A question for those in wildfire prone areas.

[pqr]

Is a mandatory evacuation order actually mandatory? Can you be forced to leave your home? If you return before the all clear is that breaking the law?

 

I know that before Mt St Helens went up a man refused to leave his house and he was able to stay (he died) but was that an exception or can you simply refuse?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/03/evacuation-order-to-be-lifted-in-nm-ghost-town/

[Bang!Zoom!]

I've been through a few.

 

As best I know, they come to your door, tell you it's mandatory to go, as there is no assurance of rescue, they will not come, so don't call.

 

I don't know that they'd physically grab you and haul you off, but if there were children involved, that might be a sketchy deal.

[61Keys]

I don't think they will cuff you and take you away but there is a point when you are completely on your own and they will not risk personnel.

[pqr]

?

I don't know that they'd physically grab you and haul you off, but if there were children involved, that might be a sketchy deal.

 

 

Thank you, that was actually the question I had.

 

What will they do in the case of children? Who is the ultimate authority?

 

I fully understand and frankly agree with telling someone that "If you do not leave now we can not come and get you. Your call." Where is the tipping point? Do you still maintain the freedom to say get off my land?

[MindyD]

Hmm, I don't know, but I wonder why anyone would stay in that situation.

[Mommyof4ks]

It depends on the area. A relative was told that she could stay, but her kids were going with or without her. She ultimately decided to leave with her kids, but the officers were intent on having CPS take them if she stayed. What would have happened after the fire I have no idea since she did leave with them. Basically, she was told that she could do whatever she wanted to herself, but that she was endangering the children and that is illegal. As far as going back before the all clear, that is hard to do since officers set up road blocks in most places to keep people out.

[pqr]

Hmm, I don't know, but I wonder why anyone would stay in that situation.

 

 

I can easily see why people might stay: open field, wide fire break, good water supply, home generator to run pumps and house of brick or stone (all of which applies to several farmers that I know) and one might feel fairly safe.

 

The kids question becomes interesting.

[Audrey]

I can easily see why people might stay: open field, wide fire break, good water supply, home generator to run pumps and house of brick or stone (all of which applies to several farmers that I know) and one might feel fairly safe.

 

The kids question becomes interesting.

 

 

Yes, this happens frequently north of us. There are a lot of people who will refuse to leave. The deal is this: they will tell you to leave; they will beg you to leave; they will throw every argument in the book at you to get you to leave; but, they won't physically remove you (or your family) from your home. What they WILL do is take your name, the names of everyone staying and they will read to you a paper that essentially lets you know that you are now no longer the responsibility of rescue services. You have to sign the paper. They take a copy and leave a copy.

 

Then your idiot self is on its own.

 

I have never heard of a case where children were involved and removed by Family Services, but I do personally know of a case of a family who refused, had children in the house and were later investigated thoroughly by Family Services. I have to say that I can't blame FS for that. I think it is egregiously stupid to risk children in that manner, especially when Rescue will not only take you out of the danger zone safely, but will also ensure that you have a safe, comfortable place to stay and food to eat in the meantime.

[Bang!Zoom!]

Really, open area doesn't matter a hoot in a fire area. The winds that can be generated from a wildfire are basically tornadic.

 

Imagine a tornado made of fire and debris headed at you at 60 miles per hour. That's what happens. The wind itself is fire, a wall of fire.

 

In a forested area, it's even worse.

[pqr]

Yes, this happens frequently north of us. There are a lot of people who will refuse to leave. The deal is this: they will tell you to leave; they will beg you to leave; they will throw every argument in the book at you to get you to leave; but, they won't physically remove you (or your family) from your home. What they WILL do is take your name, the names of everyone staying and they will read to you a paper that essentially lets you know that you are now no longer the responsibility of rescue services. You have to sign the paper. They take a copy and leave a copy.

 

.

 

Seems reasonable, anyone know if it is the same in the US?

[Maeintx]

/

Edited June 4, 2012 by Maeintx

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I can easily see why people might stay: open field, wide fire break, good water supply, home generator to run pumps and house of brick or stone (all of which applies to several farmers that I know) and one might feel fairly safe.

 

The kids question becomes interesting.

 

My FIL has been in the fire service for five decades. Talking to him, I don't think that most people make the choice from the point of view that their individual preparations will see them through. I think most don't think that they will really be affected.

 

Hurricanes are the situation I've spent the most time thinking about, just because we've lived in hurricane areas and they are somewhat predictable. Frequently people will not evacuate. But they will still expect that an ambulance or fire truck will come help them if someone has a heart attack or is hit by debris. They don't realize that the trucks have such a high profile that they can't actually drive safely in the high winds. They really can't leave the station until the storm has passed.

 

When the storm passes, emergency personnel have plenty to do with finding and securing downed power lines, clearing roads for rescue and repair, and recovering from the storm. They are hindered in doing this if they are out tending to residents who ought not have stayed in the area. They are also likely to go out earlier than is strictly safe, because they know that someone is waiting on their help. That puts the emergency personnel at greater risk than they ought to be. Because when push comes to shove, people who say they will ride it out, still expect the cavalry to ride in when called. (I'd be willing to let people stay if they would formally sign a waiver stating they understand there would be no subsequent responsibility for the military or emergency services to endanger themselves to rescue them.)

 

I grew up near Mount St. Helens. Harry Truman at Spirit Lake chose not to evacuate, saying he'd rather die on the mountain than live anywhere else. But it helps to remember that there was also a lot of debate and controversy over the risk of an eruption or how bad it would be. I have clippings from the time of the 1980 eruption. My favorite is a local college geology professor quoted in the paper as saying that an eruption was not likely in the next 500 years.

[FaithManor]

Yes, this happens frequently north of us. There are a lot of people who will refuse to leave. The deal is this: they will tell you to leave; they will beg you to leave; they will throw every argument in the book at you to get you to leave; but, they won't physically remove you (or your family) from your home. What they WILL do is take your name, the names of everyone staying and they will read to you a paper that essentially lets you know that you are now no longer the responsibility of rescue services. You have to sign the paper. They take a copy and leave a copy.

 

Then your idiot self is on its own.

 

I have never heard of a case where children were involved and removed by Family Services, but I do personally know of a case of a family who refused, had children in the house and were later investigated thoroughly by Family Services. I have to say that I can't blame FS for that. I think it is egregiously stupid to risk children in that manner, especially when Rescue will not only take you out of the danger zone safely, but will also ensure that you have a safe, comfortable place to stay and food to eat in the meantime.

 

Absolutely! Not only that, but in the rare, rare cases there have been forced evacuations around here...mostly due to a brush fire threatening homes, the sheriff will offer to take your children to a friend or relative if you want to stay and try to save your house, livestock, whatever. So, to keep the children with you...okay, but CPS is going to question your fitness to parent. Evacuations are not made lightly. Children should be kept safe.

 

DD the medic says Audrey is dead on about signing the release form. We've got those here in the States as well.

 

Faith

[Audrey]

The form also makes it a little easier on the services later if they need to identify crispy bits.

[Ibbygirl]

 

Hurricanes are the situation I've spent the most time thinking about, just because we've lived in hurricane areas and they are somewhat predictable. Frequently people will not evacuate. But they will still expect that an ambulance or fire truck will come help them if someone has a heart attack or is hit by debris. They don't realize that the trucks have such a high profile that they can't actually drive safely in the high winds. They really can't leave the station until the storm has passed.

 

When the storm passes, emergency personnel have plenty to do with finding and securing downed power lines, clearing roads for rescue and repair, and recovering from the storm. They are hindered in doing this if they are out tending to residents who ought not have stayed in the area. They are also likely to go out earlier than is strictly safe, because they know that someone is waiting on their help. That puts the emergency personnel at greater risk than they ought to be. Because when push comes to shove, people who say they will ride it out, still expect the cavalry to ride in when called. (I'd be willing to let people stay if they would formally sign a waiver stating they understand there would be no subsequent responsibility for the military or emergency services to endanger themselves to rescue them.)

 

 

 

This! This always makes me crazy. I get so angry at people who refuse to heed the warnings because they put other people's lives in danger when they have to be rescued. It makes me frothing at the mouth mad. I remember during hurricane Charley there were mandatory evacuations. There was a man and his son that died in their car because they didn't evacuate and when the storm hit and things got hot they tried to make a run for it and got caught in it.

 

It's so sad because it was completely preventable. I really don't understand why people just don't evacuate? Is it pride, or fear of looters or do they just think it's not going to be as bad as the experts say it is? It always puzzles me. Surely whatever it is you think will happen if you were to evacuate is not of greater worth than your life or the lives of your loved ones. :confused:

[Farrar]

I understand why people want to stay even when it's obviously better to leave when there's an order to for fires, hurricanes, etc... but I can't imagine someone wanting to keep a child there. I'm not saying it's never happened, just that that's beyond the pale on some level.

[Ibbygirl]

I understand why people want to stay even when it's obviously better to leave when there's an order to for fires, hurricanes, etc...

 

I wish you would explain it to me then because it absolutely mystifies me. :confused:

[Rosie_0801]

I wish you would explain it to me then because it absolutely mystifies me. :confused:

 

There is a human desire to protect one's turf. Personally my desire for self preservation is stronger, but I'm sure it would be harder to leave my own house and gardens I'd invested time and money into for 30 years than the rented house I'm living in now.

 

Rosie

[pqr]

I wish you would explain it to me then because it absolutely mystifies me. :confused:

 

Spend 10 minutes with any farmer, you might not understand but you should respect it.

 

Many farmers have put their sweat, their blood, their tears and spent their lives on their land. While perhaps they should leave, sometimes they cannot.

Frankly, I do not think they should be forced to. No one should risk life and limb to assist them if they ignore a warning, but a man need still be free to make his own choice even if it is absolutely wrong.

[Ibbygirl]

Spend 10 minutes with any farmer, you might not understand but you should respect it.

 

Many farmers have put their sweat, their blood, their tears and spent their lives on their land. While perhaps they should leave, sometimes they cannot.

Frankly, I do not think they should be forced to. No one should risk life and limb to assist them if they ignore a warning, but a man need still be free to make his own choice even if it is absolutely wrong.

 

If people want to die on their land of course the option is theirs for the choosing, but I don't think they have the right to make that choice for anyone else but themselves. Forcing a child to stay behind in a mandatory evacuation situation is taking away their rights. The land will still be there after the storm or fire are gone.

[pqr]

...and this is where it becomes interesting.

 

At what point does someone else decide what risk you may impose on your children? I might agree that children should be evacuated (actually I do) but who is the final arbiter? At what point is a child a child? May the 17 year old stay, how about the 15 year old?

 

How about someone who wants their children to go scuba diving (maybe cave or wreck diving) how about flying, hunting? How about the 3 year old that I saw today on horseback?

 

It is a difficult question only made more so given the abysmal record of CPS and other groups. Frankly I might be more inclined to trust the opinion of a farmer or rancher over some of the psychobabble I hear from "experts" about raising children or keeping them safe.

 

As I said a most interesting and thought provoking question.

Edited June 6, 2012 by pqr

[Audrey]

...and this is where it becomes interesting.

 

At what point does someone else decide what risk you may impose on your children? I might agree that children should be evacuated (actually I do) but who is the final arbiter? At what point is a child a child? May the 17 year old stay, how about the 15 year old?

 

How about someone who wants their children to go scuba diving (maybe cave or wreck diving) how about flying, hunting? How about the 3 year old that I saw today on horseback?

 

It is a difficult question only made more so given the abysmal record of CPS and other groups. Frankly I might be more inclined to trust the opinion of a farmer or rancher over some of the psychobabble I hear from "experts" about raising children or keeping them safe.

 

As I said a most interesting and thought provoking question.

 

 

Well, we are farmers. In my opinion, it is never okay to put the lives of your people at risk to save animals, equipment or buildings. My dh, who has been a farmer his whole life, would agree. Yes, you want to do what you can to save what you have, but when it comes to the point that rescue services is knocking on your door, that is the time to collect what little you know you can haul out of there and then you haul out of there.

 

In everyday, non-threatened, life... there are safety guidelines for adults around livestock and on equipment. Those apply to kids, too. You have to teach a child to, first, respect the fact that certain things are dangerous and not for kids. Then, as they mature, you can teach them how to be responsible. I don't believe there is a magic age for these things. Heck, there are some adults who aren't mature enough to handle livestock, let alone a piece of equipment or a gun. So, it isn't about age, as much as it's about maturity. That is assuming, of course, that the adults in charge are also mature enough to make a responsible judgment call.

 

That all said... there are a lot of stupid people in this world. I don't trust them with my kid for a reason.

[pqr]

Well, we are farmers. In my opinion, it is never okay to put the lives of your people at risk to save animals, equipment or buildings. My dh, who has been a farmer his whole life, would agree. Yes, you want to do what you can to save what you have, but when it comes to the point that rescue services is knocking on your door, that is the time to collect what little you know you can haul out of there and then you haul out of there.

 

.

 

...but it happens every day. Farmers go out looking for livestock in the cold and in very dangerous conditions. Simple pet owners go back into buildings looking for pets or on ice to help their animals. People do risk life and limb for animals or property and it is certainly understandable.

[JennyD]

My understanding of the law is that in general, states can infringe on parental rights if the parent is endangering the child's welfare. The key case here is a 1944 case in which the Supreme Court upheld Massachusetts child labor laws as they applied to a woman who took her 9yo to distribute religious literature on the street. (Not a great set of facts, but the principle lives on.) The famous quote is: "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves."

 

The $64,000 question, of course, is always "Well, what's in the child's welfare and is it pressing enough to override the parents' constitutional rights?" but I don't think there's much legal debate as to whether wildfires or other natural disasters qualify. You never know, but it is hard to imagine any U.S. court striking down a state's authority to forcibly evacuate children in such emergencies.

 

As for the age, I have to assume that minors -- as defined by the state age of majority - would not have the legal authority to waive their own rights to rescue.

 

The really interesting legal question, to my mind, is something like the following: Parents are divorced, and the child lives with the father. There is a mandatory evacuation order and the father refuses to go, and he refuses to let the child go either. The state authorities warn the father but do not forcibly take the child to safety. The father then dies in the disaster and the child is seriously injured. Can the mother then sue the state on behalf of the child for failing to forcibly evacuate him? My best guess is no, based on a 1980 Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state agency was not liable for failing to remove a child whose father beat him so severely as to cause permanent and devastating brain damage, but OTOH, the failure to protect in my scenario is a bit more stark.

Edited June 6, 2012 by JennyD

[elfgivas]

for us, its not "hypothetical" or "interesting". we live in the high desert. it burns. annually, as it happens.

 

every blessed year for the last five or six (we've lost count), we've had fire close enough that we can see the flames and the ashes fall like snow.

 

we've watched the fire service work, evacuated neighbors' animals, packed the things we wish to save in the car. we've gone to church not knowing if we'll be able to get back home. we've had police at the bottom of the road. we've had police give us 30 minutes to go in and out again. we've been on voluntary evacuation. we've been on mandatory evacuation.

 

we have a call system, a fire watch system, an evacuation system. neighbors take turns sitting in front of our house which has the view south, from which destruction comes.

 

when the forest service tell us to leave, we leave. we take the pets. we all let the other animals go free (in our "neighborhood" that includes chickens, goats, donkeys, alpacas, horses) if no one is there to help evacuate them.

 

then we help our neighbors.

 

there really is no "hypothetical".

 

children first.

us second.

helping neighbors with children and adults third.

other living things fourth.

 

everything else follows.

 

that's it; that's all.

unfortunately... rinse, repeat.

 

fwiw,

ann

[Audrey]

...but it happens every day. Farmers go out looking for livestock in the cold and in very dangerous conditions. Simple pet owners go back into buildings looking for pets or on ice to help their animals. People do risk life and limb for animals or property and it is certainly understandable.

 

 

Your initial premise was an impending wildfire. I was responding to that level of risk. Sure, you go out of you way to round up strayed stock, but even then, you have to use common sense as to when to call it a loss.

 

But as I said, there are a lot of stupid people in the world, too.

[Audrey]

 

children first.

us second.

helping neighbors with children and adults third.

other living things fourth.

 

everything else follows.

 

that's it; that's all.

 

 

 

Ayup. :iagree: