I think any assessment of emotional and psychological abuse here would have to hinge on the possibility of exit. Adolescents who cannot even conceive of a life outside of the compound–because they are taught to fear it, because they have not acquired the skills necessary to interact with strangers, because they have not been educated or socialized–can’t meaningfully be said to consent to life within it. If a culture is systematically producing adolescents who can’t consent to stay, I think we have a justification for state action.

I realize that this sounds very vague. So too does “actions that engender a child’s health or safety are neglectful.” But it would be obtuse for me to say that we cannot remove a child whose parents are starving it simply because you and I have different conceptions of what is healthful.

Anyway, we can fight about it at lunch tomorrow!

Thanks for the link. I agree that telling the difference between, say, laissez-faire parenting and neglect can be difficult to determine in particular cases, but I don’t think it’s hard to articulate the principle involved. Roughly: that actions that endanger the child’s health or safety is neglect. Likewise, you can define the line between discipline and abuse based on the degree of physical damage inflicted. I think I read somewhere that the presence or absence of permanent marks is a common standard.

Even education, which I think is a harder case, can be dealt with through something like a standardized test–if the kid can’t read or do math at, say, 3 levels below his current grade level, then that seems like a pretty good test for whether the parent is failing to provide the kid with an education. (given how bad some public schools are, I think this level would have to be extremely low before the state could justify stepping in).

What I’m interested in, and what I have yet to see you or Will articulate, is what the corresponding principle would be for the state to intervene on behalf of the children in this community. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the state was unable to find any evidence of statutory rape. What other factors ought a judge to consider when deciding whether to intervene on behalf of children in a situation like this. I realize that any such principle will inevitably have some ambiguity and require some judgment calls, but I haven’t seen a standard proposed that comes anywhere close to the level of clarity required to be consistent with the rule of law.