diving at age 10 ?

[MikeS]

Philip,

I would not let a ten-year-old dive and I think to do so is irresponsible. IMHO, to buddy breath with an untrained child at 30 feet where barotrauma can be an issue is criminal child endangerment. If you want to risk your life have at it, but it’s wrong to risk the life of a child that is unable to weigh the risks and make an informed decision. The biggest issue to my mind is maturity. Will a child make rational risk decisions and how will they handle a life-threatening situation? As in driving a car, kids mature differently and are ready at different times but there is a minimum age. To the best of my knowledge, no certification agency advocates diving for ten year olds. Well there’s probably a reason for that!


Ontario Diver,

I assume your son is certified. If so, having waited until he met the minimum age and you’re insistence on following the dive restrictions is teaching him to dive responsibly and I applaud you. To do otherwise is irresponsible and teaches irresponsibility.

Mike

 

[Genesis]

making comments about "criminal child endangerment" should be locked up.

Yeah, that's a harsh statement.

I did LOTS of things at 10 that were FAR more dangerous than scuba diving, including shooting model rockets (legal), riding a dirt bike (legal), fishing from a boat (legal), operating a bicycle on public roads (legal) and swinging off a rope swing at Lost Lake (legal).

All could have easily resulted in my injury or even death. All were legal.

So is diving.

This "I have the right to make decisions for you and your kids because I don't llliiiiiikkkkeeeee it" is WAY out of control.
the way, is a serious federal offense.

 

[MikeS]

Genesis,

He asked for an opinion and he got mine. If you don’t like it you don’t have to read it!

Mike

 

[Northeastwrecks]

This question intrigued me, so I took a VERY brief look. The results of this search should not be considered legal advice of any type. Moreover, unlike some, I cannot claim personal experience with these type of charges as its totally out of my field.

As a preliminary matter, to characterize this as an issue of legal activities v. illegal activities is, at, best misguided. The issue is one of risk.

In Commonwealth v. Raposo, 413 Mass, 182, 595 N.E.2d 773 (1992), Justice Abrams compared the various statutes relating to child endangerment with those of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Id. at 190, 595 N.E.2d at 778, n. 1. He noted that many states criminalize the continued sexual or physical abuse of a child. Id. What is relevant here is the list of states that impose criminal liability where a child is physically injured through willful or culpably negligent conduct. Id. These states include Alabama California, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico and West Virginia. Other states, including Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Ohio and Wyoming, specifically characterize this type of conduct as a breach of the duty of care and protection that a parent or person in charge of a child owes to the child. Id. at n. 2.

The theme running through these statutes is that the injury must be caused by not less than culpable negligence or by placing the child in a position of unwarranted risk.

It would not be a far stretch at all for a prosecuting attorney to conclude that a certified diver, who is presumably knowledgeable of the risks associated with scuba diving and the need for proper training, to make a case that a child injured when the adult allows her to buddy breath is guilty of child endangerment. Florida's statute, which speaks to "culpable negligence", is particularly susceptible to this interpretation. After all, would anyone really dispute that allowing an uncertified adult to share your reg is potentially dangerous?

I'm not taking any position on the moral aspects of the statutes or on the over-regulation of our sport or, for that matter, our lives. I merely point out that there is an excellent chance that this type of behavior would, in fact, violate the criminal law of several states. Saying that you don't agree won't help when your in the shower with Bubba doing 3 - 5 for endangerment and your kid is still recovering from an embolism.

I also note that children injured by the negligence of their parents have potential civil claims against the parent. In such a case, a Guardian Ad Litem would be appointed to look to the child's interest (since the parent is unlikely to file claims against himself).

You can argue the morality of the statutes all you want. However, that won't win your case. In fact, we have an attorney in Massachusetts named Barbara C. Johnson who is attempting to do so. Ms. Johnson has challenged certain aspects of Massachusetts Domestic Relations Law and made farfetched and, in my opinion, ludicrous claims against judges and other state officials. She is currently the subject of a disciplinary proceeding. Even worse, as far as I can tell, her clients haven't exactly done well with these defenses.

 

[Walter]

Diving with no training is extremely dangerous. It is natural to hold your breath while underwater. Doing so while on SCUBA can kill you. When teaching, an instructor must first explain to students that they are not to hold their breath and why. Then he must explain signals to be used to remind them to not hold their breath, then he must be ready to physically restrain students to keep them from bolting while holding their breath. Divers who are not instructors are not ready to cover all the bases and can easily kill a friend or family member. Keep in mind, Philip very probably would not be able to physically stop his kids from bolting. I don't know if his actions were illegal, but it would not surprise me to learn they were. Illegal or not, it was certainly far from wise and an easy way to kill kids.

 

[DennisW]

You are getting a bit over zealous in your remarks. When I was a kid, I did many things that today may probably get me and/or my parents arrested. I made bombs. I gigged fish in fresh water. I also shot off model rockets and climbed very high trees and I jumped off the roof of my house. I rode in the back of pickup trucks, etc, etc, etc. Some very dangerous activities. Today is different than yesterday.

My response to PGL was well thought out and much toned down from my initial thoughts because I thought he was a parent that needed some "experienced" advice. Mike gave him his opinion and frankly, I think he may very well be correct. If the Department of Children and Families in the state of Florida knew about the situation, a person doing that exact thing may have his/her children taken from them and put in the protective custody of the state. It has happened for lesser actions. Parents have very little recourse when this kind of thing happens. Mostly it is for the good of the children, but not always.

You, sir have no idea what the legal implications may be. I may have a little more idea because I have friends that are foster parent for kids that have been taken from their parents. Some for very minor reasons in my mind. I know I don't understand all of the legal implications. I am fairly sure however, that the death or injury of a child in this situation would not be considered an accident.

I sincerely hope and pray that Phillip has his children trained to use SCUBA. I believe he will. I also believe there absolutely was no reason for your outburst. Your input was irrelavant to the discussion.

 

[Northeastwrecks]

For better or worse, child protection laws exist. Deal with it.

Negligence exists when there is a failure to act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances.

In this case, the question is whether a reasonable person who is a trained diver and a T4 paraplegic is acting reasonably by allowing an uncertified minor child to use scuba equipment.

Remember that harm to the child is a required element of the offense. Picture yourself trying to defend the case when the prosecution puts up before and after pictures.

Now draw your own conclusions. Then insert your own fact pattern an consider whether you would want to justify your actions to a jury.

Remember that you can complain that they system is unfair or wrong, but that this is not a viable defense.

In general, both as a diver, a lawyer and a parent, I would strongly advise against such behavior. Assuming, of course, that I was providing legal advice and not simply posting on a board.

BTW, I fully intend that my daughter will become a certified diver when she reaches the required age if that is what she wants. I'm not opposed to children diving so long as they are properly trained and mentally and physically capable of handling it.

That said, unless the parent has instructor level knowledge, not only of diving, but of training methods, control techniques, diver assessment, etc..., I would rather have the prosecution's side of the case.

 

[The Iceni]

The content of this thread had degenerated into a "slanging match" . I therefore closed the thread while I deleted the worst offenders (and replies that consequently made no sense) and edited others. (Hard work!:livid: )

Please moderate the tone of your posts, guys.

As this is an important subject I have reopened the thread but please limit further posts to sensible debate.

Thanks,

PDT. :doctor:

 

[DivingGal]

Safety of course is very important. The various diving training agencies around the world have different standards as when children can be certified to go diving. Taking children (or anyone) diving that is not trained in the sport, can kill them.

Only advice I'm prepared to give, is have your children certified through an agency so they know exactly what they should and should not be doing.

Also, consider them (and yourself if you haven't already) get training through the Handicapped Scuba Association The buddy course offered will train your childern how to help you and your physical challenges. The association can not only help you, but also put in touch with a network of folks who are trained to assistant a diver with your type of injury.

 

[Northeastwrecks]

As I stated earlier, I researched the law on the subject because it momentarily intrigued me. Having said that, let's get back to the fundamental issue.

Whether the state believes that the behavior is right or wrong is irrelevant to the fundamental issue of whether allowing a comparitively young child to use scuba without any sort of professional training is safe. Add to this the fact that the child is not carrying their own equipment. This means that they must either stay close to the diver or ascend if they want to continue breathing. This is particularly true if the diver is using a standard length octo or a short primary and an AIR2.

If the child is not wearing weight, they are very likely to be positively buoyant. This increases the difficulty of staying with the submerged diver and the chance of a runaway ascent, which may well be done without a gas supply.

Add to this mix that teaching diving requires knowledge, experience and training.

Finally, assessing the diver's ability is critical. It is difficult to properly assess someone you care about, which is why our shop doesn't allow one half of a couple to teach the other half. We also don't allow parents to teach their children. There is too much opportunity to let something slide when it really shouldn't.

Besides, the original poster said that his children were old enough for a PADI Jr. OW cert. What is the big deal taking the time to get them certified? There is no question that training from a good instructor will reduce the risk, so where's the harm in playing it safe.

Based on this, I see little benefit, and considerable risks, in allowing uncertified children to use scuba. I also see inherent risks in parents teaching their children, particularly if the parent isn't an instructor.

I don't need the state to tell me that this is a bad idea, regardless of how good the kid is in the water. However, I also don't need someone to try to express their independence or push their own agenda by putting a child at an unnecessary or unwarranted risk. It hardly seems worth it.