Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Red in Blue PA

Now let me get this straight...

A fourteen year-old being baby-sat?

By a twenty eight year-old?

No mention of the boy being “special needs” or any such.

Fourteen year-olds baby-sit, they are not baby-sat.

Is this one of the Seven Signs?


12 posted on 07/08/2009 6:46:31 PM PDT by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: sinanju; All

If you read the whole article you will find out she was babysitting the boys siblings who I am sure were younger.


16 posted on 07/08/2009 6:50:01 PM PDT by eastforker (Lately the threads on FR are either about (.)l(.) or ( ! ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: sinanju
Fourteen year-olds baby-sit, they are not baby-sat.

In my home town, fourteen was the oldest one could be baby-sat, and fifteen was when one began baby-sitting.

27 posted on 07/08/2009 7:20:28 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: sinanju

I think it depends on how long you’re leaving them for.

We’re having this ‘discussion’ with my sixteen year old son at the moment. Next school holidays, we’re going to be away for a week, and his mother and I both think he needs active supervision during that time. He doesn’t.

For an evening, he’d be fine. Maybe even a couple of days. A whole week... yeah, that’s the question.


31 posted on 07/08/2009 7:27:51 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson