Is there an &quot;high altitude mountain climbing age&quot; within the United States? Recently, two teen record-holding climbers (one was 12 and the other 13) were killed in a small avalanche. This led to heated debate in (social) media if it is legal to allow children to practice high altitude mountain climbing since their ability to understand the actual risk is arguable. Doing a quick search I found that it is not that uncommon for children to aim for the highest peaks, as this boy or this girl. This article dives into legal details, but there seems to be two main legal opposite forces and no clear answer: Courts have repeatedly recognized parents' Fourteenth Amendment rights to make decisions regarding their children's care without undue interference from the state. Parents have the right to consent or object to their children's medical treatments. Parents have a right to decide whether their kids attend public or private school. Parents have a right to discipline their children while Parents' right to make child rearing decisions are limited by a states' child abuse and child endangerment laws. While the laws may vary, most states criminalize child endangerment. Question: Is there an "high altitude mountain climbing age" within the United States? Or at least, was there any political intention to clearly define a legal frame for this particular case? I mean a minimum age a child is allowed to practice high altitude mountain climbing. This would be similar to smoking age, legal drinking age or age of consent.
In General: No There is no federal law and, as far as I can tell, no state law which sets an across-the-board minimum age on mountaineering or climbing. I based this on searching through the statutes of several states with mountains, as well as the web pages for some parks. Many states' park services had wording like this (taken from the Colorado Springs webpage): Although there are not age limitations for rock climbing, all climbers including children must register. Climbing is an inherently dangerous activity. Technical Climbing is at your own risk. The City of Colorado Springs does not install, inspect, nor maintain the fixed protection devices.Your safety is your own responsibility. Specific Example However, in some specific cases, governments have set age limits. Here is one such example: Mount Rainer: 18. Mount Rainer is a national park located in Washington state. The National Parks Service requires anyone attempting to climb Mount Rainer to be at least 18 (source).
Context is important. There is no law against taking a picture of a child who is entirely naked or exposing certain body parts. The laws in question such as 18 USC 2251 refer to the fact that the minor "engage[s] in, any sexually explicit conduct". Sexually explicit conduct is defined in 18 USC 2256, and would include "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" (which does not include nipples of anyone). Federal law does not define "lascivious", but the ordinary meaning of the word does not include the situation that you describe. The Justice Department, which goes after child pornographers, provides this guide to federal child porn laws. Georgia's child porn law is only marginally different, referring to "Lewd exhibition" rather than "Lascivious exhibition" , and including the "Condition of being fettered, bound, or otherwise physically restrained on the part of a person who is nude" (so a picture of a person holding a naked baby would technically qualify, but is highly unlikely to be prosecuted as production of child porn). These laws pertain to any form of child porn, including "private use only". Dissemination would be an added charge.
According to this chart i googled and the associated table, child porn is actually not explicitly illegal in most of the world. Basically, a bunch of countries in Africa, and a couple in Latin America and Asia, don't appear to regulate kiddie porn at all. A couple of others (like Argentina, Russia, and South Korea) allow possession, but not distribution. A couple of countries protect "virtual" kiddie porn (cartoons, computer renderings, etc where no actual child is being abused). The US is among these. (Pretty much has to be, due to the First Amendment.) Obscenity laws may apply, though.
This is unlikely to give rise to criminal charges in the U.S., if the bare bone facts of the question are all that is involved. It does not count as child pornography. But possible offenses might include contributing to the delinquency of a minor (a minor misdemeanor), or perhaps enticing a minor to travel in interstate commerce for sex, neither of which are likely to come up in a case where no travel occurs until both parties are adults. The potential offenses, unlike child pornography offenses themselves, would generally include defense for good faith mistakes regarding age. The situation in Turkey could be more serious. While I can't identify a particular offense, if the participants were of the same sex, even though homosexuality is not outright banned in Turkey, as it is in many predominantly Islamic countries, this could be characterized as an &quot;offense against public morality&quot; in Turkey. In either a same sex or opposite sex circumstance, it might be characterized in Turkey as some form of illegal seduction, or perhaps as some implicit form of blasphemy. Even if it didn't give rise to criminal charges, it might also be used as a basis for severe parental discipline, or as a basis for finding that someone lacked &quot;good character&quot; in a civil context, in either country. Of course, unless the interaction is known, identified with real people, and brought to the attention of law enforcement, nothing would happen.
The B.C. Human Rights Code exempts age restrictions for 55+ in relation to tenancy. See Human Rights Code, s. 10. The subsection prohibiting discrimination in tenancy on the basis of age &quot;does not apply&quot;: if the space is a rental unit in residential premises in which every rental unit is reserved for rental to a person who has reached 55 years of age or to 2 or more persons, at least one of whom has reached 55 years of age Further, as to condominium bylaws, in 2022, the Province enacted Bill 44, the Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, which makes any strata age restriction below the age of 55 invalid (which you have quoted a portion of). Human Rights Tribunal The Human Rights Tribunal can only provide remedies for claims arising under the Human Rights Code. Given that the Human Rights Code does not provide a basis for discrimination claims in tenancy when the age of distinction is 55+, any valid strata by-law relating to age of residents will by definition fall outside of the scope of a Human Rights Code complaint. And even when the Strata Property Act allowed all sorts of age restrictions, the BC Human Rights Code does not provide a remedy when the distinction is authorized by another act (see s. 41(2); Hallonquist v. Strata Plan NW307 and another, 2014 BCHRT 117): Nothing in this Code prohibits a distinction on the basis of age if that distinction is permitted or required by any Act or regulation. Constitutional challenge in a court You also ask about a challenge in a court. I assume you consider that the challenge would be based on s. 15(1) of the Charter (equality rights). There are three potential targets of the challenge: the strata by-law that restricts residency to people aged 55+; the provincial statute prohibiting strata by-laws from imposing any age restriction unless it is an age restriction based on an age not less than 55 years; the carve-out in the Human Rights Code for tenancy restrictions for ages 55+ The Charter challenge to the strata by-law itself would face the barrier that a British Columbia court has held that stratas are not &quot;government&quot; for the purpose of the Charter, so are not subject to Charter challenges: Strata Plan NW 499 v. Kirk, 2015 BCSC 1487. I have quickly added this final portion in response to a clarification of the question, but there is more to say. I will return to explain the law relating to partially ameliorative legislation.
Yes or no, depending. The question is investigated in &quot;The Status of Pregnant Women and Fetuses in US Criminal Law&quot; (JAMA), which collects 23 opinion in US jurisdiction. In Reinesto v. Superior Court, 182 Ariz. 190 where the court ruled that the state cannot prosecute for child abuse a woman who uses heroin during pregnancy and thereafter gives birth to a heroin-addicted child. However, in Whitner v South Carolina, 492 SE 2d 777 the court did find the mother criminally liable for child abuse, based on prenatal drug use. The South Carolina case is the sole example of that type, in the study (published 2003). Charges range from child endangerment/abuse, illegal drug delivery to a minor, or fetal murder/manslaughter. The general finding is that since a fetus is not legally deemed to be a person (in those jurisdictions, at that time), where was no &quot;child abuse&quot;. South Carolina, on the other hand, reasoned, here and in prior cases, that We have no difficulty in concluding that a fetus having reached that period of prenatal maturity where it is capable of independent life apart from its mother is a person. A different study (&quot;Criminal Charges for Child Harm from Substance Use in Pregnancy&quot;, JAAPL) which included cases up to 2015, found a slightly different distribution but generally concludes that courts do not consider maternal drug use to be a legal question. That article also cites a web page which at the time is purported to say that 18 states allow civil child abuse proceedings. In Chenault v. Huie (Texas), the court found that Texas does not recognize a cause of action in tort for injuries to a child that result from the mother's negligent or grossly negligent conduct while she was pregnant with the child but according to the more current Guttmacher Institute study, about half of the states have such a civil cause of action.
What you're asking about is extraterritorial jurisdiction, and it will depend on the country and crime(s) involved. As an example, under Australian law, it is a crime to engage in sexual activities with minors barring specific exemptions, which are not relevant to this example. There are countries where the age of majority is less than that in Australia. If you were to travel to this country, you are not necessarily committing a crime there. However, Australia's sex tourism laws make it a crime to do this anywhere in the world. This is enacted (I believe) under the foreign affairs power of the Commonwealth Government. It will largely depend on the legal system of your country, as to whether laws have extraterritorial effect. In general, however, laws do not have extraterritorial effect unless explicitly stated.
Does a minor saying, "I want my mommy" have the same legal effect as an adult saying, "I want my lawyer"? NO If a suspect in police custody asks for a lawyer, the interview must stop. If the suspect invokes [assistance of counsel during custodial interrogation] at any time, the police must immediately cease questioning him until an attorney is present. Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) This is known as the Edwards Rule because it was born in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) It doesn't work this way in school because interrogations by school officials are not subject to Miranda. This is important because the reason for the Edwards Rule is preventing officers from badgering a suspect into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights. See Davis. There is no authority requiring a school administrator not acting on behalf of law enforcement officials to furnish Miranda warnings. Com. v. Snyder, 597 N.E.2d 1363, 413 Mass. 521 (Mass., 1992) New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1984) held that teachers and school administrators do not act in loco parentis in their dealings with students. "In carrying out searches and other disciplinary functions pursuant to such policies, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents." The point to all that is to say that school officials do not need to change course at all when a student asks for a parent. Schools do need to question students. A school official must have leeway to question students regarding activities that constitute either a violation of the law or a violation of school rules. This latitude is necessary to maintain discipline, to determine whether a student should be excluded from the school, and to decide whether further protection is needed for the student being questioned or for others. State v. Biancamano, 666 A.2d 199, 284 N.J.Super. 654 (N.J. Super. A.D., 1995) Perhaps the better way to ask the question is - if the school interrogates the child and refuses to contact a parent upon request by the child, is there any recourse by the child or his family? 20 U.S.C. § 6736(a)(2) provides immunity for teachers: (a) Liability protection for teachers Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, no teacher in a school shall be liable for harm caused by an act or omission of the teacher on behalf of the school if...the actions of the teacher were carried out in conformity with Federal, State, and local laws (including rules and regulations) in furtherance of efforts to control, discipline, expel, or suspend a student or maintain order or control in the classroom or school. States have passed their own similar laws. For example, Colorado: 22-12-104. Liability. (1) An educational entity and its employees are immune from suit for taking an action regarding the supervision, grading, suspension, expulsion, or discipline of a student while the student is on the property of the educational entity or under the supervision of the educational entity or its employees So, if a student is being questioned by a teacher or administrator, and asks for a parent, there is no federal or state law which requires the interview to stop. Once arrested, the parent question varies by state and you get some information about this in the link you provide. This memo does a good job of summarizing a few states' laws. Basically, most states require the police to initiate various levels of parent involvement for kids under 18. Some states make exceptions to this rule for 16 and/or 17 years olds. Also, many state laws require certain action by the school (in regards to contacting parents) when police come to the school to interview students. There is an amazing volume called Compendium Of School Discipline Laws And Regulations For The 50 States, District Of Columbia And The U.S. Territories which provides a lot of these rules.