Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (6100)	3/12/2007 4:33:48 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

If it is a predictable seizure problem then responsible parents will make preparations that involve the children much like we do in preparing for other emergencies like fire in the home. Passing out from drinking is no more or less predictable than passing out after drinking. In either case, if the parent makes appropriate arrangements for the children it's not an matter for the child welfare folks. Neither alcoholism nor epilepsy nor video game watching is an issue for the child welfare folks unless it manifests in a way that endangers the child. The criterion is the endangerment behavior, not whatever is behind the endangerment behavior. the choice to engage in something that leaves them vulnerable during intoxication is enough all by itself. Indeed, if it leaves them vulnerable, but if what they are engaging in doesn't leave the children vulnerable, it's beyond the scope of the child welfare folks. If the children, for example, are always in the presence of an effective caretaker, perhaps the other parent, then the alcoholic parent engaging in something that causes him to pass out doesn't endanger the kids. The drunk parent can sleep it off and the kids are safe.