13 Year Old Girl Wants To Sail Around the World.

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

UTRECHT, Netherlands — A Dutch court ordered authorities to take temporary guardianship of 13-year-old girl on Friday, delaying her plan to sail solo around the world until psychologists can assess her capacity to undertake the risky voyage.

Judges said Laura Dekker would face both mental and physical risks if she were allowed to go ahead with the two-year trip in her 26-foot boat named Guppy.
The court said she could continue living with her father, but would become the responsibility of Dutch child care officials for two months while an independent child psychologist evaluated her case.
The court battle in this traditional seafaring nation attracted has attention around the world, raising questions about parental responsibility when children want to set off on perilous adventures.
Laura was out sailing Friday and did not attend the District Court hearing. Her father, Dick Dekker, was in court to hear the decision from the three judges. He made no immediate comment.
Richard Bakker, spokesman for the Council for Child Protection, welcomed the ruling.
"We are satisfied with this decision," he said, appealing to the father "to cooperate with the investigation and ensure Laura's safety."

The court did not remove Laura from her father's home nor did it rule out the possibility of her eventually going on the round-the-world trip. For those reasons, the family's lawyer, Peter de Lange, felt it was an acceptable ruling.
"(It supports the idea that) you are not a bad parent if you try to help your child fulfill her dream," he noted.
The court will issue a second ruling Oct. 26 on whether to extend the council's responsibility for the teenager. By that time she will have turned 14.
De Lange said Laura's friends told her about the court's decision and "she accepted it very positively."
Dekker, an experienced sailor who raised his daughter on a yacht for the first four years of her life, had supported Laura's plan to begin a round-the-world voyage next month.
But Dutch social workers had argued that Laura was too young to weigh the dangers of the trip, and psychologists said such long-term isolation would be damaging at an important time in a young teenager's development.

Presiding Judge M. Oostendorp said the voyage was clearly risky for a girl Laura's age. "She would be confronted with difficult situations that will challenge her mentally and physically," she said.
De Lange, however, rejected arguments that Laura's education would suffer. "Where do you learn more, on a 2-year trip or at high school?" he asked.
He said the trip was still on track despite the delay, although Laura may now have to take her boat to Portugal to avoid autumn storms in the Bay of Biscay.
Laura Dekker was born on a boat in New Zealand while her parents were sailing around the world. She holds New Zealand citizenship as well as Dutch nationality from her father and German nationality from her mother. Her parents are divorced, but her mother reportedly also gave her consent to the voyage.
Even social workers fighting to stop the trip have acknowledged she is an accomplished sailor.
Earlier this year she sailed alone to England, where authorities briefly detained her and told her father to help her sail home, de Lange said. Her father went to England, but she eventually sailed home alone.

De Lange has said Laura would consider moving to New Zealand if Dutch child protection workers keep blocking her record attempt. New Zealand authorities say they also could block her trip if they were convinced she would be endangering herself or potential rescuers.
Friday's ruling came a day after 17-year-old British sailor Mike Perham became the youngest person to sail solo around the world. Completing 28,000 miles in just nine months, Perham crossed the finish line off the coast of Cornwall, in southern England, on Thursday.
Perham is a few months younger than Zac Sunderland, from Thousand Oaks, California, who claimed the youngest solo crown in July when he completed a similar trip in 13 months.
Perham's boat, a 50-foot racing yacht called Totallymoney.com in honor of his sponsor, is much larger than Laura's. But he also had significant seafaring adventures at a tender age -- when Perham was 14, he became the youngest person to sail solo across the Atlantic Ocean.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543970,00.html

Oh yeah, and she wants to do it solo.

Thoughts on this? I think this is one of the most ridiculous things ever brought to a court. her parent are honestly ok with her pissing off for two years as she circumnavigates the globe in a boat by herself? What kind of stupid are they? I mean lets analyse this in point form:

• Although it had been done before, it will probably end in serious injury or even death for her

• She is probably not physically or mentally strong enough to do it.

• She's thirteen years old. She is missing out on two years of crucial social development with other people to sail on a boat

• She's also missing out on two years of schooling to go sail a boat

Her family lawyer is being completely ignorant in saying that she would benefit more from 2 years of isolation and danger than being a normal kid and learning to function in society as you're going through puberty, one of the most important developmental stages in a persons life. But thats simply my idea of sanity.

Thoughts?
​

 

[Nitafrong]

I suppose the real argument here is a question about to what extent you should let others dictate how you should live your life. Its only in the last hundred or so years of human development that we have really put limits on what people and especially children can do. If this child wishes to do this activity and their parents are willing to let them, I don't see why the state should attempt to step in to regulate their activity. From what I can see, there is an extremely limited risk that she will cause damage to anyone besides herself. Yes there are risks involved, but to the same extent there are risks in smoking, drinking, making use of the roads, riding motorcycles.

State intervention for our own protection could precipitate a slide down the proverbial slope, and even if this is ignored, we must ask ourselves to what extent we wish our desires, when they do not impact or hurt others, to be curtailed by the state?

Hopefully this debate will be sparked off

 

[HBK-aholic]

You're not supposed to leave a 13 year old in the house on their own for very long, and you expect the government to allow parents to let their child sail solo for 2 years around the globe when there is a very high chance of death? It's stupid for the parents to allow this and would be even stupider for the government to okay it. It's also ILLEGAL to allow your child to not attend school or gain an education, why would they allow someone to miss 2 years so she can sit in a boat? She can do this when she's older. At 13, when she's not even allowed to drive, why would she be allowed to sail? She has no idea what she's letting herself in for and her parents are very irresponsible.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

I suppose the real argument here is a question about to what extent you should let others dictate how you should live your life.

The keyword here is being able to live the rest of your life. If she gets lost, kidnapped or capsizes on her trip, she can't very well do that. I don't understand the urgency of having to go RIGHT NOW. Does she lose all her ambition as soon as she becomes an adult?

Its only in the last hundred or so years of human development that we have really put limits on what people and especially children can do.

Is this a bad thing? Because 200 years ago we would send 8 year old girls to an awful country called Australia to work for stealing a loaf of bread.

If this child wishes to do this activity and their parents are willing to let them, I don't see why the state should attempt to step in to regulate their activity.

But if it is the law for a child to attend school, isnt it the states responsibility to step in and intervene on behalf of the childs well being. I think under certain life threatening circumstances, this can be allowed. Sometimes parents arent always in the best state of mind, and can convince children of things they may not fully be invested in. It is said in the article they are heavy on boating, so perhaps the parents are pushing for her to break the world record. You often see this with mothers pushing their toddlers to be in beauty pageants, or fathers pushing their sons to a chosen profession.

From what I can see, there is an extremely limited risk that she will cause damage to anyone besides herself. Yes there are risks involved, but to the same extent there are risks in smoking, drinking, making use of the roads, riding motorcycles.

13 Year olds can do none of those. They can cross the road, maybe, if that counts as use of the roads.

State intervention for our own protection could precipitate a slide down the proverbial slope, and even if this is ignored, we must ask ourselves to what extent we wish our desires, when they do not impact or hurt others, to be curtailed by the state?

If the girl had wanted to go skydiving, or bungee jumping or climb a mountain, the state intervening would be ridiculous I agree, but this is a far different circumstance. Considering all the rough seas, all the pirates and bandits as well as the unknown number of variables out on the oceans, there is no way safety could be guaranteed for a single person to make the journey, let alone a child. There is a fine line between your own desires and what is rational.

If it is your wish to die, then why is attempted suicide illegal?

Hopefully this debate will be sparked off

Yeah thanks haha, thought it would never get off the ground

 

[Nitafrong]

I am going to answer you in paragraph form- I never really was a fan of single sentence by sentence dissection.

I think you sort of missed the point I was aiming for in my reply. I wanted to question the necessity in having the state prescribe how we should live our lives- as long as it did not adversely impact upon the lives of others. Why should the state act as a bar to our dreams and ambitions regardless of the potential danger or foolishness of our actions?

Yes something horrible could happen to her, but horrible things could happen to her staying at home. If she is mature enough to make the decision why should she be stopped? You talked about beauty pageants and mothers forcing their daughters to enter, and yet are these illegal? Does the state intervene here? Why should it take exception to this? Dangerous and harmful activities are generally allowed if they fit our prescribed notions of standard life living. We can hardly say that we are doing this for the protection of human life. Actual death of a far greater magnitude to this potential one, is taking place in many states and yet we turn a blind eye. Why really should we prevent our fellow man or girl from participating in dangerous activities?

Your final comment of course is in jest- clearly she doesn't wish to die, she wishes to live. And if this is the way in which she feels she can fully live her life, why should we stop her. If her education is put back two years, that is her choice.

In fairness Becca I think you are being a bit judgemental on her family calling them very irresponsible. We don't know them, we don't know their daughter, how capable or mature she may be. Unless you have sailed the world by yourself you don't really have any idea what she is letting herself in for either, and in reality you are basing it on your imagination and what a reactionary media tells you. (Reactionary media?? I am beginning to sound like one of my socialist friends )

 

[HBK-aholic]

In fairness Becca I think you are being a bit judgemental on her family calling them very irresponsible. We don't know them, we don't know their daughter, how capable or mature she may be. Unless you have sailed the world by yourself you don't really have any idea what she is letting herself in for either, and in reality you are basing it on your imagination and what a reactionary media tells you. (Reactionary media?? I am beginning to sound like one of my socialist friends )

If we heard on the news of parents who left their 13 year old daughter home ALONE for over a year, we'd think they were irresponsible, to say the least. 13 is that age where people, especially girls, think they're all grown up. You're not. I don't think not sailing the world is a good enough reason as to why I can't think this is wrong. She'd be missing 2 years of education. Which is not only illegal, it's stupid.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

If we heard on the news of parents who left their 13 year old daughter home ALONE for over a year, we'd think they were irresponsible, to say the least. 13 is that age where people, especially girls, think they're all grown up. You're not. I don't think not sailing the world is a good enough reason as to why I can't think this is wrong. She'd be missing 2 years of education. Which is not only illegal, it's stupid.

Kids do this kind of stuff all the time but I guess we single this one out because of her age. If she wants to sail the world, let her and only if she is capable enough to handle it. Missing 2 years of her education doesn't necessarily mean she isn't going to go back and take those 2 years. When she comes back, it could mean she could graduate 2 years later than intended.

 

[Nitafrong]

If we heard on the news of parents who left their 13 year old daughter home ALONE for over a year, we'd think they were irresponsible, to say the least. 13 is that age where people, especially girls, think they're all grown up. You're not. I don't think not sailing the world is a good enough reason as to why I can't think this is wrong. She'd be missing 2 years of education. Which is not only illegal, it's stupid.

Well you certainly might, but I wouldn't jump to conclude anything about that situation till I knew more of the facts. Thirteen is a relative age depending on your society and how you were raised. In the past and in other societies thirteen year olds have worked full time employment, joined the military and got married .

Again its illegal as the government says it's wrong to miss education. My question still is, should we let the government have so much control over our lives? And certainly it may be stupid in your eyes, but in the eyes of others it may not be. Forced education, an invention of the last hundred years is certainly one way to live your life, but I don't believe it is the be all and end all. Why is it "wrong" for someone to live their life in a different way when it won't affect you in the slightest?

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Well you certainly might, but I wouldn't jump to conclude anything about that situation till I knew more of the facts. Thirteen is a relative age depending on your society and how you were raised. In the past and in other societies thirteen year olds have worked full time employment, joined the military and got married

But by our moral standards and society, which I'm guessing isn't THAT far removed from what they have in Holland, it's crazy to let a 13 year old makes decisions that are going to affect the rest of her life so easily. I mean sure, freedom is great, but you do need some control. Otherwise every teenage girl would have a butterfly tattoo over their bellybutton. Sorry to generalise but you understand my meaning.

Again its illegal as the government says it's wrong to miss education. My question still is, should we let the government have so much control over our lives?

When it comes to something as important as schooling, I'd say yes. Her education isn't like a hobby, its going to affect her life from here on out, from employment to even socialising. Half the important things you learn in school are social skills. So is the government right to make this mandatory? My personal view is yes. Things like vaccines aren't compulsory, but theyre strongly advised, and no one thinks the medical world is trying to run their live by trying to help them against cervical cancer.

And certainly it may be stupid in your eyes, but in the eyes of others it may not be. Forced education, an invention of the last hundred years is certainly one way to live your life, but I don't believe it is the be all and end all. Why is it "wrong" for someone to live their life in a different way when it won't affect you in the slightest?

This is a good point. While it isn't wrong if she wants to live her life that way, it probably isn't the best course of action, and the people who should be guiding her through it, the parents, aren't being voices of reason.
Of course it's none of our business, and doesnt concern us, but its a debate. The fact of the matter is, it may affect us when she goes on her trip and is killed or seriously injured. Would this not give governments even more leeway in the restricting of our rights? Using her as an example of what could happen?

It's a silly idea, and I think we could all agree on it. While we may not agree with the situation in terms of how the state is dealing with it, we can all agree that as a 13 year old, she is surely not ready. If it were her true ambition, rather than parents encouragement, the oceans will still be there for her in 5 years time when she is legally an adult. But I can't shake the feeling that she is being pushed perhaps before she is ready, just so the parents can show off their record-breaking daughter. Something about the strong sailing roots in that family, and how theyre so eager to let their pride and joy go is a little unnerving.

 

[Nitafrong]

With regard to your point on vaccines- you mentioned that they aren't mandatory- that is the entire point. If school was heavily advised, or the government tried to persuade people to not go off on sea voyages, then I wouldn't say they were attempting to run our lives, just providing assistance like the medical industry. The fact is though the government and the prescribed rules to which we have set ourselves to live by do limit us, and they do prevent us living the lives we may wish or want.

Again you brought up the important benefits that schooling provides- but if someone wants to opt out from this should they not have the choice? I am not trying to argue against the benefits which school provides but to question the reality of the freedom which we have. Why if the decisions we make do not harm anyone else, should the government have the power to control us?

You suggest that by letting her go on this trip, the ill effects of which could cause the governments to gain even more power. I understand your point but its a bit of a messy argument- suggesting that the only reason why we should care about her coming to an ill end is for the government to gain more power. Again- should the government have the power in the first place?

You say that the oceans will still be there in 5 years, but really why should she have to jump through the hoops that we have created for her? In terms of education she could always come back to it, or perhaps not at all if she doesn't see her future as one which education will have a big impact. If someone is capable of making the rational choice (which she indeed may not have the ability to do so. I can't say either way as I don't know her), should age matter, and should we really allow ourselves to be restricted?

(And in fairness I don't think every girl would seek to get a tattoo, and if they did I don't see it as that bad a consequence. Some would regret the decision I am sure, but its not really a mistake that would really adversely affect their lives.)

 

[HBK-aholic]

Mantaur Rodeo Clown pretty much said all I was going to the last time, so I'll leave that. At the end of the day, your personal views on schooling don't matter here. The point is it's illegal for her NOT to attend, and if the government know of something which is going to break the law, they have the right to stop it.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

On the topic of them trying to stop this because of ensuring Laura's safety, most people would be under the assumptiont that it will be safer if she is at home than out on the ocean. Fact of the matter is, there isn't anywhere on Earth where you can exactly be 100% safe.

I hope nobody rips me for this analogy but you hear stories all the time about war veterans coming home after long battles in which they experienced serious physical and mental trauma. The sad part is there are stories in which they were murdered in their own home, even their own backyard. You ask the majority of people which would be safer: the home or the battlefield and they would say home. One place cannot be assumed safer than another just because that particular place presents a lesser level of danger.

You hear more stories about kids doing this and returning home safely than the other way around but the masses will say that is an exception or since it happened to them, it doesn't mean it's going to happen to her. If she is physically and mentally up to the task, then by all means she should do it. If she does do this and she tragically dies, then everybody would say that she would be better off staying at home. Well kids die just stepping out on the street so maybe we need to take a step back and look at what exactly defines "safety".

 

[Nitafrong]

With relation to Becca- I think I made clear earlier that I was making no judgement on schooling or education, but rather questioning why it should be that it is illegal to not attend? Why should we be forced to attend a institution which we may not wish to be at? Yes the point may be that it is illegal for her not to attend, but I think the more interesting point is why this is.

I think Little Jerry Lawler also makes a good point. Safety is all relative. It would be safer to ban all alcohlic beverages, ciggerettes and to restrict all cars to 70 mph, or to cut down on their numbers and to make public transport mandatory. These aren't the case becuase we value our freedoms. Why if she is deemed mature enough, should the same not be said for this case?

 

[HBK-aholic]

With relation to Becca- I think I made clear earlier that I was making no judgement on schooling or education, but rather questioning why it should be that it is illegal to not attend? Why should we be forced to attend a institution which we may not wish to be at? Yes the point may be that it is illegal for her not to attend, but I think the more interesting point is why this is.

Because when the idiot who thought school was a waste of time can't get a job because of that, who is it that pays for their well being? Yes, the people who DID go to school and who DO have jobs because of it. And at the age of 11, which is when secondary school starts, I didn't want to go. I wanted to be able to stay in bed. At an age THAT young we have no idea what's good for us in such a long term way. Yes, I'm sure you or someone person you know was amazing enough to be able to make decisions that way at that age, but the majority cannot.

 

[Nitafrong]

I am not going to come out and lie and make out that anyone I have ever known under the age of even 15 or 16 was capable of making a fully rationalised decision about their future. No one I knew at that age was capable of making a decision like that- and I certainly wouldn't trust them to. However unlike yourself I cannot discount the possibility that there could be someone at that age who was capable of making this decision. As I said in a previous post- actual age is fairly relative- people of 13 have joined the armed forces, entered full time employment and got married and generally been treated like adults in our past or in many poorer states. The chance of this in our society is fairly unlikely but this is a pretty exceptional case, its not something that you commonly read about people attempting.

Whether or not I am being optimistic in my belief here, we cannot know, as neither of us know the girl, which was why I was interested in debating the rationales behind this kind of government control rather than the specifics of the case. As you rightly say, the main reason for the government to try and force its people to achieve a minimal education is to keep a basic level of skills in the workforce. We have thus then given up a certain levels of our freedom in order to gain some financial security.

I for one actually support this- I think that the freedoms which we loose here don't compare to those that we gain through participation in society. But I can see why people might have problems with it, and with relation to this case I have the sinking feeling that the government is only against this trip on no moral grounds, but on those of simple economics. As you said, the state is not for compulsory education in order to purely educate but only to prevent its workers being unproductive and a drain.

 

[Razor]

Courts have laws that constrain the rights of minors. Multitudes of them. In fact, John Stuart Mill, a philosopher who was largely against the idea of "paternal" laws openly regarded these laws and laws that protect the mentally handicap as necessary.

If the courts say you can't drink alcohol until you're a certain age, if the courts say you can't smoke until a certain age, if the courts say you can't vote until the certain age...hell, if the courts have a law stating the judge can deem parents unfit to care for their children if he finds them in gross negligence of their parental duties, why would you think a court would allow a 13 year old to sail solo around the world?

You can argue civil liberties all you want. But the facts stand. Courts constrict the actions of minors to a point where of-age citizens would be in an uproar if the same restrictions were placed upon us. Minors don't have civil liberties the way of-age citizens do. They're called "minors" for a reason.

 

[Nitafrong]

I wondered a couple of days how exactly to respond this this Mr Razorback, but there isn't really anything I can say. I could be wrong, but all you appear to say is that courts have laws which restrict the ability of minors to preform actions. This is something we all know- laws restrict us, and they have for hundreds of years. The more interesting topic of debate here was not if laws existed to restrict this girls movement but rather whether these laws should be in place. Should we have these "paternal laws" which you refer to, have the power to restrict the freedom of our ability to act? You made reference in the drugs thread to a belief that humans should have freedom over their own actions, does this include minors? As far as I can see it fits into your criteria- it is not reasonably possible that she would harm anyone else and it is her own choice.