Law Questions and Answers

Is it against the law to stay home alone at 10?

I don't want to put contained by too much detail because i think it is personal. I hear that you can stay home alone at age 18, but on some T.V. shows, like Home Alone, I see kids that are 8 staying home and war off unpromising guys. Is it legal?

What if a social worker comes to your house and they know that a 10 year elderly is home alone. Do they call the police? Does the parents take a bail and go to court? Does the child shift to costody?

I want to know so that when I have kids, I surmise that they are of age and mature, but won't carry in trouble by the decree?

I don't want to be a criminal, breaking the law. What if the police come to your house and you notify them you didn't know? Would they believe you? What if the child was trying to shelter their mom and dad, making up a lie, such as,"Oh, I thought you be asking a diffrent question."

I am contained by NEED of help. If you aid me, God Bless You and thank you for all your give a hand.
Answers: In some states leaving a child of 10 years of age or younger would be considered child verbal abuse. Consequently, this would be considered a crime. Depending on which state you live, this could be considered a serious crime and the child removed from your care and placed into a foster home.
errrrrr... i reflect it's 14, but i think they changed it not long though.
12? i don't know, don't go rotten trusting me.
10 is way too immature to be home alone for any length of time. If it is not illegal it should be. I construe you will find that 13 or 14 is probably the youngest legal age to be home alone. Parents are responsible for the safekeeping of their children and to leave them alone at 10 is chancy and should be harshly deal with.
There is no directive anywhere (in the United States) that states when a child can be left home alone. Some states do hold guidelines on their child protection websites... usually if you look for your Department of Public Welfare website, there will be a join to social services. Ten is young to be not here home alone, and if the police or social services would show up for some reason (i.e. a neighbor call or God forbid there is an emergency), you could be dealing beside a caseworker. It all comes down to a judgement christen, how mature the child is and how responsible and how much you can trust the child. And it depends when... if it is for an hour after institution until you get home from work, to be precise not such a big deal. If it is on a Friday hours of darkness so the parents can go bring drunk, it will cause you plentifully more trouble.
If you teach your kids from a young at heart age not to answer the phone, not to tell anybody that they are home alone, not to unfurl the door without seeing who is knock!, how to dial 911, what to do in baggage of an emergency!, if you have an alarm system and coach him how to use it and the codes, no matter what age they are you enjoy to teach them adjectives these things.You will feel a bit better more or less their safety because they will know what to do. Now, anybody below 14 years cannot stay home alone! but if there is somebody next to him or her over 14 years and they are responsible enough after it should be ok. I called the police department to ask in the region of this (for my two boys) also if you stop and think more or less it! at the age of 14 yrs they don't qualify for childcare deduction surrounded by your tax return!! I hope this help. Good luck!
check this link its right


http://datentryworksworkathomeobs.blogsp...


.

Is US still a free speech zone or R we less so bec within is a climate of fear of one labled unpatriotic?

see: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081407...
Answers: Even those of the mainstream medium said they really have to monitor what they say for anxiety of their career self destroyed due to being perceived as unpatriotic or anti-American. This is why the medium didn't speak out before the Iraq invasion and why they enjoy stopped asking questions more or less 911.
America is a country of free speech so long as you don't say things that the bill of rights say you can't. You just enjoy to watch what you right to be heard and you can say only just about anything, but the trick of it is that you own to watch the opening that you say it. So long as you enjoy "tact" meaning know what you're doing and not one too free tounged you can say what you want.
There are places where on earth they have rules set up that you're not supposed to utter things in vertian areas. For example do you travel around a preschool or kindergarten swaring up a storm?
People are afraid of losing their jobs and going to send to prison.
Only if everyone agrees with what you influence.If not then you will be cencured and put down for not going next to the norm. Or if God forbid you upset some rich S.O.B and are forced to recant because they don't like what you hold to say.
The first amendment have not been repealed, so at hand are still stringent limits on how the organization may limit your speech. For instance, you can't run into a crowd and cry 'fire' if there is not one (and you shouldn't). But you can still read aloud the emperor has no clothes (if he doesn't).

On the other paw, fear of what others will right to be heard can cause citizens to censor themselves. Some people might be not be speaking up because of this, but it doesn't seem to be to be very all-embracing spread. The website you cite demonstrates this!

Finally, if you have a situation speaking on a commercial medium such as small screen, and you rankle the owner's sponsors, you can noticeably find yourself unemployed surrounded by a hurry. I wouldn't consider this censorship - your employer doesn't owe you a soapbox on which to air your personal view, even if that's sort of what they pay you to do. It is _commercial_ box or radio, after all.
The first amendment restricts government from passing law that restrict speech. It does not preclude public approbation or condemnation. In fact, some of the great believers surrounded by the absolute outlook of the first amendment, men like Justice Hugo Black, would utter that the appropriate response to offensive speech is not to prohibit that unacceptable speech. Instead, the apppropriate response is MORE speech. let the public voice their outrage and if that drowns out the abhorrent speech, so be it.

Re :17 and pregnant?

i want to be emancipated .my parents dont know i am pregnant and i am 5-6 months i havent seen a doctor on the other hand or anything i dont want my babys father to go to top-security prison or some **** adoption is out of the question i want my tot.i need to move out as soon as possible what can i do
Answers: If you live surrounded by the US…

Forget emancipation.

First, it’s RARELY granted contained by any state. And it’s even HARDER to be emancipated if you’re pregnant/have a child. In order to be emancipated, at a minimum, you would own to provide a valid reason that it would be surrounded by your best interest (you being pregnant and your parents not mortal happy roughly that are NOT valid reasons) and proof that you can fully support yourself and your child with *no minister to from anyone*. That means you enjoy to have a livelihood and earn enough to remuneration for rent, utilities, food, baby supplies, daycare (very expensive), medical expenses (again, extremely expensive just for the birth of the child), etc. No assistance from anyone means, your plan can’t be to move contained by with someone else and depend on them to provide help/assistance contained by paying these bills. It also means no help out from the taxpayers at all. The singular form of ‘help’ that would be considered legitimate would be a *reasonable amount* of child support from Dad (ie, you can’t say-so he’s going to pay you $1000 a month within child support unless under state guidelines that’s what he would enjoy to pay).

Second, emancipation is a legalized process and like adjectives legal processes it take times. It will not happen until that time this child is born.

You need to relay your parents and make an appointment to see a doctor.

You read out that adoption is not an option, because you want this child. But, you haven’t see a doctor (I'm assuming) because you’re afraid of the possible repercussions that Dad might face once it’s surrounded by the open that you’re pregnant. You’re putting your child within danger by not providing him/her next to prenatal care. Why? Because your putting Dad ahead of the child’s well-being. When you become a parent, the child is FIRST earlier anyone (even yourself). If you’re not capable of putting this child’s well-being first, later you need to put the child up for adoption because you are unsuspecting to become a parent.
You need both medical attention and the support of your parents during the pregnancy. It is for your own accurate and the well-being of your baby. I cogitate it is highly unlikely that the alleged father will be arrested for statutory rape.

Quite frankly, in that may be some motivation for you and him to even get married, however to be exact a decision you will enjoy to make for yourself. Some young-looking men who become fathers are reliable, and some are not. Marriage can be a long permanent status commitment, and some young men are too panicky or too immature to be perfect to that commitment. You must decide for yourself.

It is difficult to live as a single mother at age 17. You call for the kind of "built in" support group your household could provide. It takes money for groceries, diapers, rent and medical protection. Your opportunities to go and get a job and live as a single parent next to a baby are fixed. It is best if you can get both financial and violent support from your family.
Why do you obligation to be emancipated from your parents? Are you sure that they will disown you or something like that. You inevitability to get pre-natal meticulousness ASAP that is the first entry. I'm guessing your baby's father is over 18 since you don't want him going to jail, you still call for to seek his assistance. He is obligated by ruling to give you financial support, you will obligation it.

Why is adoption out of the question? You are with the sole purpose 17 and frankly too young to be have sex in the first place. Are you sure that you and singular you can give the child the best possible life span. Personally and I mean no offense but I deduce it is highly expected that someone else could better care for this child. Look into the options of a private adoption. Don't keep hold of the child if your reasons are purely thoughtless, and I'm not saying they are, but really examine them, and if they are next I think you own to do the right thing and administer up your child.

Now listen to this, and it is important and normally overlooked:
Just because you are pregnant does not mean you will automatically be a honourable mother. I know it is hard to hear. But have children and loving them, with adjectives your heart even, is not enough! Being a obedient parent is more than that.

That you are in this situation surrounded by the first place does not speak well of your responsibility and judgment making skills. Keeping the child might not be best for you and the child, you should at least ply that idea.
I would ring up or visit CPS and see who you can have a word to. The father going to jail will be determined by what state you live contained by . Some states have made it mandatory reporting and they will pressure you to report them who the father is.

You are the only one who can kind decisions going on for your baby, you can not be forced by your parents to own an abortion or give it for adoption.

You inevitability to tell your parents soon, maybe a family friend , priest or university counsellor can help. You should be see by a doctor for prenatal care. Its not essential but its a apposite idea. The doctor can not reveal to your parents that you are pregnant short your consent.
You are in a incredibly nasty situation. You can't skin this forever from your parents. What makes you contemplate moving out will do the trick? You also have to suppose on how you are going to cope without your parents. Just enlighten them - that's the "safest" way for you.

With as little legal vernacular as possible, what is the necessary and proper clause?

Answers: The basic and proper clause refers to a provision, in the Constitution (article 1, fragment 8, clause 18) which addresses implied powers of Congress
I believe it is important to facts that the clause actually states: "To breed all Laws which shall be compulsory and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution surrounded by the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." It is the "foregoing powers" that most forget around, and you should read it in context beside the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the associates." Basically it was designed to be a aim on the Federal Government.

Do you really want to know why MARIJUANA is ILLEGAL?

Because befor marijuana became informal, everyone was ditching alchohol for marijuana. The brewers be outraged, they were losing money, as be the government. So what did they do? Banded together. Outlawed it. Look it up. IT be a tax plot. There was no moral or medical reasoning to initally outlaw marijuana. Look it up, It's cut of history!
Answers: Who is Alyssa Morrison? Did she steal your boyfriend or bullied you at school?
You in recent times posted this question using her moniker so she will get a knock on the door contained by the next 3 hours and someone from the Drug squad will be standing near with a prod warrent.

Alyssa, if you see this, flush your stock before you answer the door.

LOL ... a moment ago kidding
Doesn't sort it okay to be a pothead.

Drugs are for morons.
Oh. Ok. Thanks. I don't get what your put somebody through the mill is though, since you just told us why marijuana is off the record (in your opinion), doesn't that make the quiz you asked moot?
I'm a libertarian, but seriously, **** off and bring back to a forum.
your right. technically, weed isn't illegal if you hold a tax-stamp on it. funny though, no stamp of this kind have ever been made. that's how they get away with making weed wicked. i wouldn't go as far to utter it was the booze maker though, I've read it was duplicate like minded individuals that pushed for prohibition.
Actually the reason is that it be associated with Mexican immigrant. It is a safer drug than nicotine or alcohol, so there is no judgment for it to be illegal if those drugs are official.

To Andy H, the stamp was deem unconstitutional by the sumpreme court. It was Timothy Leary who took it to court. A more comprehensive drug tenet was passed by Congress right after the supreme court ruling. That law have not yet be deemed unconstitutional.
the system is too busy doing other things. If they knew a track to make a ton of money sour of it, like the buckets of money federal excise charge on our high saloon fuel bills, they'd give it a run. It's probably not to far off contained by the future. I be one of those hippies in the 60's. I can enlighten you now, here is adverse residual effects from it, years later. You'll own to wait and find out. Alcohol, or herb, within a human body is not a good item.

Child support enforcement required in demand to receive TANF benefits in Colorado?

Can anybody narrate me where it states contained by the rules or laws that surrounded by order to recieve TANF benefits one is REQUIRED to directory for child support. Is there a statute or where on earth can I find the documentation that proves this? I am looking for an actual referance.Thanks...
Answers: It's simple. File for support and if the extra income disqualifies you, you don't receive TANF. Look online.

Attorney Generals have to narrative for all income. Just because you don't take home enough in a minute to support yourself and the child does not mean it's unworkable to do it with a support proclaim.
I don't know what the exact law is, but the foundation that you are required to file for child support when applying for TANF is because when/if child support is ever received, the state take their money back that you be receiving on TANF. The thinking is that it is the parent's responsibility to income for their child, not the State's, so if they can locate a non-custodial parent and get them to compensate support the State will be able to grasp their money back. Also TANF is restricted to a certain amount of money and a sure time period, so abstractly it should force the parent receiving TANF to work harder to find a career. Also I don't think it is call TANF anymore, in PA it is call cash assistance. To find the exact statute, try probing for Colorado's laws or looking on their Department of Public Welfare website.

Is finding money and not turning it in against the directive?

Tonight on the news they have a Walmart parking lot surveillance video of a child dropping money and a few seconds following a guy walking by and picking it up. The headline said, "Man swipes money from child".
The man then be seen sitting surrounded by his SUV counting the money as the little boy frantically ran former.
Now they are asking for any leads and this guy could frontage a misdemeanor.
Ok, where do you draw the file from being a bleak Samaritan and breaking the law?
The guy might NOT hold seen the boy drop the money and is immensely likely that he didn't see the boy run departed his vehicle.
If you are in a parking lot and see a penny or dime on the pavement is it ok to pick it up? What in the region of $5 or $10? What amount is it a misdemeanor to pocket it?
I once found 20 bucks on a party store floor and asked the relatives around me if anyone lost money. Was I suppose to give it to the clerk? If I lost money I would purely assume that it was gone and my desperate luck.
Answers: Not against the law but it's best to stand around for a minute or two and see if anyone comes along looking for it. The guy appreciably didn't bother which made him look like a crook on the camera ( hence, look around innocently for a few moments & if your counting your money contained by the car, keep hold of looking up to see if the owner pases buy looking..).
YOu can also ask if anyoen has lost money (don;t right to be heard how much), it's to easy for someone to read out yes and be lying (as someoen else said).


If the money is in a wallet.. best you turn surrounded by the WHOLE thing.

;)
It sounds to me similar to this character know or should have certain that the money belonged to the little boy.

I think that lower than these circumstances a misdemeanor charge would be appropriate.
One has to return money to the police, even if one does not know the owner. The police will hold it a certain time. If not a soul claims it, one may get it from the police or the court.

Keeping found money is pocketing.

If me & a friend went to his house to build a skateboard, and I provided the wood, and... (details)?

... he the wheel, then fixed to break ''our'' skateboard halfway through, would I be entitled a compensation or something? Would the decree be on my side? What would happen?
Answers: you respectively get custody of two wheel and a truck...


with visitation rights for the other two ...
obedient luck on a clean break... most credible the board would break at the nose or something, afterwards you would have to determine who owned what side and who provided the grip cartridge and trucks? details, details

a court case would ensue with the fun-box (break-site) one the only reliable witness to this break, near tears running down his particle board he proclaims that he "didn't see the incident clearly" and afterwards you have a hung jury.

at this point you could ask yourself if you or the fun-box is to blame for this break? so you establish to take the fun-box to court for suffering and losses...

conjecture I had instrument to much fun with this one, worthy q

When did abortion become legal contained by britain?

Answers: 1960's

Dating Laws?

Dating laws, Texas or federal, what are the law on an 18 year old dating those below 17? and why if your under 18 are they different?
Answers: The age of consent within Texas is considered to be 17 years of age, however, until the minor turns 18, he or she can only hold sexual relations with someone 2 years elder.
18 = adult
beneath 18 = minor

An adult should never date a minor. Its only just sick.
To answer your last cross-question first they are different because thats the age you legally become an developed. The other question just about dating a 17 year old. Different states own different laws. In Michigan it be a law I'm not sure if it still is that the age of consentment be 16. However I think parents can press charges if they don't agree near the "dating".
Other then that its not dating specifically the problem, its sex. You can date a 17 year old, but if you hold sex you may cross the legality bridge. Check into your local law. Should be able to google it.
At 18 your considered an fully developed then. Under 18 is a child. If your 18+ you can date someone beneath 18, but anything 'physical' is illegal.
all right the difference is 17 and under your not an fully fledged

18 and over your and adult. the 17yo should be capable of wait till they turn 18 previously F-ing the 18 yo.

More Questions and Answers:
[1374] - [201] - [338] - [1222] - [172] - [2177] - [1580] - [1422] - [255] - [121] - [149] - [979] - [662] - [448] - [1766] - [2448] - [1760] - [808] - [1467] - [844]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: