What do the following have in common? Driving a car, joining the military, buying beer or cigarettes, performing in pornographic movies.
The answer is all are things adults can freely do, but children cannot, even with parental consent. In a civilized world, at what point do we protect children?

That universal question arises in the story of 14-year-old Laura Decker of the Netherlands. With her parents’ consent, Laura plans to sail around the world alone in a 26-foot boat and become the youngest person to circumnavigate the globe. Currently, the youngest solo circumnavigator is a 17-year-old British boy who confronted 50 foot waves, dangerous storms and mechanical problems during his nine month, 28,000 mile odyssey.

After a judicial hearing in October, a Dutch Court initially refused to allow Laura, who has been sailing for ten years, to undertake her voyage. She was placed under the guardianship of local welfare authorities but was allowed to live with her father. She and her parents were required to get approval from child protection officials for any future trips. The Dutch Child Protection Agency subsequently forbade the trip calling it “irresponsible for such a young girl to make a two-year solo trip around the world”.
Last month, as teenagers sometimes do, Laura ran away. An international search discovered her on a Caribbean island, thousands of miles from home, where she had apparently flown in an attempt to buy a boat with money she brought along.

When she returned, the Dutch Court denied the child welfare agency’s request to take custody from her father. The Court reversed itself and said if Laura took first aid training and went on practice runs, it would allow her to make her trip next summer. Her parents remain in her corner.
The dangers posed when a young teenage girl sails around the world alone would certainly be cause for concern, never mind the time and expense. But is it wrong and, if so, whose obligation is it to intervene? The parents, of course. But when parents support such a parlous endeavor, should the courts become involved? When should the state override the wishes of a child and parents in dangerous situations? This legal responsibility to intervene to protect a child is known as in loco parentis.

In 1996, a similar case occurred in the United States, when seven-year old Jessica Dubroff attempted to become the youngest person to fly an airplane across the United States. After a publicity buildup, including appearing on Good Morning America, Jessica, her father, and her flight instructor were killed during takeoff on a leg of the flight.
Before the flight Jessica’s mother, while supportive of the venture, expressed reservations about the weather. Her father, in denial mode, reassured the public, “The weather will move for her. It is not luck. Jessica knows that. It is the power of her being. There is something about Jessica that things move for her.'’

Never happened. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, a sudden thunderstorm and unfamiliar flying conditions caused the fatal accident, in combination with the desire to adhere to an overly ambitious itinerary, perhaps due to media commitments. After the accident, the Federal Government stepped in, passing legislation to prevent similar tragedies in the future. Too late for Jessica.

Author Ralph Keyes examined risk takers and how they rationalize their efforts in, “Chancing It: Why We Take Risks”. He interviewed skydivers, rock climbers, and tightrope walker Philippe Petit, who walked between the Twin Towers. Despite the high death rate associated with their activities, his interviewees all said the same thing - they were sure they would never be the one to die. Why? “Because I’m good at it.” The implication being those who did die were simply not as skillful.

This amalgam of denial and arrogance may be prerequisite for these risk takers to accomplish their feats. But for children, these elements, coupled with an incomplete comprehension of danger and mortality, mean that either the parent or the State, in loco parentis, intervene in extreme cases. In Laura Dekker’s case, that’s what the Netherlands should do.

Stay tuned. Next summer, Laura will probably try to sail around the world alone. She will have the world’s best wishes and hopefully she will avoid Jessica Dubroff’s fate.
Meanwhile, her parents approve and Dutch officials do nothing to prevent the trip. European and American society, both, confer greater latitude to children than in the past – it feels right to let her exercise her autonomy. Dutch law moves from in loco parentis, which was created to protect children, to deciding based on public sympathies.

But a moral, responsible society requires more than deciding by “what feels right”. It takes a village to protect a child.

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here