Fri, Aug 28 06:27 PM
A 13-year-old Dutch girl’s attempt to become the youngest person to sail solo around the globe was blocked on Friday by a court which placed her under state supervision for two months.
Laura Dekker, an experienced sailor who was born at sea on her parents’ boat in New Zealand, had planned to set sail on a two-year voyage on Sept. 1 on her 8.3 metre (27 ft) yacht Guppy.
Child protection authorities argued it would be irresponsible to let her depart, and the court in Utrecht agreed, saying the trip would put Dekker’s psychological development at risk. She will remain with her parents, who will share custody with the state.
The court voiced “serious concerns” about Dekker’s mental and physical development on the boat, and ordered a psychologist and child protection authorities to examine how she would cope with loneliness, sea winds, lack of sleep and schooling, as well as her general physical safety.
On Thursday, British 17-year-old Mike Perham became the youngest person to sail around the globe single-handed after spending nine months at sea, eclipsing the record set by American Zac Sunderland last month.
Dekker’s lawyer, Peter de Lange, said he was confident the issue could be resolved and that her trip would go ahead.
“She is happy with the ruling, and now we can prepare this (journey) in a mature and responsible way,” De Lange said, adding that Dekker was out sailing on Friday. Her father was in court for the verdict, but did not speak to reporters.
Dekker, whose parents support her trip, had warned before the ruling she would emigrate to New Zealand, where she can also claim citizenship, if the court prevented her from attempting the voyage. But Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant reported her New Zealand passport had expired.
“…share custody with the state…” Any parents find that disagreeable?
I think the state should have total custody of her.
Anyone that takes their kid out of school, besides home school, is irresponsible and letting a 13 year old try to sail around the globe solo is even worse.
Yeah for this day in age in today’s society, maybe. I guess since most teenager’s in America can’t wipe their own ass and do nothing more than play video games…this argument is very logical.
But if truth be told, I bet the young girl was actually more than capable of doing it, not saying it’s a great idea, however.
Joan of Arc led an Army to victory at the age of 17. Mozart was writing symphonies before he was 10. Many young women have become athletic world champions as well. Throughout history young people have done many great things. Before the 20th century, most people went to school until the age of 13 or 14 if that, and then were expected to find their way in the world. And many of the great geniuses of the past did their most important work by their early 20’s - the age when most people today are just starting off in the world.
The need for an extended adolescence is something that was invented in the 20th century, right about the time compulsory education became the norm. One could argue that the relative idleness of many teenagers is the source of their misbehavior.
As a parent, and a former manager of many people, I have learned a simple truth - you get what you expect. If you expect good performance and hold people accountable, they perform. If you expect them to be irresponsible, and tolerate it, they will be.
If this kid can do it, why not? It’s not like they are going to put her out to sea with zero support and see if she makes it around the world. They could easily have a chase boat a short distance away to make sure she’s OK at all times. Modern communication equipment would prevent isolation.
We have no idea of the maturity level and competence of this girl. If her parents didn’t think she could do it, they wouldn’t let her.
It is. But I’ll agree that there are other examples out there. Now are the indicative of a socialist system? I wouldnt be too sure about that. I’d say its more an example of a system that is more totalitarian than anything else. Consider that totalitarian states come in all flavors, socialist, communist, monarchies, republics, fascist states. They all can be totalitarian.
And unions that gained political power - can’t have 16 year olds doing jobs for cheap when you have a 34 year old making 3 times as much and paying dues
One could argue that the relative idleness of many teenagers is the source of their misbehavior.
Regardless of what ilk our youth have become today, a thirteen year old sailing around the entire fu*king world is as asinine an idea that one could ever conceive.
When I was 14 my ex-stepfather purchased a 42 foot sailboat in Finland which we flew to and then sailed home over a period of nearly 3 months. While most of the 18 day trans-Atlantic aspect of the trip from the Azore Islands to Bermuda was uneventful, there were times of sheer terror as well with the boat sometimes listing 60% while riding over 50ft swells. The adult crew had their hands full and at times completely exhausted themselves throughout the night keeping the ship safe. This happened in coastal areas, as well.
Even with all those knowledgeable crew on board today, I can tell you that at age 40 I would likely not make the same trip on the same boat again. We made it, but were it not for the 3 expert sailors we had as crew there were times when we may not have.
As far as envisioning my self in that circumstance at that age, but alone this time, and going three times as far…please. :rolleyes:
No argument about the irresponsibility of letting a 13-yo girl sail around the world solo. But I think that’s a side point to M_P’s post.
“Share custody with the state”.
I know children are already removed from their parents in circumstances of abuse, molestation, neglect, whatever. It may or may not take a light application of Reynold’s Wrap, but there’s a pretty good slippery slope argument to be made there already.
But I really don’t think helping your kid take their own yacht around the world falls in the same category abuse and neglect.
The day the “state” ever tries to assume custody, even shared, of my girls, will be a cold day in hell. And it better be because I’m already locked up for committing a crime of some sort, otherwise it will be a very messy day wherever I’m located.
a 13 year old playing pro sports or doing other things is much much much much dif than a TWO YEAR SOLO trip
being a sailor and growing up on the water I can say it would be insane tough to do this and could be deadly to a 13 year old ?
if she had a mast break on her she would not have the strength to fix it !
storms and things you encounter might not be able to be handled by a 13 year old ? 16 or 17 yes their is a big jump there between those ages
there is a point of stupidity and letting a girl do a solo just to be in the record books is endangering her life for no reason
if its cause she wants to do it wait till she is legal age and go do it then !!!
True, you make a great point…I guess I was just thinking along the lines of what Left Sig was saying. I don’t think it’s a great idea to let a 13 year old navigate the high seas by her lonesome. Just that I’m sure different civilizations throughout mankind have let their young do far more dangerous and courageous things. I was just trying to point out mainly that this 13 year old girl might be well more mature and able to do such a thing, vs. say an American college girl. So who’s really to say age means a whole lot anyways, know what I mean? I’m only speaking in a Philosophical sense.
And I think the main point of this thread was about State having partial custody with the parents, to which I don’t agree with.
Yes, they could just as easily have threatened to file child endangerment charges if they went through with it. Then, if they did, arrest the parents and possibly take custody. But until they actually do something “wrong” there is no compelling need to assume custody. This is a PREEMPTIVE action based on the potential for something that has not even occurred.
To all the people saying this is “insane”. Do you think it would be acceptable if there was a chase boat nearby for safety and to intervene in an emergency? Do you think these parents are stupid and or naive and would expose their child to risk of death without making every attempt to mitigate the risk? At this point we don’t know enough about how they are planning to make the trip to judge.
You know folks, the states here in our non-socialist nation can simply take your kids if they deem it appropriate for whatever reason, as well as monitor parenting closely. I see this state shared custody thing as something along the lines of what we have here already, which is negligent or otherwise poor parents being supervised by child services regularly while still retaining possession of their children.
For those who were discussing the preemptive nature of the state intervention. A bit more info found Here
[i]"It emerged during the legal proceedings that the teenage girl had been placed in foster care by British police after she sailed single-handed from Holland to Britain in May.
Police in Lowestoft and social workers decided that the return journey was too dangerous and placed Miss Dekker in a home until her father came to collect her.
“In England I met a couple who run a children’s home. They were very kind and showed me many nice spots in England,” she later wrote on her website.
Dick Dekker, Laura’s father who at the age of 12 sailed from Ijmuiden harbour across the North Sea, collected her from the home and defied the authorities by letting her make the sea crossing alone.
The British police then contacted their Dutch counterparts who alerted the Utrecht social services, leading to Friday’s custody decision."[/i]