Cub Scouts camping without Parent

[evmori]

Neither the Guide to Safe Scouting nor any other BSA publication gives a parent permission to approve another adult to sleep in a tent with their boy. Rather, it specifically says other adults may NOT sleep with a boy.

 

Why does a parent need permission from the BSA if a temporary guardian is legally assigned? Answer - They don't.

 

G2SS

7. When staying in tents, no youth will stay in the tent of an adult other than his or her parent or guardian.

 

Then again, looks like they have it anyway. Note the G2SS doesn't state legal guardian.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[ScoutNut]

There is NO BSA regulation at all that states that a boy can not sleep alone in a tent.

 

Sleeping with a buddy is a better idea than sleeping alone (and more fun from the boys point of view), but BSA does not state that sleeping alone is not allowed.

 

(Basementdweller, your BALOO instructor was spreading a Scouting Myth)

 

Most boys will have at least 1 friend in the Pack, otherwise they don't stay very long. The two families can buddy up with the adults sharing a tent and the boys sharing another. Or the boys can share a tent and the adults can each sleep alone (or with their other children) in their own tents.

 

I have never had a problem with this when I have explained that it is a Youth Protection issue. Families understand and work with it.

 

 

 

[rjscout]

Good clarification. But does that mean that we tell Grandpa "NO WAY!"? Grandparents do have some legal rights, but does that cover the Cub Scouts scenario?

[FScouter]

Uh, why is Grandpa making such a big deal about his supposed "right" to sleep with a grandkid??? I'm reminded of the grandfatherly man in "It Happened to Me". BSA has youth protection rules in place to protect youth. Given that 90% of sexual child abuse comes from family members and close family acquaintances, I really have to wonder why any pack or troop outing leader would go along with attempts to circumvent BSA youth protection rules. Is it REALLY so important that Grandpa sleep with the kid??

[rjscout]

I don't have a problem with that perspective. Many people assume that grandparents act as secondary parents or guardians, so I wanted to get clarification. Leave no stone unturned, as it were. Thanks for the input. We will probably put some of this in our Pack ByLaws to let the parents understand the issues before we have the problem.

 

 

[Beavah]

Neither the Guide to Safe Scouting nor any other BSA publication gives a parent permission to approve another adult to sleep in a tent with their boy.

 

Yah, this is exactly da wrong way to think about this issue, IMO. In fact, you guys are scarin' me by how cavalier you're being. This is sod surfin', eh?

 

A parent's rights and authority are not bestowed by the Guide to Safe Scouting. It's da other way around, eh? A parent's authority over their child is a societally recognized one, while G2SS is not. Parents' authority over their own children trumps, as it should.

 

Now, we can always tell a boy that he may not come on a campout under those conditions, eh? It is our outing. But do we really want to do that in cases like these?

 

Again, IMO, our negative exposure to bad consequences, and, dare I say it, "liability", is far greater if we reduce effective supervision by a designated adult while pretendin' it's a "youth protection" issue, eh?

 

It's neither wise nor honest. Dat's why we call it "negligent", eh?

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Pack212Scouter]

Beavah, I understand what your saying, but realize that no matter what a parent says, leadership of an event still winds up liable. (Remember McDonald's and many other corporations and individuals have discovered that liability trumps common sense more often than not in our "improved" society). If it comes out that you knowingly didn't follow G2SS, good luck getting BSA to support you.

[Oak Tree]

Is this like saying "if you knowingly were violating the speed limit, good luck getting your auto insurance to cover you"? (Hint: they will still cover you.)

 

The BSA insurance says that it covers you for everything except intentional and criminal actions.

 

Can you point to a case (any case) where the BSA refused to cover someone because they didn't follow the G2SS?

[Pack212Scouter]

OakTree, you have a valid point. And usually BSA will settle any case like this out of court and keep it under wraps. However, they would not be legally bound in any way to assist you (I know, they may not be anyway), and may even remove you from the Scouting program for it (remember we serve at the pleasure of ourselves, the CO, and BSA). Can I cite a case? No. Beyond the fact that about 180 leaders a year are removed for abuse cases BSA keeps a very tight lid on this. Personally, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

 

Over time, the BSA has established rules and guidlines to address many issues. They have a purpose. By agreeing to be one of their leaders, we also agree to abide by these.(This message has been edited by pack212scouter)

[Oak Tree]

pack212scouter,

 

I think we agree on many points. The person in charge is responsible. You should make sure your kids are being safe. The BSA has come up with policies that generally represent a safe course of action, and it's normally good policy to follow them.

 

I agree that the BSA can remove you as being too high of a risk.

 

I disagree about the "better safe than sorry". Well, maybe. It depends on what you really mean. The safest thing to do is not to go on any activities. I choose to go on activities and use good judgement in managing the risks. Sometimes the G2SS doesn't cover the situation and we have to add our own rules or be more restrictive than the G2SS. Sometimes the G2SS rules don't seem to apply so we choose to use our judgement in deciding what makes sense (e.g. we take the risk of a clothing malfunction in a pack sleepover at an aquarium.)

 

I've heard your statement from others that BSA would not have to assist you if you were violating the G2SS, but probably would anyway. But I just don't understand how that can be the case given the way insurance works.

 

Also, the US government has made you immune from negligence lawsuits in your role as a volunteer.

 

I hear things like this all the time at training sessions - they aren't supposedly about this topic, but the conversation often comes around to insurance and liability, and it all comes with all the backup material that every other Scouting myth comes with (i.e. none). And the actual rules are different depending on who you talk to.

 

I just wish people would spend their time trying to figure out how to be safe, and less time worried about some hypothetical lawsuit that they may or may not be immune from.

 

If I had a kid get hurt on my watch, I'd feel terrible about the fact that he was hurt. I don't believe I'd be in any danger of getting sued, but I'd still feel terrible. I'd feel bad, whether or not it had anything to do with the G2SS.

 

Beavah's position is consistent with what I observe, so I'll stick with that. I do wish that there was a course on this topic at the University of Scouting, and they had an actual syllabus with real case studies - I think that would go a long way toward removing any doubt about what the real policy is.

 

I personally suspect that they don't want to teach a course like this, because they don't want to encourage any bad behavior by telling people they'll cover them. Maybe if people think they'll get sued for not following the rules, they'll be more careful to follow them.

[Bob White]

"Are there any rules on how young two boys can be to be in a tent on a campout? That's the missing piece, from my side."

 

I am not sure what you are asking. IS it does the BSa have a minimum age in which a youth can stay in aq tent without an adult? No

Does the BSA say that yo can only put two children in a tent? No.

 

In answer to another post form, Can Granpa stay in a tent with the cub? No, unless the court has declared him a guradian.

[Beavah]

Beavah, I understand what your saying, but realize that no matter what a parent says, leadership of an event still winds up liable.

 

Nah, this isn't necessarily the case at all, eh?

 

Let's say da leadership allows grandpa to stay in a tent, and as part of a greater saga of ongoing molestation, one (of many) incidents occurs in the tent that evening. That's really unlikely, eh? Because a child molester who already has private access to a child wouldn't fool around with strangers present. Grandpa would just wait until they got home, eh?

 

But however unlikely, let's say it happens. What did the leaders do? They let the child's relative, the parents' designee, a person clearly standin' in loco parentis, be with and supervise the child on a campout. That seems reasonable and prudent to me, eh? How about to a jury in your area? Would an average person view it as foreseeable that a child's grandfather when left alone with his grandson would be a monster? If the parents didn't foresee it, how could the scout leader be expected to?

 

So yeh see, in general terms, the leaders would not be liable. And the unit isn't liable, because grandpa is clearly not an agent of the BSA or CO.

 

By contrast, if the leaders interfered with the child's relative in his supervisory duties, despite the fact that he was the parents' designee and clearly stood in loco parentis, that's an issue. By preventing grandpa's contact and supervision, which would seem unreasonable, the unit leader assumes liability for what happens to the boy. Now, if somethin' bad happens during the night, like the lad sleepwalks and gets himself hurt, you and scoutin' can be in trouble. Would an average person and juror in your area view it as reasonable that you prevented grandpa from supervising his grandson, despite the parents' wishes? Would they see it as reasonable that you left a boy without direct adult supervision in a tent on his first campout? Is it foreseeable that a 2nd grader in a tent without an adult on his very first campout might get up and get hurt? Were other adults sleeping with their kids on the campout precisely to provide that level of supervision, which you denied to this boy?

 

So yeh see, by following da rules foolishly instead of being Mentally Awake, the leaders become liable, in a situation where they ordinarily wouldn't be.

 

Just like that silly case from Michigan acco reported, eh? The one where a bunch of bureaucrats "just followin' the rules" took a boy away from his family because his dad bought him a lemonade at the ballpark. They became liable because of their poor judgment, despite the rules.

 

Of course, in both cases general liability insurance policies would apply, in the event a negligence case was filed against the unit and its leaders.

 

Beavah

 

DISCLAIMER: The above is only a general discussion of principles for educational purposes. It is not legal advice, and must not be relied upon as a formal legal opinion for any jurisdiction in the several states. For legal advice, consult a competent attorney in your area.

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scouting Mom]

I took BALOO a few months ago purposely from a trainer who I had never had a class with. My husband teaches BALOO and I had helped him prepare for his classes, so I knew what HE'D teach me. I wanted a different perspective. I discovered that the trainer I had was inclined to present "best practices" as "hard and fast rules." And when I challenged her on one thing I knew was wrong, she glossed over it quickly, so that the other participants wouldn't realize that she was adding to the rules.

 

According to this trainer, Cubs can't camp without their own adult...period, set in stone. Now, this didn't sound right to me because I knew my BALOO-trainer husband had allowed a Wolf cub in our pack to camp without his parents being present. The parent had given written permission to another scout's parents to be responsible. The two boys slept in one tent and the parents of the one boy slept in another tent. However, I didn't have a copy of G2SS in class (I expected trainer to have them, because my husband always does for his classes) so I couldn't look up the reference and ask her to justify her statement. Besides, by then I'd decided she had no business teaching the class anyway.

 

So, after reading this thread, let me see if I can sum it up...

 

In the ideal, each Cub has his own parent on a camping trip, but when that isn't possible...

 

1. A parent can send another adult with written permission. Whether this adult can sleep in the tent with the boy is a matter of debate depending on community norms, parent expectations and common sense (which isn't always common.)

 

2. A parent can give written permission to another scout parent to watch over their boy during the course of the trip. This other parent CANNOT sleep in the same tent with the unrelated boy, but the unrelated boy can sleep in a tent with the scout-son of the supervising parent, or may sleep in a tent alone, although this is not recommended. The supervising parent ideally should not be one of the scout leaders, however this is not a set rule, just a recommendation.

 

3. Each pack and/or COR has the right to develop a policy that is more restrictive, so rules 1 & 2 may not apply in those cases.

 

Am I missing anything?

[Oak Tree]

Scouting Mom,

 

I think you summed it up pretty well. That matches my interpretation.

 

My only minor follow-on: we do use a written permission form, but that is not actually required.