I need to make a decision about Girl Scout cookies

[Joe_5859]

The parents should not have to become registered adults just to observe the program thier child is in. Thats lunacy. I can think of no other youth program that requires parental registration in order to observe the program. There is no rational reason to have that policy in place.

In my diocese, a parent could sit in on a youth program (such Catechism classes) once. But if they spend more than two hours a month with children in a Church environment, they have to get a background check just like anyone else that works with youth. Sure, their kid is in the class. But so are a lot of other kids who are not theirs.

Lunacy? Maybe. That’s where we’re at, though.

 

[pnewton]

More lunacy, your going in assumption is that other parents are a danger to the children;

You are wrong about that. There is no assumption of guilt. However, there is no assumption at all, including that of innocence. Scouting in my neck of the woods does not require anything to be with one’s own children. It is only when one gets more involved that one needs to take youth protection training and have a background check. Now some camps require this, but one could always opt out of those camps.

It is not lunacy to protect children. Rather it is naiveté to think everyone is safe around children because they are an adult. You show me a program without any protection in place and I will show you the next target for pedophiles. I think the next big target will be independent churches that think these things can never happen to them and make no provision or defense.

 

[savedbygrace71]

The parents should not have to become registered adults just to observe the program thier child is in. Thats lunacy. I can think of no other youth program that requires parental registration in order to observe the program. There is no rational reason to have that policy in place.

Although this is pretty far off the cookie question, yes, this is SOP these days. If you want to participate at my sons’ school (Catholic) you must be Virtus trained, pass a diocesan background check, and have your ID on file in the office. It’s in order to keep the threshold at a basic low level. Any parent who would like to be involved in anything with any child on school property or school activities must be Virtus approved. This way, no one slips through the cracks by saying, oh, she’s just watching her son in class, or, oh he’s just here this once. The only times it doesn’t seem to apply is for things like parent breakfasts etc where the parents are the guests.

I surely appreciate it- I’ve watched waaaaay too much special victims unit lol.

 

[b_ulmen]

“It is only when one gets more involved”

“If you want to participate”

And so you’ve both missed the point; focus on what I actually said and not what you think I said.

I’m not talking about active participation, I’m talking merely being present at meetings required a background check and registration - something not required for watching your kid play soccer or basketball. There is no interaction with the children, just simply sitting in the room while children do thier thing. The GSUSA organziations in Maryland and Hawaii would not allow anyone in the area who was not registered. There *is *an assumption of danger when you must prove your innocence/acceptability prior to being “allowed” to observe your child participate in an activity. That is unacceptable. No parent should allow thier child to be under the care of another adult without first observing how that adult interacts with the children - how else do form your trust in that adults worthiness?

For active participation where interaction with others children will occur, steps should be taken to prevent the unworthy and put the potential threats on notice (i.e. “protect the children”) and you should have to prove you’re worthy of being allowed to interact with other’s children.

 

[savedbygrace71]

“It is only when one gets more involved”

“If you want to participate”

And so you’ve both missed the point; focus on what I actually said and not what you think I said.

I’m not talking about active participation, I’m talking merely being present at meetings required a background check and registration - something not required for watching your kid play soccer or basketball. There is no interaction with the children, just simply sitting in the room while children do thier thing. The GSUSA organziations in Maryland and Hawaii would not allow anyone in the area who was not registered. There *is *an assumption of danger when you must prove your innocence/acceptability prior to being “allowed” to observe your child participate in an activity. That is unacceptable. No parent should allow thier child to be under the care of another adult without first observing how that adult interacts with the children - how else do form your trust in that adults worthiness?

For active participation where interaction with others children will occur, steps should be taken to prevent the unworthy and put the potential threats on notice (i.e. “protect the children”) and you should have to prove you’re worthy of being allowed to interact with other’s children.

I do understand what you are saying, and I know it’s not entirely sensible. But I think the policies are in place for this kind of reason:

This way, no one slips through the cracks by saying, oh, she’s just watching her son in class, or, oh he’s just here this once. The only times it doesn’t seem to apply is for things like parent breakfasts etc where the parents are the guests…

Now granted, I think a school setting and a group like Girl Scouts aren’t the same, and don’t necessarily need to be treated the same. Do I personally think you should have been able to simply observe the group for one or two sessions to get a feel for it? Yes. I certainly didnt have to submit for a background check to be at my sons’ soccer classes. Where the line is drawn I guess has to be up to the individual groups, and since GS is a national org they may have rules passed down to them they can’t bend.