This is somewhat OT from the discussion at hand ... but not that far.

In many respects, the scope and the increasing number of suits and litigation involving child abuse have become more diverse and more encompassing. Almost anything, it seems, that is even remotely harmful to a child, if construed from a particular vantage point, can be considered abuse.

There was a report on NPR this AM that discussed the deleterious effects TV has on a young child, suggesting that perhaps, in the matter of violent programs or those with an excessive(?) amount of hyper activity, that those programs may somehow contribute to AHDD. If so, can the attending adult / parent that allowed the viewing be held accountable for child abuse? Or child endangerment?

Or, when that child reaches the age of cognizance, can he sue his parents?

Another example ... During the period beginning 1980 through 2000, the number of children considered obese has risen from 6.5% to 15.3%. And obesity is directly linked to diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.

Following the above line of reasoning, can the parents or guardians who allow children to ingest such a diet in excess (define excess) be held accountable for child abuse. And by whom?

People have sued the fast food industry for exactly that. In the case of an adult suing the fast food industry the argument can be made that no one sat that person down in front of a Big Mac, put a gun to his head, and forced them to eat it. Not so with a child -- he generally eats what is put in front of him with little or no recourse in the matter. If that food happens to be harmful when consumed to excess, can the parents be held accountable?

Or again, when that child reaches the age of cognizance, can he sue his parents for his obesity and subsequent complications?

Haven't seen this one (or anything like it) in the news, but I'm sure when some enterprising barrister finally conceives of the idea, we will (see it).

__________________
If I came here to talk, I would have worn underwear.