posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:57 PM
like everyone else i would have to hold the parrent at least partialy responsible. but in recent times how many parrents actualy do any real
parrenting? the modern way is to drop a baby off at day care before work, pick them up, feed them supper and then put them to bed. once school starts
there are before and after school programs that acomplish the same thing. then once a child is old enough tv, videio games, and computers baby sit
them. there is very little actual "parrenting" going on other then to set rules, and sometimes very poor rules at that. mostley it is daycare,
school and entertainment that raise our children.
it is partialy our societies fault for the need for two parrents to work to try to bring in enough cash to live off of. even those who can live
without both parrents working, both parrents selfishly want to have their careers. the children SHOULD come first.
then we have the high divorce rate on top of everything else. now i would not want someone to stay in an abusive situation for the sake of the kids,
but most divorces are due to one or both parties not even trying to work things out. children in a divorce tend to be little more than pawns in the
game of hurting the other party. it is always best in my opinion to show children a loveing careing household. this will in it's self teach children
how to behave. it also alows for both parrents to have a break from the constant attention that children need. remember no one FORCED you to get
married, or even to have children. both take two people to create. would it not follow that it would be better to have both parrents raise the
children as well, it is not an easy job at the best of times. you need to know what a child is up to at any time. how many gangs for instace would
cease to exist because a parrent will not allow a child to run arround without parrental controll? same for internet acess, now mabe yopu don't need
to sit and watch every litte key stroke they make but you should know what and where they are surfing. read a childs e-mails and messages, it will
seem unfair to a child but could save them from serious harm.
finaly there is some blaim on the service provider. which looking at this case did their job. aparently a co-worker was the one to get suspicious and
stopped a possible problem. good job on that. i would recomend no less then three people have acess to eveything within the chat room. and moveing
people around at times will also help stop problems from occuring.
reading the artical there are two parties that should be held responsible for a possible lawsuit. the person commiting the act and the parrents of the
child for lack of care, and protection. the service provider did their job within reasonable expectation. aol may look bad in this but the fact is
they were the ones to find and deal with the problem. i certaily hope that the employee "snitch" was amptly rewarded for their efforts to stop the
problem. sure they could have possibly done better but the fact is they DID put a stop to it. now if they had turned a blind eye to it THEN they
should be held liable.