Jump to content

Adult with a minor child


Recommended Posts

 

 

. I suggest you ask your barangay captain, or better yet the DSWD and when they tell you it is OK
Where do you get the idea that asking a few people to interpret an incredibly broad law is somehow proof of its meaning?You'll remember SkyWalker asked a cop friend about the law and his activities with children in his house and the cop said he would probably be ok.  PROBABLY?  This method of 'proof' might work if you asked every cop, every judge, and every DSWD agent to interpret the law because if you don't ask all of them then it's the one you don't ask that will arrest you and put you away.  And of course, all that asking around would, in my mind, constitute the suspicious behavior you claim the law requires, though that is written nowhere.

 

 

Can someone please repost a copy of the law regarding an adult being alone with a non-related minor child getting free room and board in a Philippine jail.
Actually, there's no requirement to be alone.

 

I refuse and everybody thinks I'm just a dick-head for not doing it.
Better to be considered a dick-head than be in jail.  Just do the oposite of what Tullioz advises and you'll be ok.

 

From the time my children began elementary school I drove them and other children to school. I have been doing this for the past decade. I do not concern myself with the risk of violating some law
Lots of people frequently break laws without regard.  It doesn't make them safe.
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • RogerDuMond

    6

  • Soarking

    6

  • Woolf

    5

  • Tullioz

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I wouldn't say you are a dick-head, just misinformed. I suggest you ask your barangay captain, or better yet the DSWD and when they tell you it is OK, please come and share it here so others will be l

Basically a grown man never has to worry about being with an underage child- until he does . Then its too late.  Feel like rolling the dice ?  You probably never have a thing to worry about . But.....

Where do you get the idea that asking a few people to interpret an incredibly broad law is somehow proof of its meaning?You'll remember SkyWalker asked a cop friend about the law and his activities wi

Posted Images

Where do you get the idea that asking a few people to interpret an incredibly broad law is somehow proof of its meaning?You'll remember SkyWalker asked a cop friend about the law and his activities with children in his house and the cop said he would probably be ok.  PROBABLY?

You can ask any legal person in the country or someone who deals with RA 7610 on a regular basis and get the same answer, that was my point. The cop on the street could not give a more direct answer than he could because he doesn't deal with it enough. I have went to both a top police official here in Davao as well as a city Attorney and the both agreed that the way I explained it here was correct. I took a print out of what I once posted here in order to be sure I was correct. I hope someone else will do the same some day so we can put this topic to rest.

 

If you look at every single case when someone was arrested under section 10b, the guy was doing something stupid. Sadly the media here does not do a good job at following up on these stories, but if they did chances are most of the guys also had bad intentions. I have yet to see a single example of where someone was arrested just for being alone with a minor. There have always been additional circumstances. That should be all the proof one needs to show that it takes more than just being alone with a minor to be arrested. So to summarize again:

 

There is no law in the Philippines where being in the company of a minor is illegal. However since it is a clause in a law against child abuse, exploitation, etc you can be arrested for being in the company of a child alone ONLY if there is reason to believe that you intend to harm that child. Section 10b is written into the law known as RA 7610 so that authorities can make a quick arrest and remove a child from harm immediately without having significant evidence or having to build a case before doing so. They would not arrest someone under this clause unless they truly feel that a child is in some type of danger.

 

 

Better to be considered a dick-head than be in jail.  Just do the oposite of what Tullioz advises and you'll be ok.

Is it really better to be considered a dick-head? So someone refuses to take his son's classmates to school. His wife and neighbors now think he is a dick-head. No big deal, but they tell their friends and soon everyone in the neighborhood thinks he's a dick-head. Now let's say everyone reading this forum does the same or doesn't say hello to some kids when they pass him on the street, refuse to do an interview for a college student's project when asked at the mall, refuse to buy a burger for a hungry kid on the street, not let their wife go to the CR when they are out in public or will not date a girl because she has a child. 

 

Before you know it you will have a lot of foreigners who many here consider to be a dick-head. Of course all of those involved in the situations above will tell their experiences to their friends and before too long every foreigner in the country will automatically be considered a dick-head. Personally, I do not want to be considered a dick-head just because I am a foreigner. This is also one of the reasons why I have spent so much time beating this dead horse into the ground when this subject comes up and I will probably do it again in the future, especially if someone calls me out as they did in this case.  

Edited by Tullioz
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no law in the Philippines where being in the company of a minor is illegal. However since it is a clause in a law against child abuse, exploitation, etc you can be arrested for being in the company of a child alone ONLY if there is reason to believe that you intend to harm that child. Section 10b is written into the law known as RA 7610 so that authorities can make a quick arrest and remove a child from harm immediately without having significant evidence or having to build a case before doing so. They would not arrest someone under this clause unless they truly feel that a child is in some type of danger.

 

 

The clause "defines" child abuse as being alone with the child.

 

This is a catch all law, and can be applied at the discretion of any arresting officer. It is all to easy for any procecutor to argue this interpretation, and let the judge decide. I think you would need to be quite brave to trust that when you finally have your day in court, that the judge agrees with your interpretation.

 

In the situation of the OP, I would explain this law to anyone who questions the refusal to transport unrelated children.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond
In the situation of the OP, I would explain this law to anyone who questions the refusal to transport unrelated children.

 

If he is transporting children to school, how can he be considered as being alone with a child?

Edited by RogerDuMond
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
contraman

If he is transporting children to school, how can he be considered as being alone with a child?

I guess the same way as the guy on a ferry was considered being alone with a child :idontknow:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

I guess the same way as the guy on a ferry was considered being alone with a child :idontknow:

 

 

Not the same, that guy traveled with that child and no others in his party. What is being talked about here is a ride to school for a bunch of kids including his own. I think everybody should do what they personally feel comfortable doing, but I wouldn't hesitate doing it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The clause "defines" child abuse as being alone with the child.

 

Here is the definition of child abuse as defined by the law:

 

Section 3. Definition of Terms.

 

(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:

 

(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;

 

(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;

 

(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or

 

(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.

 

So if someone is alone with a minor and it appears that one of the things mentioned above is occurring or about to occur, then Article 6 Section 10b will be used to arrest that person. That takes the minor out of danger long enough to investigate what is really going on. Article 6, Section 10b is not a law by its self. It is a clause contained within a law. Section 10 is defined as being Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. But to be arrested under this section, the action that is expected to occur has to be in relation to abuse as defined by the law.

 

Being alone with a minor is not abuse by its self since none of the actions by definition are taking place so there must be other factors involved that would lead someone to believe that it is about to occur.

 

For example, a 60 year old man checking into a hotel with a minor is suspicious and would lead someone to believe that abuse according to the definition of the law is about to occur. So in all likelihood a person would be arrested and held under 10b in that situation until things can be sorted out. 

 

In addition, if some one is arrested under Article 6 Section 10b and no evidence of child abuse as defined by the law is found, then they will be released. 10b is used to make an immediate arrest, but the individual will be charged under another section of the law in addition to 10b if evidence of abuse is found during the investigation. 

 

This is a catch all law, and can be applied at the discretion of any arresting officer. It is all to easy for any procecutor to argue this interpretation, and let the judge decide.

 

Can you show a case where someone has been arrested for just being alone with a minor and was not doing something additional that raised suspicion? I can't think of one. 

Edited by Tullioz
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Soarking

If I decide to transport these children to school, (which I have no intention without their parents riding along) BUT if I did and I got busted I will hire LinC as my defence lawyer with the understanding if I lose I don't have to pay.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You all think that, a tricicat, tricycle, or a habal habal driver

will get arrested bringing children to and from school,

will be arrested ???

Edited by Woolf
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
contraman

If I decide to transport these children to school, (which I have no intention without their parents riding along) BUT if I did and I got busted I will hire LinC as my defence lawyer with the understanding if I lose I don't have to pay.

Perhaps you should rephrase that to read

 

 

If I decide to transport these children to school, (which I have no intention without their parents riding along) BUT if I did and I got busted I will hire LinC Tullioz as my defence lawyer with the understanding if I lose I don't have to pay.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to Roger , unfortunately it is a discretionary thing exercised by those employed in the judicial system.

But that is no different then any other country in the world,some are even worse then the Philippines

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
A_Simple_Man

 

 

You all think that, a tricicat, tricycle, or a habal habal driver will get arrested bringing children to and from school, will be arrested ???

 

Now you have my curiosity up.

 

Are you suggesting that the law is different for filipinos than for foreigners?  Or are you saying that a foreigner bringing a non related child to school in his SUV with tinted windows is NEVER gonna get arrested under this law because everyone gets treated equal?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Y

 

Now you have my curiosity up.

 

You can put into my words what ever you like

but you did not answer my question

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They would not arrest someone under this clause unless they truly feel that a child is in some type of danger.

 

Again you assume being alone with unrelated minors is not suspicious enough, assumptions that could cost you or anyone else six months to four years in prison.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
For Real

Different island, Same country.

And really it would be at the discretion of the judge.

SORRY, but I was told they don't have private rooms or room service in Philippine jails.

Your risks decrease exponentially if you don't have the intention of placing your penis anywhere near the children.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..