A decision by the Cape High Court has sent concerned parents into a huff as they question the competence of courts and fear the infringement of their own rights to raise their children as they see fit. While newspapers “umm” and “aah” their way around the wording (bouncing between “divorce”, “pseudo-emancipation” or “separation”), the short of it is that a Cape teenager (16 years of age) applied for emancipation from her parents and has been granted “semi-independence”, meaning she will stay in the care of a host family while the parents are still under obligation to take financial care of their child. Her parents are allowed to meet with her for a few hours daily at a neutral location and may call her twice a week.
The decision has been met with strong detraction from parents (as far as I’ve managed to glean from various internet message boards). Some argue the girl’s parents should not be forced to pay for their child’s “semi-independence”, even going so far as hoping the girl suffer and learn a lesson out in the cold cruel world, while others argue the court has infringed on basic rights that should be afforded parents.
It’s hard to say if the court’s decision is fair based on the meagre facts presented. Apparently the girl was stripped of her cellphone (and one can assume access to the home’s landline), to read books of her choosing (really? shouldn’t we be grateful they’re reading at all, even if it is Stephanie Meyer?), to have a boyfriend or socialise without their supervision.
When a message from a boy was found on her phone (which means the parents actually rifled through her phone), her father struck her. In his own words, he had reached his “tether”. To me, that’s enough to support the court’s ruling.
On the contention that the courts should not have a say on such matters, detractors should first consider that there are two rights in question, those of the parents and those of the child. A line does need to be drawn between these rights and the courts are the only available authority in drawing that line. That much should be self-evident. Children cannot decide it and parents may not either. So right there let’s end the probing on whether or not the courts have jurisdiction on this matter.
On the contention that the girl should be left to fend for herself, unfortunately parents have a legal duty to care for their children for as long as they live or their means allow. Indeed, I’m told there have been rulings imposed on parents to care for children who are well into their thirties.
Courts rulings have always, always and, I cannot stress this enough, always, been bound to the best interests of the child. Here the court felt that what was best for the child was to be granted a relative independence from her overbearing and arguably abusive parents. Abuse can take forms other than the physical and sexual variety and here people opposed to the decision may have some leeway for debate. Does this treatment constitute abuse? I’ve seen far worse, certainly. I know girls (not surprisingly, it’s always the girls who are most heavily restricted) who have pretty much been imprisoned. Girls who’ve had the restrictions above along with other controls such as strict bedtimes, zero socialising, no CD players or computers … and yes, they were hit for breaking the rules of the house. Really the question is: at which point is the control of a parent considered abusive?
Surely there is no absolute either way. Various platitudes will tell you that the role of a parent is a tough line to traipse: you hold a butterfly too tight and it dies, too gently and it flies off; the tighter you squeeze water the faster it slips from your hands, etc, etc. What controls, if any, should a parent be allowed to impose? And the relative age of the child is also critical here. Maybe a 12-year-old is too young for a cellphone, but a 16-year-old? Maybe. Maybe not. This may be the first time a court has taken on the house rules as dictated by parents (bear in mind that until you’ve read the documentation yourself, it’s impossible to say for sure what the court’s motivation is, litigation is extremely complicated … and ridiculously verbose).
To me, the notion that a 16-year-old may not date, socialise out of her parent’s line of sight or read books of her choosing is borderline barbaric and certainly abusive. But you’re entitled to your opinion. I think we’ve come a long way from that antiquated “seen-not-heard” brand of parenting. The adolescent years are when a child really starts to venture out into the world and begins considering their options for the future as individuals. It goes without saying that it’s a trying time and I feel that the most important thing a parent can do is act as a guide, someone the child does feel they can approach (when they so choose) and trust.
Lastly, I applaud the youngster on taking this brave decision. She did not run away in a fit of anger or other upset, she took a considered and rational decision. While many in her shoes have resorted to running away, marrying young, drug abuse and even suicide to escape the situation, she approached the courts to decide on the fairness of her situation.
Parents are concerned that Pandora’s Box has been opened and that children will all soon be seeking such freedom (so that they can binge drink and have filthy filthy sex) — I don’t see it this way. What I see is perhaps an awakening to what constitutes responsible parenting and measures to curb the abuse of parental rights.
Well yes, one has to distinguish between abuse and parenting. They are not the same thing. As you say we do not have enough information about this case to give a really informed opinion, you included. But it does bring up an interesting topic. Unless I am mistaken you unlike me have no kids. As a parent of two girls I want what is best for them, I do not “hit” them nor do I “spank” them, I do punish them by withholding certain privileges from them. My wife and I do make these things up as we go along but whatever we do is tempered with a feeling of love and an obligation of wellbeing for our kids. I do not believe in overly strict parenting but nor do I believe in treating kids like adults either. My kids are under me and my wife’s authority and that will be the case until they go to Varsity where I hope that the values we instil in them will do the job in our absence.
Why don’t we just cut to the end of this line of this debate and ask why children still need parents? To fund their self-chosen lifestyles, no matter how dangerous to them or others? What about the abuse of parents by children? Is that fine? Who will believe the parent anyway? If a child has no limits, how will they ever learn about the dangers and their duty to society? If you think that telling a child about the dangers in a course of action is enough to steer them clear, you certainly have never dealt with teenagers. That said, there is a vast difference between setting limits and abuse. How can one tell? Ask yourself as a parent, is my action likely to cause harm (physical, mental, etc.)? When is a child ready to be called an adult and given the freedom to choose their own path? Easy, when they are ready to take responsibility for their actions, of course. The same reason criminals should lose their rights as adults because they have acted in a way that is irresponsible. Society’s rules (including parenting) should not just make people feel all warm, fuzzy and dewy-eyed about being human, but should also fill the practical function of ensuring the continued existence of our species, not so? What do you do when your 16 year old reads pornography and associates with a male whom you know will cause her harm? Commend her for the experience she is gaining?
funny how your ur last paragraph contains something that will evoke a reaction from any parent ‘(so that they can binge drink and engage in filthy filthy sex)”… u r writing for sensation and not from personal experience at all.. when u one day have kids, u will understand… the thing i want most for my children is that they are street wise, like me, and not sheltered, but at the same time i will have the correct set of rules in my house that will provide the highest level of protection for my kids… i actually just lost a child about 4 weeks ago, and if there is anything i have learnt is that u cannot make a differentiation between loving a child too much or too little…. u love them until you cant love anymore.. which is never
We lost it if we think a cellphone or a computer is a basic right. Surreal. And ja, methinks the ‘rational’ decision came from the influence of the host family for this ‘poor poor’ girl.
I am shocked at the responses from parents to this article!
FIRSTLY, the fact that you have a child does NOT make your opinion on parenting anymore valid than someone without children. In fact one could argue it makes your opinion bias especially if you have had the misfortuin of losing a child.
SECOND, certianly a computer and a cellphone is not the right of a child but to deny your children access to such things BECAUSE you do not TRUST them is just plain WRONG.
LASTLY, parents ridiculous notion that they can control their children in any way is unbelievable.
Block the pc so that they can’t see pornography? They will find it somewhere else. Forbid them from dating boys? They will find a way to meet boys. All the coddling is not going to stop your child from doing exactly what they want to do. Stop trying to control your children because you cannot.
The parents role is to guide and teach their children as well as discipline them but NOT by trying to control their every move.
Doorboot you seem to have the right idea as long as your authority does not have unreasonable rules untill they do go to varsity.
I didn’t explain nearly as much as I wanted to please reply and I will try to clarify my position.
The writer has not indicated which race he is talking about because the nature of problems faced differ according to race.Neither has he made his comparisons clear. Comparisons between Africans or would he, as usual, find himself more comfortable with western values? However, parenting in SA is difficult for the parents and the children, in a society that offers little help, only contradictions no matter how much effort you put at teaching your child what is right.
You have to contend with the Jones next door who may have thier own set of rules quite contrary to yours, a society which allows for a media filled with what is most ‘unAfrican’ in a predorminantly African scenario, laws that has excluded most of what the African value system truly represents and has willingly embraced a foreign culture to the detriment of its more and wider populace.
I have avoided waxing religious in my comments, but sure I expect little or no disagreement to the fact that social values, religious beliefs, cultural & traditional dynamics, are not consistent with how the laws are applied and interpreted in SA. This leaves parents in a predicament and children- in a tailspin.
At 16, my son believed himself deprived because he didn’t have a cell phone or a CD player. He stole my debit card and bought himself both. I couldn’t pay the medical aid, electricity or telephone account at the end of the month.
Surely it’s a question of priorities? 16-year-olds’ priorities are not likely to mirror those of their parents. If you don’t instil those priorities early enough you are bound to hit trouble.
Luckily, now he’s on the verge of 21, he’s a lot more mature than most his age, but I suspect that has more to do with spending a year in Oz where he couldn’t steal my debit card.
He had to control his own lack of money and learnt the priorities I’d been trying to make him understand for years. It had little to do with the hours of community service he did and the pocket money he paid back for months, to make amends for stealing the card in the first place!
He learnt: what money there is, is used for things that are important and he would never have got to Oz at all, without my pension payout.