NationStates Jolt Archive

... to kick their children (16 or over) out of the house even though they are completely or mostly unable to sustain themselves and can't afford a house or food etc...

I think if you restrict that right the problem of the homeless will drop massively.

However there has to be an age where the son or daughter should not force their parents to look after him, and if so how can you decide that age? etc...

*poll coming*

Edit: Adoption doesn't count.

Its called adoption isnt it?

edit: woo 69th post!

Its called adoption isnt it?

It's the paperwork free kind.

parents should be able to kick their kids out at some point, I got kicked out when I was barely 15, I lived, although I was homeless for a while.

I don't see myself kicking my kids out, but I don't really think it's any of the government's business either.

As the law currently stands, the person who has custody of the child has that custody until they turn 18 and become adults (unless they are legally emancipated before that, which is pretty rare). It is already illegal to kick a 16-year old out of the house if they cannot sustain themselves (and probably even if they can), as it is neglect or abandonment. Of course, it is rarely enforced at that age.

We can argue over where the legal age at which a person is considered an adult should be, but the law sees them as wards of their parents (or other guardians) until they are 18. Interestingly enough, if a teen is kicked out at 16 and commits some crime (stealing food, for instance), the parents can be held legally responsible, whether the teen was living with them or not.


I don't see myself kicking my kids out, but I don't really think it's any of the government's business either.

Should it also be none of the government's business if you beat your kids senseless or use them as slave labor? Child neglect is illegal, and I don't think we really want to change that.

Looking at the lack of independance some people display I think their parents should really cut the umbelical cord and boot the 'kids' into real life.

I knew an 18 year old who could not even use a microwave, oven, grill, hot plate, dis washer, wash dishes, washing machine or dryer...

parents should be able to kick their kids out at some point, I got kicked out when I was barely 15, I lived, although I was homeless for a while.

I don't see myself kicking my kids out, but I don't really think it's any of the government's business either.

But isn't depriving you children of food an actionable offence as it is child abuse? Why shouldn't depriving your children of shelter and food be an offence as well?

As the law currently stands, the person who has custody of the child has that custody until they turn 18 and become adults (unless they are legally emancipated before that, which is pretty rare). It is already illegal to kick a 16-year old out of the house if they cannot sustain themselves (and probably even if they can), as it is neglect or abandonment. Of course, it is rarely enforced at that age.


I'm not sure if that law applys to the UK.

You can't abandon your child...but you can give your child up for adoption, and at a certain age (determined by your location) you can sever ties with your child (and sometimes visa versa). I support this....no relationship thrives or can remain healthy when a party to the relationship desperately wants out.

... to kick their children (16 or over) out of the house even though they are completely or mostly unable to sustain themselves and can't afford a house or food etc...

I think if you restrict that right the problem of the homeless will drop massively.

However there has to be an age where the son or daughter should not force their parents to look after him, and if so how can you decide that age? etc...

*poll coming*

Do you have some research that shows teenagers are the majority of the homeless population?

Because contemporary psychology suggests we got the massive homeless spike when Reagan closed a very large number of mental hospitals and put all the occupants on the streets.

But, you know, if there's a wave of people kicking out their kids, that could be it too.

You can't abandon your child...but you can give your child up for adoption, and at a certain age (determined by your location) you can sever ties with your child (and sometimes visa versa). I support this....no relationship thrives or can remain healthy when a party to the relationship desperately wants out.

Ok adoption doesn't count.

... to kick their children (16 or over) out of the house even though they are completely or mostly unable to sustain themselves and can't afford a house or food etc...

I think if you restrict that right the problem of the homeless will drop massively.

However there has to be an age where the son or daughter should not force their parents to look after him, and if so how can you decide that age? etc...

*poll coming*

Edit: Adoption doesn't count.

From when the child becomes able to get a job and fend for themselves, they should pay board or move out and find a place to live...throw them out if they do neither :D

Do you have some research that shows teenagers are the majority of the homeless population?

Because contemporary psychology suggests we got the massive homeless spike when Reagan closed a very large number of mental hospitals and put all the occupants on the streets.

But, you know, if there's a wave of people kicking out their kids, that could be it too.

Well I don't know what the situation is in the US, but I do remember studying it for an english assignment a few months back and the research showed that a lot of the homeless were unwanted drug addicts or alchoholics kicked out of their home from an early age often.

Do you have some research that shows teenagers are the majority of the homeless population?

A lot of homeless people are very young either running from something bad at home or kicked out or for a myriad of other reasons.

I would be moderately surprised if the <20 age group made up a smaller portion of homeless people than the >20 age group.

I would be very surprised if the <20 age group made up a smaller portion of homess people than any other 10 year age range.

Note - also from the UK, but would be surprised if the US is all that different.

Should it also be none of the government's business if you beat your kids senseless or use them as slave labor? Child neglect is illegal, and I don't think we really want to change that.

But isn't depriving you children of food an actionable offence as it is child abuse? Why shouldn't depriving your children of shelter and food be an offence as well?

I don't know. I know I was becoming such a problem for my parents that kicking me out seemed to be the only way for them to "salvage the family"

I have seen kids like that, 16 and 17 years old, I don't think that I would kick them out, but I don't really see how making them stay home (most of them wanting to leave anyway) is going to solve much.

I don't think kicking your kid out on the streets is productive, but it's probably not productive to police it when they are almost of age anyway either.

Well I don't know what the situation is in the US, but I do remember studying it for an english assignment a few months back and the research showed that a lot of the homeless were unwanted drug addicts or alchoholics kicked out of their home from an early age often.

Hmm, I may have to do some digging. This is only my personal experience, so it doesn't count for much, but the only homeless people who knock on my door are clearly not teenagers.

I'm also not sure if you're referring to another country, which you seem to be, in which case then it's very likely the majority of homeless people are teenagers. The States are a hell hole if you're mentally sick.

A lot of homeless people are very young either running from something bad at home or kicked out or for a myriad of other reasons.

I would be moderately surprised if the <20 age group made up a smaller portion of homeless people than the >20 age group.

I would be very surprised if the <20 age group made up a smaller portion of homess people than any other 10 year age range.

I will need to look this up.

It could be that I'm thinking of the statistic the wrong way, it could be what Reagan did made quite a bit of the homeless population mentally unsound, rather than the majority.

I'm not sure if that law applys to the UK.

You guys don't have child neglect laws?

You guys don't have child neglect laws?

In the UK you gain a large number of adult privlages at the age of 16 - including the right to marry, get a full time job, have sex and join the army and the like.

There is only really voting (18), drinking (18) and driving (17) left.

16-18 is a very definate grey area as to 'child' vs 'adult'

I don't think the UK would count booting a 16year old out as child neglect - but am not a legal expert here by any means.

You guys don't have child neglect laws?

Yes, but I think it is up to age 16 rather then 18.

The parent is responsible for their kid till age 18, any harm through neglect is their responsibility until that date

One would hope that they would care more for their kids then that, but I dont see any reason to make it law

In any case, youth homelessness does not seem to be as dire as you've made it out to be. Not to downplay the seriousness of ANY homelessness...but here is a link from one city (which of course is not all cities, and these numbers will vary):

http://www.edmonton.ca/CommPeople/HomelessOct02.pdf

71% of homeless people are between the ages of 19 - 54.

Only 7% are between 15 - 18. That still makes up 133 homeless teens out of 1915 total homeless people, which is terrible, but they are definately the minority.

However, even more disturbing to me is that 14% of the homeless are represented by children under the age of 15, living with homeless caregivers.

Yes, but I think it is up to age 16 rather then 18.

Ah. Well, if a person is considered an emancipated adult at 16, then there is no legal reason that they cannot be kicked out on the street, just as there is no legal reason that a 30-year old who isn't paying his rent can't be kicked out on the street.

Now, I would wonder about any parent who would leave their 16-year old (or 30-year old, for that matter) out on the street with no way of supporting themselves, but some people do need a jolt of sorts from having the support structure removed to get their lives on track.

In any case, youth homelessness does not seem to be as dire as you've made it out to be. Not to downplay the seriousness of ANY homelessness...but here is a link from one city (which of course is not all cities, and these numbers will vary):

I thought the claim was that many of the homeless were kicked out an an early age. That would mean that they were likely homeless at some point in their teenage years, and are probably still homeless even after becoming adults. But maybe that wasn't it.

I thought the claim was that many of the homeless were kicked out an an early age. That would mean that they were likely homeless at some point in their teenage years, and are probably still homeless even after becoming adults. But maybe that wasn't it.

'Homeless' covers a wide range of definitions - I have the impression that a lot of the younger homeless people end up in squats of abandoned buildings and the like.

Such people are also recruited to work as drugs couriers/prostitutes and in return might get a place in a squat. Are they homeless?

In my own experience - around london late at nitght apart from the tramps (who tend to be older) a lot of the homeless people seem to be very young.

Here, although you're an adult at age 18, if you can't support yourself (yet), your parents will have to support you.
Either by letting you live in their house or by helping you out money-wise.

If they refuse, the courts can order them to support you.

I thought the claim was that many of the homeless were kicked out an an early age. That would mean that they were likely homeless at some point in their teenage years, and are probably still homeless even after becoming adults. But maybe that wasn't it.

That still doesn't make sense. If you follow the counts back, the percentages are roughly the same. There would have had to be a surge in 'kicked out youths' representing the homeless in order for there to be such a huge spike in the number of adult homeless people. Assuming the 133 out of 1915 that are between 15 - 18 were kicked out (many run away, but the result is the same) stay homeless until they reach 19 at least, they still would not form a significant portion of the homeless.

Here, although you're an adult at age 18, if you can't support yourself (yet), your parents will have to support you.
Either by letting you live in their house or by helping you out money-wise.

If they refuse, the courts can order them to support you.

Really? So adults never have to be adults in your country? Weird.

'Homeless' covers a wide range of definitions - I have the impression that a lot of the younger homeless people end up in squats of abandoned buildings and the like. When the stats are compiled, there are usually two definitions...absolute homeless, and sheltered homeless. So absolute homeless are those with no housing alternatives...they can still be shacked up in temporary constructions or empty buildings (or sleeping in a friend's closet), but the fact that they live in a cardboard box or an abandoned warehouse does not mean they are not homeless. Sheltered homeless have some access to temporary (approved) emergency shelters.

Such people are also recruited to work as drugs couriers/prostitutes and in return might get a place in a squat. Are they homeless? Yes.

Getting an accurate count, however, is extremely difficult considering the lack of a fixed location.

... to kick their children (16 or over) out of the house even though they are completely or mostly unable to sustain themselves and can't afford a house or food etc...

I think if you restrict that right the problem of the homeless will drop massively.

However there has to be an age where the son or daughter should not force their parents to look after him, and if so how can you decide that age? etc...

*poll coming*

Edit: Adoption doesn't count.

I think that a good parent would never do that to their children. My Dad swore to me that no matter what happened, he would always be there for me. The only way he'd make me leave is if I was an alcoholic, or or a drug addict. Hell, the man always told me that when I'm in college, I'll never have to work since he'd send me money to keep me afloat.

The man always keeps his word :)

Really? So adults never have to be adults in your country? Weird.

Sounds like they absolutely can...but if they are unable to, the responsibility is on the parents and not the state to support them.

Really? So adults never have to be adults in your country? Weird.
No, you're still adult and shit - but the state rather makes the family care for their own instead of having to support them.

Uhm. Yes: What Neesika said. (Sorry, just saw that!)

In the UK you gain a large number of adult privlages at the age of 16 - including the right to marry, get a full time job, have sex and join the army and the like.

There is only really voting (18), drinking (18) and driving (17) left.

16-18 is a very definate grey area as to 'child' vs 'adult'

I don't think the UK would count booting a 16year old out as child neglect - but am not a legal expert here by any means.

There is some restrictions on marriage untill 18, I think you need your parents consent to marry between 16 and 18.

Most homeless in the US are not children kicked out of their parents' house.

Most homeless in the US are people with major mental or substance abuse problems.

i said 18 because here in the USA that is generally when people finish high school. so pretty much i think it hould be when that child/young adult has finished their primary education (meaning k - 12).

most people do their most serious growing up when they are on their own having to strive in the real world. if mom and pop are always taking care of their every need how are they supposed to do it themselves?