On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:34:02 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .

Parenting is more than multiplying. If you cannot afford or take care of
kids don't have them.


While I agree with this in principle, it is beside the point.

Precicely ON POINT. The law to punish for making an appoint for your childs
benefit and not showing up will like all other laws impress future parents
that they have a responsibility to their future children.

Don't be so short sighted.

Why don't you just arrest everybody who has a kid without having a
certain income then instead of coming up with yet another petty
annoyance.

Where there is
a will, there is a way. If the parent gets fined because he cannot
attend
to his child's needs he needs to do better parenting at home so that the
child does not require a parent teacher meeting.

If fining the parent means that he and the kid end up living in that
box then how have you helped the kid?

How many people do you personally know that live in a box because of a
$500
fine?

I've never known anybody who had to pay a $500 fine for refusing to
kiss a teacher's butt.

There you go adding BS to the proposed law.

Hey, you're the one who proposed it.

The parents are responsible for their children and the schools are not
baby
sitters.

No, the schools are not baby sitters, they are surrogate parents--that
is what the doctrine of "in loco parentis" means.

That is what liberals believe.

No, that is what the _law_ believes.


Give me a break. Do you often post under the name of Doug?

Hey, if you don't like the doctrine that has been well established by
the courts that the schools stand in loco parentis to the students,
then you should be worrying about getting legislation enacted to
change that, not finding new ways to harass parents. Sticking your
little ostrich head in the sand and denying that that is the law isn't
going to help anybody.

And I have no idea who this "doug" might be. Probably someone in my
killfile, who you have just joined.