General Question

Your_Majesty's avatar

Will you agree that an international law regarding parents who dump their 15-19 Yo kids should be created?

Asked by Your_Majesty (8212 points ) July 2nd, 2011

I’ve come across many issue where parents kick their kids out of their house, refuse to pay for their livings, education, etc since their kids are either pregnant on early age, LGBT, drug-addicted, etc and these kind of parents are too depending on their own ideology/belief to be able to listen to the truth of their situation and accept their kids the way they are.

The victims are usually left stranded and homeless with no modal to face the roughness of the world, some are, however, lucky enough to find someone to support them.

Now we might live in different countries with different laws and regulations where in some places it’s legal for parents to dump their ‘legally mature’ (15/19+) kids for personal reasons but don’t you think there should be a mandatory international law that obligate parents to sustain their kids until their late 20s or until they’re capable enough to live on their own? What would be the best consequence for parents who violate this law?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

34 Answers

Plucky's avatar

Not really – not for anyone over 18 years old any ways. I think 15 years old is a little young to be kicked out though. I’m not sure what the penalty for parents should be. I do not think you can use a blanket law for this type of thing. There’s a lot of grey area ..it should be dealt with case by case.

No one should have to sustain their perfectly able children in to their late 20’s ..that seems rediculous to me. The only time that needs to happen is when the child is mentally/physically incapable to care for themselves – even then, those people will usually end up in a special care facility.

JLeslie's avatar

In America I am assuming our laws are the parents are responsible for their children until the age of 18. I am in agreement with that I think. For us it makes sense because it lines up with the end of high school generally, and it is the age individuals are legally able to be on their own without having to be obedient to their parents under the law. I don’t think it can be an international law, because various cultures are so different. Late 20 seems way overboard.

When a parent throws their 16 year old out of the house, what type of ramifications do they have to worry about regarding the law? I don’t know the answer to that in my own country.
I am interested to see everyone else’s answers, maybe it will influence my opinion.

Jeruba's avatar

Let’s say the mid-20s child is a healthy, intelligent, able-bodied son with no encumbrances or impediments. Let’s say he enjoys playing computer games all night and sleeping all day and he would prefer not to work, fix his own meals, pay for his own health and car insurance, or buy his own shampoo and deodorant.

Let’s say the parents have worked hard their entire careers and are now retired and living on their savings and social security. Let’s say they have various health issues, many medical expenses beyond what their coverage allows, and real physical problems that make even routine chores such as vacuuming and cooking difficult, if not downright painful, for them.

You want international law to force these parents to do what? for how long? or else face what consequences? Let me tell you, they are being punished enough already.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

I completely agree that parents should not be able to kick out their still teenagers based on being queer but I don’t think making an international law is the best idea, perhaps a U.S. law requiring parents to care for their kids until those kids are 18 years old unless they pose a threat of violence.

athenasgriffin's avatar

I don’t think that anyone should be legally required to take care of a legal adult. There are already enough lazy adults mooching off their parent’s good nature. Whether or not to take care of your adult offspring is a personal decision and should stay a personal decision.

YARNLADY's avatar

International law? No, in some countries the legal age is 15 – 16. Here in the U. S. the parents are obligated to take care of their children until the age of majority which is 18.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

It must be a cultural thing where it’s so looked down upon for parents to take care of their kids past 18 years old (an arbitrary age, anyway) – from what I understand of my culture, it is much more uncommon. That is, we all live together, I’ve never not lived with my parents and I’ve never mooched off them or at least it didn’t feel like it but they have supported me beyond 18 years of age in order for everyone to save money (better to live at home than in dorms paying an extra 10 grand a year, etc.). I think this mindset allows for help across generations rather than growing into the same kinds of parents that their kids (who were not allowed to ‘mooch off’ and apparently being their parent’s burden past 18) abandon in nursing homes, because they too feel so distanced in terms of financial support from their old folks.

laureth's avatar

For one thing, there are so many different people and cultures in the world, that it’s hard to come up with international laws for anything. When they exist, they’re usually for some pretty earth-shattering reason: like how to wage war fairly, or admitting that we should take collective responsibility for things that transcend borders and cannot care for themselves, like “air” or “the whales.” So, I’d say no.

As far as what the consequences would be for parents who violate this would-be law (should it be adopted), that’s easy. What are the punishments for other entities that violate international law? Pretty much nothing, except peer pressure on the world stage. There are the international criminal courts in The Hague, but that requires other countries to get their hands on you.

With so many international laws violated, sometimes purposefully (such as when prisoners are tortured), I can’t see clogging up the International courts with Joe and Jane Doe from Dubuque, who kicked out their 18 year old son for being gay or something. Let’s deal with the big dogs first, ya know?

trickface's avatar

In some countries people become ‘adults’ before the age of 18, so any international law that pins down an age of adulthood is a bad idea. Cultures are just too diverse and therefore the idea sounds a little too utopian.

The_Idler's avatar

Who would want to live with parents that are only allowing them in the house because of legislation anyway!?

Everyone should start thinking about leaving home when they’re around 18 at the latest.
If it means having to live very frugally and struggling financially, well, welcome to the real world, son.
That experience has been part of life for the majority of people for the majority of history, and it teaches them skills and shapes their personalities in ways that create indescribable benefits with regards to strength of character, that are simply lacking in the pathetic Mummy’s Boys, who’ve had everything served up for them all their lives.

I understand the problem you’re talking about, but really it comes down to my original point. What adult would WANT to stay at home with parents who plainly wish to disown them!?

I think all legal adults should wish to leave home anyway,
even more so those that live in oppressive or hateful households!

Your_Majesty's avatar

I am agree with @PluckyDog that this must be treated case by case and with @Jeruba for reasonable explanation that could be a bad idea for certain parents in certain situation so let us assume that the international law only affect parents with adequate resources to sustain their children.

Let us face it that not every ‘legally mature’ kids got the same/adequate education to sustain their life so there shouldn’t be an exact range of maturity of age. When they’re left empty-handed they can’t afford further education and will be financially unstable to sustain their. Nowadays world is too harsh for unprepared 18+ individuals, they’re simply unprepared.

Agencies and community college are usually what many people suggest as the solution toward this issue but we also know that not every countries provide them.

Who to blame if not their parents? (assuming that parents are the source of the trouble). Even if people around the world adopt different culture and history what would we lose if we legitimate this law? (again, case by case treatment).

It’s the responsibility of every parents to sustain their children to have proper education and until they have a job to fully sustain themselves.

@The_Idler But what you described are those who are self-sustaining. Of course, all chicks would naturally want to leave the nest but not all chicks are able to fly at the same time. As far as I know ‘legally mature’ adults will choose to stick with their parents (even if they’re obnoxious) if given the chance due to pragmatic reasons, leaving their free will in second place and will only regain it after they’re self-sustaining enough (not necessarily 18+, could be more).

lifeflame's avatar

Fifteen is really old for some cultures.
I had students who are the main breadwinner at the age of 15.

SABOTEUR's avatar

I don’t condone dumping kids, but it seems to me the kids had a role model they refused to follow.

What about an international law for parents concerning out of control dependents?

Your_Majesty's avatar

@SABOTEUR Would you mind to elaborate ”a role model they refused to follow”?

If you mean that children must follow society rules to live like a ‘normal’ person then I agree with you but in some cases such as LGBT (which is against most society rules) I disagree, they simply can’t choose, blaming them for their condition and forcing them to follow a role model of ‘normal/expected’ person won’t solve the issue and will only bring harm.

What about an international law for parents concerning out of control kids?

Parents are the ones to blame regarding that issue. As we know it’s the basic responsibility of parents to nurture and educate their children. The most common formula is that if you got bad children it’s all because you’re not a good parent (there are, of course, some minority cases with contrary result).

The_Idler's avatar

Well if it’s impossible for a legal adult to sustain themselves, there’s something wrong with the society, beyond the parental issues in discussion.

By your argument, should any person whose parents die when they are between 18–28 be offered a place in an orphanage!?

In any case, by extension, governments would be required to run the orphanages for all orphans ‘until their late 20s’.

That just doesn’t make sense. An adult with no parents is not an orphan, because they are considered responsible for themselves.

Creating this overlap of ‘has full rights of an adult’ and ‘has everything provided for them’ will surely be as detrimental to those people you are referring to, as it is to all those already in such circumstances: the Mummy’s boys &c.

It makes lazy and useless people. We already know this.

I agree to the point of finishing education, but you can’t require people to support other ‘fully’ educated, 100% capable, entirely healthy people, by providing for their every need. I

t’s already a drain enough on the working people, sustaining themselves, their older relatives, any younger children, and that entire portion of society that is un-fit for work, without supporting perfectly healthy 18–28 year olds.

If you’re over 18 and not in education, that’s it! There’s nothing else, but to go out and work.
You’re not going to be any more employable after 10 more years of living with Mummy!

Your_Majesty's avatar

@The_Idler If their parents die then it’s another case (just like other accidents). The children would be unfortunate in this situation but the government already has another law that regulate certain situation like this one. The international law will only affect parents (alive) with adequate resources.

I agree with your statements. We may make them lazy or useless especially during their prospective years but as we can see we (as parents) would also make their life and future easier in this harsh world, especially when parents can dispose their children due to different perspective. What would we lose if we’re obligated to ‘spoil’ our children with extended education until they have self-sustaining jobs? (28 is far too old here, below 25 is usually OK).

This is a harsh world, we’ve felt it, but if we can lessen the pain for our future generations why won’t we?

Neizvestnaya's avatar

No, not really. 18yrs old is already pushing it. Once kids graduate high school, they’re not kids anymore. Their upbringing to that stage should be on the parents. Teens are Jr. adults getting ready to leave the nest.

It’s irksome to me that so many 20 somethings feel their parents should be buying them a lifestyle until they “find their passion”.

The_Idler's avatar

@Your_Majesty You didn’t mention educating them.

I don’t think parents should be forced to provide for their offspring whilst they work towards their bachelors, masters & PhD, but I think it is fairly reasonable for them to do so.

What about all the 18-late 20s people who DON’T continue ‘extended’ education? Are you saying that parents should be forced to provide for their offspring IF they’re being educated until their late 20s, and all those that aren’t can just be left to fend for themselves? Or are you now saying that education should be compulsory to the late 20s, along with parental support?

Compulsory education doesn’t even work til 16 if the parents don’t care, what makes you think extending that obligation another 10 years will make anything better? How do you propose to force parents to provide everything for and force 20-somethings to go to school?

Your_Majesty's avatar

@The_Idler I meant parents should be obligated to provide proper education for their children until they’re able to find a job for themselves (basically to sustain their life).
If the ‘extended’ education is required to get decent, self-sustaining job then parents would be obligated to provide it (look at nowadays situation, how many people can get a job with only a bachelor degree, lucky if they can).

‘Legally mature’ children don’t have to get the PhD to get a self-sustaining job and it’s not the responsibility of their parents. If after their 20/25s they still can’t find a job their parents are free from obligation. Fair enough for me.

The purpose of necessary education is to get a job for children. If a father owns a factory and decided to give it/hire his own children to work there (permanent job) then he isn’t required to provide education as long as his children are self-sustaining.

Adults without job are burden to the society and the ones (parents) who failed to make them useful in society are the ones to blame.

I think if we’re successful to create such international law no parents would abandon their children for any reasons, and they will be ‘forced’ to improve their children for the sake of their children and themselves. As for the society, more people will be more educated and self-sustaining.

Your_Majesty's avatar

I hope I didn’t go too off-topic here. I was meant to say that unfortunate children like those who are preggie on early ages, LGBT, drug addicts, etc (even if they’re 18, or more) shouldn’t suffer due to their ignorant parents if we create this international law. Their parents must be obligated to sustain these kids until they can find a job for themselves regardless of their different perspective.

If that is too much to ask then I understand.

JLeslie's avatar

@Your_Majesty I think parents should have to shelter cloth and feed at minimum theor children until 18” or the end of high school in America. But, if parents are inclined to shun, disown, or throw their children out for the things you mention, then of the law requires the parents to keep them in the house, what type of living environment is that for the children? I think the most important thing is they have a safe place to go, don’t wind up in the streets.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@JLeslie True. From the beginning I stated that parents must be obligated to sustain their children, I only extend the maximum age of adultery. I don’t find it’s extremely harmful if you’re obligated to ‘spoil’ your children until their late 20s compare to 18. Parents might lose more time and money but their future generations will suffer less and more successful.

JLeslie's avatar

@Your_Majesty Not sure where you live. In the US it would never fly. For the most part, culturally we are inclined to value adults being able to be financially independent, and adulthood for us is 18. If they continue on to college some parents continue to pay for some or all of their child’s expenses. Of course America is made up of many subclutures, so this varies. @Simone_De_Beauvoir pointed out her extended family believes in staying together, even living together. But, having a law to dictate it, I just don’t see it happening.

Jeruba's avatar

Not adultery, @Your_Majesty. Adulthood.

[ adultery ]

If I spend my resources now on supporting a child who isn’t working and building a career, is he going to take care of me when my resources run out? Or is he going to say, “Too bad—it’s your own fault if you haven’t saved enough to take care of yourself.”?

Even if he is willing to help me out, how well is he going to do if he is ten years behind his age peers in gaining work experience and moving ahead? How in the world is that going to help a future generation?

Your_Majesty's avatar

@JLeslie I live in Indonesia. Most 18 here who go to college are payed by their parents. They won’t get a job until they’re graduate (about 23/24 depends on their major) so during their ‘raw’ adulthood they are still sustained by their parents (especially ladies) and live on allowance from their parents.

@Jeruba Thanks for the fix! I’m ashamed…

JLeslie's avatar

@Your_Majesty I am going to assume most of the people who go to college are from families with a certain amount of money? Or, do all levels of society go to college? My parents paid for all my education as well, I am in the US, I graduated when I was 22. I lived at home for a few months after that and then went out on my own, totally self supporting, except for one tough time in the first year my dad sent me $1,000. That is the only money I have borrowed (it was given to me, he never expected it to be paid back) my entire aduthood. But, there are families in America who have the money who don’t pay for everything for the children regarding their education, and ther are families who simply could not begin to afford it all. Seriously, one of the reasons I married my husband was is family paid for all of his education. I wanted my husband to be on the same page regarding education as I was if we had children.

Nullo's avatar

No, I will not agree. You cannot force an adult to take care of another adult. And really, it’s not good for the ‘kids,’ either; they then lose nearly all external incentive to finish growing up, leading to a spike in the 40-year-old-basement-dweller population. Necessity is the mother of invention and adaptation; sophistication and improvement are results of conflict.

And you’d be forcing some people to act against their religious and moral convictions. What ever happened to the separation of church and state? Or has it been a sham all along, existing only insofar as it lets the state control the church?

rooeytoo's avatar

It seems as if this is the new trend, stay with mom and dad until I save enough money to buy my own place. Here it seems as if they usually pay no rent and come and go as they please. It is like living in a hotel at no cost. Often to the late 20’s. I can’t understand it. I couldn’t wait to move out of my parent’s home and rules. Of course, as I said today, there are no rules.

I think parents should take care of their kids until they reach 18, then hopefully the kids will have the incentive and ambition to move out without any prodding.

I never dreamed of buying my own place as soon as I moved out. I tried to find an apartment where one month’s rent was equal to one week’s salary. Then budget sufficiently to make the car payment, eat and have a little fun. I was a small town kid turned loose in DC in the 60’s, it was a wild and crazy time for sure. I loved it. Kids today miss a lot by being so sheltered.

raven860's avatar

I would rather have a program or center created that offers free education and other services for their livelihood for students. I understand that there can be good parents who want their sheltered bum-child to get out and work but many a times there are bad stupid people who procreate and do not fulfill the responsibilities of a parent. In those cases, I think its best if the children have the option to live in a much better environment.

Also, there are too many ways people take advantage of others.

laureth's avatar

@Nullo – The separation of church and state doesn’t necessarily mean the separation of moral convictions and state. (You can see this in the way that moral convictions are used to justify so many things, from defunding abortion coverage to going to war.) It simply means that the government cannot back any particular religion, nor should any particular religion become the law of the land. I’ll leave it to you to observe how well it works in real life.

@Your_Majesty – Why must this be an international law, which is the widest possible scope imaginable, and not simply a law adopted locally by communities who think that this is the way to go?

Neizvestnaya's avatar

There’s this thing called responsibility and in the 21st Century, it’s easier than ever to start out on the easier path. There is birth control, abortion, teaching kids to take care of themselves someday, teaching them about the different kinds of people in the world and how to protect themselves,. save for kids’ college if you think that’s important. After all, people choose to bring babies into this world.

seekingwolf's avatar

I hope a law never comes to fruitation.

I believe as parents, you are obligated to protect and raise your children until they are adults, or 18 here in the states. Financially, your responsibility ends and it should. Why on earth would we have a law that forces parents to keep on supporting a LEGAL adult who is (barring a disability or whatever) full capable of getting a job?

If parents want to support their child past 18, that’s fine. But there shouldn’t be a law dictating that. Some parents may not be able to afford it, or want to, and that’s their right. They ought to instill some discipline, work ethic, and sense into the kid before it turns 18 and then they are out in the real world. That’s how the world works.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@laureth Because when if it’s not international parents from different community who deliberately dispose their kids for ‘personal taste’ could move to another community where that particular law isn’t exist. But at least, the bright side is if the law is exist more people will think twice before reproducing and focus on wealth for their kid’s developments.
.
.

Overall, I think everyone got a point here. This rule might only give advantage to children only, but I think another rule for their well beings isn’t that much to ask judging from nowadays situation. I always think that it’s the responsibility of each parents to make their kids successful no matter what consequence is. What could be worse than a world over-populated by unproductive children? Over-population itself is already bad.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther