Musings of an aging fan

I see your point, in general terms, and agree that might have something to do with it. The previous record holder is 17 though, which is worlds apart from 13.

From:

But according to her parents' plans, she'd have taken 2 years to sail around the world (because she'd have to take long breaks). So that would take her to 15, maybe even 16, perilously close to Perham's mark.

From:

Well how long did it take the other lad? (I wouldn't condone him starting before 16 either, whether that is retrospective now or not, and some 16 year olds mightn't be ready, but I do think that although it is arbitrary 16 is quite a good notional cut-off, 13 is too young in my book anyway). I'm of the view that there are sensible reasons for rules on leaving a child either home-alone for long periods, or the opposite way round which this seems to be. Unless she's going to be fairly heavily supervised, and will be easily rescuable* and is going to do it in really small bitesized chunks, in which case that rather changes the question I thought I was answering (and it isn't so much of a feat as I thought, although still a feat).

I still can't see why it is SO necessary for her to need be the youngest, or the youngest-for-a-while, in a way that would override other concerns. For example is it really the only way for her to get on in life? How about sailing in the next world championships or the next Olympics instead (and residing at home while training as safely as possible for it)?

(I don't think "because she wants to" is valid by itself, teenagers want to do all sorts of things but we (parents, society) don't let them with good reason.

*Is this possible, from what I have heard/read in the past about round the world sails, I'm not so sure?
--
I think this evolved into a general answer not just to arda_unmarred, I'm not getting at you individually arda!

From:

muuranker.livejournal.com

... in a year's time, probably. See this http://www.fawi.net/ezine/vol3no3/Vercheres.html

From:

aster-dw.livejournal.com

Actually, I think this question would gain quite a lot by being rephrased as: "Should a 13-year-old child be allowed to sail around the world on his/her own?"

My answer would be the same anyway ("No"), but everyone's need to specify the gender of the person involved really grates on me.

From:

vescoiya.livejournal.com

I'm with you on this one.

From:

fallingtowers.livejournal.com

Thank you for saying that. You took the words right out of my mouth.

From:

Yes.

(and I agree, if it were a 13 year old boy, chances are he'd be already on his way with the full blessing of everyone)

From:

helflaed.livejournal.com

I wouldn't be saying that myself as boys mature much more slowly than girls.

From:

tigerfort.livejournal.com

I'd say

a) depends on the maturity and sense of the person in question
and
b) I agree with everyone else here about the gender issue....

From:

tree_and_leaf

Assuming, of course, she knows what she's doing. So: if it's Nancy Blackett, then yes, if it's thirteen-year-old-me, not so much.

I don't think the child's gender is relevant, but I do wonder if the Dutch courts would have been so bothered about a boy....

From:

rosathome.livejournal.com

I think it depends on who is doing the allowing. It seems to me that this is a decision for parents, not governments. Though in this case it seems that the parents are somewhat ambivalent about taking their responsibility to their child seriously (they don't want her to go but aren't stopping her, so far as I can make out). If I were the parent and she were my child, it would depend on the kind of child she was. I might let her go, if I were convinced she understood the potential risks and was equipped to handle them. Or I might make her wait a bit. Or I might make her do a shorter trip first. What I wouldn't be doing would be asking the state to tell me what I should do.

From:

I don't know where you live (which may have a different system?), and I speak from a UK perspective. Does this mean you don't think we should have any rules governing what ages children are allowed to do things, like be responsible for younger children, or work certain hours, or buy certain dangerous things, or drive etc etc? Because currently we do and parents are not given carte blanche to overrule/decide those things, it is the state deciding. This sailing thing seems at least as questionable an undertaking at 13 as many of the things legislated for.

Although they are a bit of a muddle personally I think the UK age restrictions are round about right. We also have a system of making children wards of court if a court decides that the parents are NOT acting in the child's best interests, and I think this has value in a society too(in principle, sometimes the practice leaves much to be desired) too.

From:

helflaed.livejournal.com

Although she's probably physically capable of it, I have great doubts whether a child of that age is emotionally or psychologically capable of dealing with the stresses and lonliness involved. This is an age at which she should be developing her social skills whilst maturing from a girl into a woman, and that's not going to happen on a small boat in the middle of the Pacific.

I can also see that this might be a decision which should be taken out of the parents' hands if they are so wrapped up in their own world, or worse yet trying to live out their ambitions through their daughter, that they have lost their sense of perspective.

On the question of her sex, I'd be more inclined to say that a girl is capable of undertaking something like this than a boy of the same age. However I stilll think that thirteen is too young. Possibly the fact that I have sons has skewed my response, but I stand by what I have said.

From:

inamac.livejournal.com

Speaking as someone who failed to develop social skills and mature while in a large school in the middle of London I can't see this as much of a deterrent.

More seriously I answered 'yes' on the basis of Darwinism in action - if she wants to do it, and her parents aren't incined to stop her then it's no ones business but their own (and, presumably, the rescue services who will be watching every step of the way.)

From:

I have one of each, and I agree with what you have said here.

From:

mirabehn.livejournal.com

Really not sure. Depends on how good she is and how prepared she is for the loneliness and the endurance, I'd imagine.

For certes her gender should definitely not be a factor.

I've ticked "yes" since that's more the way I'm leaning, but I don't think I know enough. And ultimately it is her parents' call.

From:

camillofan.livejournal.com

I'm surprised that anyone thinks this wouldn't be in the news-- as the same story, with Child Protection swooping in-- were it a 13-year-old boy in question. Where I live, it would!

From:

lil-shepherd.livejournal.com

Maybe.

So long as, if she fails to make it, her parents are taken to court and jailed for manslaughter.

From:

osymandias.livejournal.com

Which will serve... precisely what purpose, exactly?

From:

lil-shepherd.livejournal.com

It would make other people think twice about consequences. The threat may make said parents think about consequences too.

At age thirteen a child is not responsible for her own safety. Her parents are.

From:

As I understand it at present the legal position is that a 14 year old may be left on their own at home, younger than that and the child must have an adult care-giver present.

From:

wellinghall.livejournal.com

I don't think it's that definite. The NSPCC sums it up as, "The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk."

From:

There's an act from 1933 that states "under 16" although there are several other acts of the same name since including one of 2008 that may have changed the age.

From:

What's your source for a 1933 act that states under 16s may not be left alone at home???? Kids were leaving school at 14 and working in factories back then, so I'm frankly sceptical that it was illegal to leave them at home in 1933. My understanding of the law is the same as Wellinghall's. - Neuromancer

From:

I'm suprised that you couldn't find "Children and Young Persons Act 1933" okay I didn't read all of it all the way through but merely noted the Act from a newspaper link to a Times article that was post-Maddy in Algarve talking about the whys and hows of leaving kids alone. That is based on googling "child alone" not exactly a difficult search and taking the second link, the first being the NSPCC. Oddly despite Welly's point about the NSPCC above it seems that a local authority (same google search, 4th link) says the NSPCC do have a limit of 13 or under, although it seems to have a date of 2005 when you look at the raw text source, so ...

Mind you a BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7501031.stm from last July points out that the Department for Children, Schools and Families doesn't state an age for the reasons mentioned already, but that may also be an indication that there are two many laws for the various lawmakers and government departments to look at when writing new ones in response to the latest tabloid shriekings.

Edited Date: 2009-08-30 08:51 pm (UTC)

From:

This is what the law was when I looked into it not all that long ago. I also spoke to an NSPCC person about it. There is no legal age for leaving a child home alone, other than 16 being ok*. Under 16s are the responsibility of their parents, or whoever else is in loco parentis (sometimes a school or club for example); children babysat by under 16s are ultimately the responsibility of the younger children's own parents (a fact a lot of people don't know). 14 might well be a sort of rough rule of thumb for your average 2 hours local babysitting or after-school latchkeying, but it isn't legislated for or certain.

Therefore if something goes amiss, the age and maturity of the child as well as other relevant circumstances (how long left for, how well prepared & how mature were they etc; or how mature, what age and how well prepared the u16 babysitter was) will be taken into account to see if the parents were neglectful or not.

(*there are probably caveats even to this but I'm talking average children in normal circumstances)

From:

muninnhuginn

None of my business, since it's not my child.

If it were, I'd probably say no... unless they lived entirely for sailing and the sea and were extrememly capable and well prepared.

From:

from what I've heard, she lives entirely for sailing and the sea and is capable and well prepared

From:

wemyss.livejournal.com

And for that matter, distinguo.

'"Be allowed" by the State' is the question as I read it, and answered it. Simply put, if the parents are (metaphorically) on board, the State wants to piss off.

From:

lil-shepherd.livejournal.com

Except, as I said, that the parents have to face any consequences. If the child dies, she faces the consequences, not them, but she is not legally of age. If she dies (or if her incompetence leads to other people being killed) then her parents must be held responsible. Their decision; they face the consequences of any misjudgement.

From:

As I've said in an earlier reply as I understand it at present the legal position in the UK is that a 14 year old may be left on their own at home, younger than that and the child must have an adult care-giver present.

So as the current record is 17 for youngest solo around the world I can't see the rush for this girl. I think that people are allowing the gender issue to cloud the matter though - I don't know if they'd alow a 13 year old boy to go or not and frankly as far as I'm concerned the gender is relevant to emotional maturity and gthe ability to do this, and I'm reasonable sure that non-male commenters would at least agree that the consensus is that generally males are not as emotionally mature as females (sorry but I'm not aware of any general consesnus about other gender identities).

So to me a 13 year old, wether already skilled enough or not, should not be permitted to sail around the world solo, and whilst some people don't like the involvement of the Dutch state & courts in this case I am of the opinion that all states have a duty of care to the citizens who live there (of all ages and origins) and this parental neglect issue falls under that care.

Frankly is this trip does go-ahead and there is a problem that an older person could have fixed but which this 13 year can't cope with, then the rescue services that get involved should be free to bill the parents, especially because in some places rescueres will be putting their lives at risk to help, and I'm with Lil Shepherd on the consequences should it come to the worst regardless of the emotional punishment the parents will suffer.

From:

it's impossible to determine what constitutes 'a problem that an older person could have fixed but this girl couldn't cope with'. So that would just serve the purpose of opening a can of worms.

as for the gender issues: Perham crossed the Atlantic at 14. Was there fuss raised about this? No. But then he was a guy.

From:

In the context of sailing I would say the strength to haul a sail full of water back out of the oggin to save the ship capsising.

As for Perham, Perham who? And franjkly what was the justification then, just cause he was a boy is still wrong. Because his parents had the money to set it all up and didn't think there'd be a problem and so didn't ask the courts if it was ok? Still wrong. Because the parents were on a ship less than a mile away all the time, well okay but ...

In this case and this Perham I think some of it is the parents living through the child and thus wrong.

But yes the gender bias sucks. but to my mind it is clouding the issue. Frankly I don't think we should be letting us get to the situation, as satirised by Dougals Adams, where we have 6 year olds sailing the channel in a bath because the previous record holder was 8.

From:

So your understanding of the law in this country is that it's illegal to leave your 13yo doing their homework while you pop out to Tesco? I believe that's incorrect, although the way things are going it doubtless will be the case soon [headpalm] - Neuromancer

From:

(edited to take out the annoyedness, sorry N I don't think you were being arsey to wind me up)

"So your understanding of the law in this country is that it's illegal to leave your 13yo doing their homework while you pop out to Tesco? I believe that's incorrect"

Well that was my understanding of the law based on a situation in the early 90s. And if you're going out to Tesco there's a host of things that may make "popping out for ten minutes" into 20 minutes or half an hour (parking, queues, traffic), now you may trust 13 year old Katy to be good and not do anything she shouldn't but accidents happen. An 11 month old baby drowned today in Nurnberg while its 20 something mum popped out of the bathroom to do something. The article I mentioned in the earlier reply does say the Act should take into consideration the maturity etc of the child in each case, some can take being left alone and just get on with homework etc others can't be left 10 minutes without doing something they shouldn't.

Edited Date: 2009-08-30 08:42 pm (UTC)

From:

Certainly didn't intend to be arsey to wind anyone up, although from your first response I can see I managed to touch a nerve. Fair enough, it's a bit of a red-button issue for me too -- the way things are going, I can see myself being arrested in the future for attempting to allow my kids a bit of breathing-room and not helicoptering over them at all times. We seem to be going completely nuts in this country .

I am sure there are some 13yos who shouldn't be left alone (same applies to some 18yos, 22yos, 30yos...) but I certainly hope that my two will grow up with a modicum of common sense such that, at an age when within living memory they'd have been holding down a responsible job, they'll be capable of surviving without me for a few hours without destroying the house or losing any limbs. Obviously accidents happen, but that's true at any age -- I'm 36 and I could fall down the stairs, break my leg and be unable to reach the phone, so does that mean I should never be left unattended just in case?

Neuromancer

From:

"I'm 36 and I could fall down the stairs, break my leg and be unable to reach the phone, so does that mean I should never be left unattended just in case?"

Well obviously you shouldn't be left unattended as you're patently one of those poor people who needs caring for: because you don't have your mobile with you and on at all times ;-)

I see where you're coming from on the helicoptering and nanny-stating thing. It is very odd that a 13* year old can get a paper round and walk the streets in the dark by themselves but can't be left alone in their own home in case a random caller comes to the door and frightens them. Or as you noted earlier the same was true of a child who might otherwise have got a job (I think the school leaving age was changed sometime around then though to negate that but am not sure). Either way it is a bit cocked up.

I think it's indicative of a society trying to protect children as a sign of civilisation, as opposed to stuffing them up chimmneys or putting them to mind pit-ponies in the dark and damp of a mine; maybe now though it is going too far if they're not allowed to walk to school without the parents getting dropped in the shit.

*for all I know that may now be illegal too.

From:

As Kargicq would tell you, I would have my mobile on me but the battery would have run out ;-).

I checked on school leaving age before leaving my previous comment. According to wikipedia (so it must be true), school leaving age was 14 up till 1944. As a teen, I used to visit an old lady who told me she left school at 14 to make bombs in a WWI munitions factory. God knows what the chemicals involved were or the risks of explosion. Being home alone must have been the least of her worries!

With you on child protection. For me, it's gone too far -- excessive protection is a form of abuse. Well, maybe that's too strong, but what I'm trying to say is, wrapping your kid up in cotton wool till they leave home aged 18 may be done with the best of intentions, but it is actually /harmful/.

Neuromancer

From: