Parental Consent Requirement Killing Youth

[Bookshelf]

I've always been a proponent of the idea that many of the laws coming out that are giving more power to parents are evidence that restrictions towards youth are about control, not protection, and that MAPs are a scapegoat to justify this increased level of control. Parents must be allowed to monitor their children's private communications, lest they be speaking with a pedophile; parents must be allowed to control which health classes their child attends, lest a pedophile teach them something they shouldn't know; parents must be allowed to control everything their child owns— if a child buys it with their own money, the law dictates it is technically the property of the parents, lest a child buy something inappropriate... and so on.

In general, I think the increased powers given to parents are hypocritical in a lot of ways. Parents are more likely to harm their child than just about anyone else (not just sexually; mentally and physically primarily). When a government comes out with a law giving additional powers to parents to supposedly "protect the youth", they are inadvertently giving increased powers to the most dangerous adults in their lives.

The linked articles are just one example of the way this has gone wrong. Idaho's medical consent laws are affecting youth trying to access the state's crisis hotline. Parents must give consent for them to access the services. A crisis hotline is there mainly for suicide prevention, but can also give support for other things like domestic abuse. Typically if a suicidal teenager is trying to access an anonymous suicide prevention hotline, it's because they don't trust the adults in their lives to help them— yet they need to involve them and get their consent to access the services.

Unsurprisingly, this has caused most youth contacting the services to just hang up. If they're calling for help in a domestic abuse situation, getting parental consent is just silly. If they're calling for help with suicidal thoughts, they're obviously not comfortable telling their parents to begin with, and chances are the parents are at least partially at fault for them. Youth are being denied access to these services that are meant to help them just because adults want more control of them.

Laws giving power to parents are not about protection. They are about control.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/09/a-s ... h-in-need/

https://www.route-fifty.com/digital-gov ... th/407787/

[Liyowo]

All this talk about power imbalance only to then make sure children can't rely on any adult other than their parents.

[example]

All this talk about power imbalance only to then make sure children can't rely on any adult other than their parents.

Yes indeed, I have the feeling the kid-adult power imbalance might be completely arbitrary. Yes an adult is physically stronger than a kid, but what sane adult would ever mistreat a kid they treated as an equal rather than as an asset of themselves (in which case they can ‘justify’ the mistreatment as they naturally think of themselves as dominant over the kid)? After all adults have a natural instinct to care for kids, not to harm them. So why should we assume any non-parental adult will be dangerous to a kid, or at least more dangerous than their parents? Yes some are, but we have criminal laws to deal with those idiots. And if parents can’t legally coerce kids, just like strangers can’t, they would be virtually powerless against the desires of their kids.

[Bookshelf]

All this talk about power imbalance only to then make sure children can't rely on any adult other than their parents.

"You can't have a relationship with children. There's a power imbalance which puts them at risk of harm!"

"Okay, why don't we change the world a little to alleviate this power imbalance?"

"Nooo that's also wrong! The power balance HAS to be there so we can protect them from harm (caused by the power imbalance)!"

[wildly]

All this talk about power imbalance only to then make sure children can't rely on any adult other than their parents.

I think that is part of what scares them about us, most adults assume not only that there is a power imbalance, but that there must be a power imbalance. Without it, kids would be out of control.

Many parents and virtually all teachers simply could not function if they didn't rely on the power imbalance. They have no concept of how to interact with kids except by controlling them. The entire system kids live in is based around controlling them, just hopefully they get lucky and be around the less controlling adults. Adults fear their control being taken away, so naturally they want more of it whenever they can get it.

When you challenge that, by interacting with kids as an equal, it challenges the commonly accepted whole world view. Especially when those kids are as a result more willing to listen and obviously also happier to be around you. One common complaint I got years ago from the parent of a LG was "why does she listen to you?". It's hard to get parents/teachers to understand when the answer is, "I treat her like an equal, you treat her like shit". My relationship with said parents eventually soured, perhaps in large part because I showed their daughter a world in which she was treated like an intelligent, capable person.

[Officerkrupke]

All this talk about power imbalance only to then make sure children can't rely on any adult other than their parents.

Typical anti logic.

[Curson]

It would make a lot more sense to not treat your children like property. But...