open mind and favor the family. Washington state courts are known for being unfriendly to families.

Dear Administrator,

And I worked as a beekeeper for years when my friends were out partying . . .

Hard work didn't kill me, after all!

And a bee's stinger is only .02567 of an inch long - the other two feet were my imagination!



Alex

it's not a question of a kid working, most of us did, the issue is common sense, as athe Admin tries to analyze the article that started this whole thing. when I was a kid, I mean a kid,on Sunday morning, I would go with my stepfather to our family bar and grill on Liberty Avenue in Richmond Hill Queens (mmmm, maybe I should also post this in the Richmond Hill Historical Society page) on Sunday mornings and get the place ready for the day's businees. I was eight years old. I got a couple of bucks, and then Dad would take me the nearby diner for a monstrous breakfast. I used to hustle yard work at age nine in the area, and did well. of course a lot of the cash went for dinosaurs, etc.. I was still in high school (after we returned from New York)and landed a part time job in a small factory, when not doing that, I pushed a mower, not only on our lawn (room and board), but neighbors as well (money).
It was nice sharing this with everyone else in our stroll down memory lane, but I still hold to my idea of using common sense when giving a kid work. true, common sense is not as common as it seems to be, offered Voltaire,but let's be careful of what another poster has said, that is our responsibility as good stewards when it comes to kids.
Much Love
Jonn

OK, I�ve had several PMs in the last couple of hours complaining about both Dan and Neil. It seems like I should extend and clarify my previous comments.

At best, both of their original posts were knee-jerk posts from the conservative and liberal sides. Dan posted only about parental rights and didn�t say a word about the safety of the children. Neil posted only about the safety about children and didn�t say a word about parental rights.

That, I think, is where a lot of the disagreements come from, both here on the Forum and in our society at large. People are speaking past one another, not with one another.

Does Dan care about the welfare of the children? Does he think it�s ok for them to ride on top of a moving house and play with traffic lights? I know he does not but what people do not say in their posts sometimes speaks louder than what they do say, giving the wrong impression.

Does Neil care about parental rights? No one can know from his original post. He responds to Dan�s comments about a very back to basis / home schooling / home business lifestyle by quoting what Dan has written, dismisses Dan�s comments as rhetoric, and then sarcastically speaks to something that Dan has not spoken to as if admonishing him. Neil then jumps to the conclusion that the father appears not to be concerned about the safety of his children. That�s quite a leap since the article does not actually discuss what Mr. Doty had to say about the safety of his children. Did Mr. Doty acknowledge poor judgment and change his ways? Or did he reject the need to provide appropriate protective gear for them when they help him on the jobsite? When reporters don�t report on very obvious and imperative questions I find myself suspicious about their intent.

The posts go downhill from there. Dan is presumptuous and sarcastic in forgiving Neil for something he has not asked forgiveness for. Neil responds and only makes it worse. Neil pompously presumes the parents are negligent, reckless and act with callous disregard without him even knowing the whole story.

Earlier I stated that Dan�s post was both presumptions and sarcastic and that he needs to apologize to Neil.

To that I will add (with my own apologies to Dan for singling him out) that Neil�s posts were equally uncharitable. I now ask Neil to apologize to Dan for responding sarcastically to things that Dan did not say.

I ask everyone to take note of this thread and realize that when you compose a post you need to consider how others will understand your post and speak to it.

Admin

John,

That is not the issue. But this is your forum. So that's all I need to know.

Dan L

I hope that this will be the end of it, and we can act like brothers and sisters again.
Much Love,
Jonn

Dan,

As John perceives that I was sarcastic in replying to you on matters that you did not address, I apologize for having done so.

John,

I disagree with you that I pompously presumed negligence, recklessness and callous disregard on the part of the parents without knowing the whole story, because I think a reasonable person can infer those things on the part of a parent who allows their child to ride on the peak of house being moved down a highway or to serve as a flagman on a roadway - acts documented in the article as having been allowed by Mr. Doty.

I would suggest that the benefit of your doubt given to Dan but withheld from me in the above paired sentences speaks to injecting a bias that I would have hoped to not see from you, despite the differences that we both know exist between us on certain issues.

My apologies to you for my apparent inability to toe what you percieve as the politically correct line. In future, I'll limit my posts on the forum to matters regarding the Church and prayer requests, so as not to offend the prevailing political sensibilities.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

Your apology is readily and happily accepted. My only regret is that I did not have the grace to apologize to you for my curt reply to a perceived offense in the first place.

For clarification, and I don't wish to reenter the discussion, my overriding concern for our Church and its young adults is what I perceive to be a lack of mission opportunities for them. The more passionate among our people are the very ones not given an outlet for service to Christ. They will find an outlet someplace but the Church really needs to get serious about mission outreach not only for its own sake and not only for the sake of the entire world but for the sake of young adults who are already members. But that is another discussion.

I'm going to go on a sabattical from the board. I don't imagine it will be long but I need to let the Forgiveness Vesper experience sink in. I still enjoy controversy too much for my own souls good and I pray for forgiveness of others for my own weaknesses.

I do wish to continue conversing privately with some of you who are very much interested in mission work. I've still not received a response from Father Loya.

Dan L

Neil,

Thanks for your post. We will have to disagree. It seems to me that if Mr. Doty had a continuing pattern of allowing his children to be in working situations that are dangerous the appropriate authorities would have charged him with child endangerment, not with violation of labor laws. The article does not specifically address this aspect, so I think that your conclusion that the father acted with negligence, recklessness and callous disregard is premature.

I will admit to mixed feelings on things like being a flagman on a roadway. Eleven is definitely too young but I�m not sure about 13. At age 14 I was doing roofing, plumbing and electrical work. I was taught to do it safely and carefully. I would not change my upbringing in this regard one bit. I would not be at all surprised if Mr. Doty does not wear proper protective gear (and etc.) himself. This whole issue could possibly be resolved by education. I don�t see any justification for the government�s decision to confiscate his house and put his family on the street.

I disagree.

Dan posted a link and a comment. His post was incomplete because he spoke supportively about the home schooling / home business lifestyle and ignored the obvious issue of possible child endangerment.

Your post was different. It, too, was incomplete because you neglected to speak to the issue of home schooling / home business (the point that Dan had made). But your post was not a stand-alone post like Dan�s. You quoted the text of his post and replied to it. Your post was clearly not intended to respond to the article, but to issue a statement of judgment against Dan. If you had simply made your comments without quoting back Dan�s original post then they would have been equally incomplete as Dan�s. Instead, you chose to quote Dan�s post and proceeded to issue a negative personal judgment against Dan.

I�m not saying that Dan has never been guilty of the same offense. He has. But in this thread you started it.

All I am asking for is charity and respect, even when others are not showing it in their posts. In this thread you choose to start an argument by quoting and responding negatively and judgmentally to Dan�s post. You easily could have commented without addressing his point, or acknowledged it and spoke to what you considered to be a more important problem.

Admin

Dear Friends,

The Administrator always gives excellent advice and his latest above is a real study in advanced social relations.

As always, it seems as if he is speaking to me directly, rather than to our two brothers here.

Perhaps he was also thinking of me when he wrote the above . . .

I've learned that it is no use opposing the Administrator on his rulings.

We all know deep down that he is right.

Alex