2 children found living in abandoned bus in Texas

[happyslug]

25. Under the law, that is sufficient

In most states, a 11 year old can be on her own, i.e. does NOT require a babysitter OR be in daycare, and can watch a five year old. This is the WELFARE rule in almost every state for the STATE does NOT want to pay for Daycare unless the STATE has to. You can dislike this rule, but it is the rule in every state that I know of.

Now Children and Youth dislikes the above rule, but like the rule of Corporate punishment (another rule Children and Youth dislikes) it is LEGAL unless Children and youth can show ACTUAL NEGLECT.

One of the problems with Children and yYuth hearings being closed to the Public, a lot of people do NOT understand HOW the law is applied to situations like this. Public Welfare main purpose is NOT to protect Children but to keep the cost of such protection to a Minimum, thus these children are in a household that makes to much money for Welfare payments (Through they may be on the CHIP program), thus a huge deference to parents when it comes to raising their children. Unless there is clear evidence of neglect, and getting a bath twice a week, wearing "dirty" clothes etc is NOT neglect. Even leaving the children out in the "Winter" without shoes may NOT be neglect (This is Texas, which is in a drought. thus temperatures all winter has been WELL above freezing).

I use to handle Children and Youth Cases, and I have NOT read anything that shows true neglect. The bus HAD air Conditioning, it had electricity, it had water, it had heat. All of that shows a LACK of neglect. Is is an optimum housing situation?, NO, but I also do NOT think it meets the legal definition of Neglect. If you would have over heard some actual Children and Youth Cases you would know that, but such cases are closed to the Public thus most people do NOT hear of them.

One more thing to think about, the eldest child was age 11, Texas is state the recognize Common Law Marriages, in the late 1990s, Pennsylvania (Which at that time also recognized common law marriages) ruled that a Child at age 12 could enter into a valid common law marriage. Thus when a Teacher had sex with his 12 year old female student, the fact that both of them said they had exchanged vows made it a valid common law marriage even if the 12 year old's parents did NOT agree to it. Since it was a Valid Common Law Marriage, the sex was legal between the Teacher and the 12 year old.

At least one Colorado Court has taken notice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision in that case, and pointed out that Colorado had the same Common Law Marriage rules as Pennsylvania and thus such a marriage would be valid in Colorado. I have NOT read of any comment from the Texas Court System, but Texas is another Common Law Marriage state, and as such the 11 year old could be within a year of being able to enter into a valid Common Law Marriage (This is dependent on how Texas wrote its law on marriage, if 18 is the cut off on all marriages, OR the cut off on Ceremonial marriages only, that was the situation in Pennsylvania and apparently Colorado).

Please note, Common Law Marriages are VALID marriages in those states that recognize them. There is no such thing as a Common Law Divorce, if a couple is married under the common law they must use the regular divorce law to get a divorce.

Just a comment, that a lot of people do NOT understand the law regarding minors, and that they vary based on the State the minor is in AND the age of the minor.

One more comment, emancipation of Minors. Many states have adopted statures of when and how a minor could be emancipated from his or her parents. many states have not, Pennsylvania is one of those states that have NOT, thus it is possible for this 11 year old to be an emancipated minor, a minor no longer under the Care, Control or Supervision of his or her parents do to the act of his or her parents. The fact that the child's parents are in Jail, can be a "Judaical" act of the parent that they are no longer doing "care, Control or Supervision" of that child. There is NO bottom age for such emancipation. but a Child must go to school in Pennsylvania till he or she is 17 years of age (But an emancipated Minor can do that, i.e. go to school) and the Common Law rule of children below age 7 are presumed to be incompetent to enter contracts comes into play. Age 14 is the age where the law presumes a child is competent as an adult (Between age 7 and 14 it is on a case to case basis, but in Merry old England in the 1600s they did hanged a 7 year old boy for a crime subject to the punishment of hanging, when the court ruled he was competent as a 14 year old).

Do I dislike these laws? Yes, but I also have to deal with them. Now the US Supreme Court has ruled we can no longer execute people below age 18, but the Court has NEVER ruled on the issue of when a child can NOT be emancipated. Now, the State have passed laws saying it has jurisdiction over Children below age 18, but that includes not only emancipation minors but emancipated minors. Such Jurisdiction applies only if the child is "endangered" i.e. if the emancipated minor is NOT "endangered" then State has no jurisdiction over him or her.

Yes, Juvenal law has its logic, but it has been more on what works then anything else, and that in olden days teenagers were part of the work force (For example during the Great Depression Unemployment numbers was for people over age 14, it was NOT changed to the present over 17 level to 1947). Given that they is no one to lobby the state legislature to change the law, it is NOT changed unless something hits the headlines (The above case involving a 12 year getting married was one of the grounds for Pennsylvania abolishing people from entering into Common Law Marriages after 1/1/2005. Thus the law is a mess, but it is something I have worked with and have a decent understanding of.