I think we need to consider the meanings of the word "right" and the word "court". Rights exist in law, and courts operate within and apply laws.

So clearly the courts in the Netherlands do have the legal right to do that.

Whether it's a good idea, and whether courts should have such powers is another question. It is hard to frame laws in such a way that they cover exactly the situations you want to cover, and no other ones. For example if you make a law saying children up to age X must go to school for Y hours a year, it might sound like a good idea, but then it becomes a blunt instrument that can't distinguish between truancy and someone that could start building their pro tennis career in their teens.

Overall I think we do try to standardise too much, and do tend to under-estimate the abiltiies of young people, and over-estimate the value of staying in formal education compared to other things a person could be doing.

One example I always remember is that by age 16, Alexander the Great had already led men into battle, and was left in charge of a Kingdom.

Of course, not everyone is Alexander the Great. :)

But for those who are already able to excel in some field, whether it's sailing, tennis, entrepreneurship or ruling a kingdom, it's pretty patronising and counter-productive to say "No, no.. you gotta go to school first and pass some exams before you're even allowed to start on what you know will be your life's work."

Though in this particular case, one saving grace is that the court has not said "No" outright, it has stopped it from happening until an evaluation is carried out. It looks like if child psychologists say she is mature enough to cope with this, it might yet be allowed to go ahead.

It does seem a pity that courts have to get involved, but some kind of system where children are presumed to need to be in school unless they can demonstrate a good reason why not doesn't seem such a bad idea.

The court really should have no say in this... They seem to be treating this like one where they have to step in to protect a child from negligent or abusive parents and that is definitely not the case here. The court has no right to tell this girl that they know how she's going to react to this trip...

As for the parents, I doubt they'd send her out without a way to contact someone if something went wrong... I really don't see why it has to be such a big issue to let a girl with a vision pursue her dream.

I think it's fine if she wants to do it. She has the experience and she definitely knows the risks. I think the courts are overstepping their bounds here... It's not like the parents are being negligent or uncaring, if they were then maybe the courts should do something to protect the girl...

The parents I'm sure find it hard to let their daughter do this, it is a risk. But to say OK to it shows how much faith they have in her abilities!

(disclaimer: I am not a Dutch lawyer)
Of course they do. Legal child protection authorities in the Netherlands, Great Britain, and New Zealand agree on this. The British were involved when she sailed across the Channel and was put in custody. New Zealand gave its opinion because she was born there and the press raised the question.

She is a remarkable girl and experience sailor;but: she belongs in school. Also, like anyone she should build up to such a journey with lesser sailing trips.

The record by the way, is was set this summer by a 17 year old. It took 9 months.

Initially I felt very angry that the Dutch authorities want to intervene in this girl's wish to sail around the world alone. I think that it is only in the last 100 years that the authorities have treated children as though they have no right to autonomy and need to be protected from themselves. I don't think the issue of her school work is relevant at all: she will be learning such a lot from the journey in practical skills and experience that any school work she misses will be more than compensated for, and that's a ridiculous argument for not allowig her to go. It's amazing to me that a country renowned for tolerance and understanding still fails to understand the value of home (or self-directed) education.

However, I had not appreciated that this trip would mean two years spent alone, as well as the privations that she would no doubt have to endure on her journey. Two years alone is a long time for anyone. Perhaps she is aware of the task she is undertaking, perhaps she isn't - it's impossible to say, even for people who know her well, and I don't know her at all.

I don't really understand why it is necessary for her to take on this challenge at such an early age, except to beat the record set recently by a UK teenager, and I am not sure that many 13 year olds would be emotionally mature enough to withstand the time alone - actually, I don't think many adults would, either. I can see why the authorities might have concerns.

Athough the court have taken her into state care, she continues to live with her father, and is simply prevented from making the trip that she planned at the moment. I assume that if she waits a couple of years, the authorities will have no power to prevent her from making the trip then.

It is obvious that they do have the ability to stop her from making the journey, whether because of the educational concerns or welfare concerns. Whether they should do... I think not. If both she and her parents believe that she is able to make the trip and she is passionately keen to do so, I think that the court is wrong to intervene unless they have evidence that the parents are unfit or the child is at serious risk of harm. Had they let her start the voyage it seems to me that the worst thing likely to happen is that she might have to learn to fail.

In my opinion, no court in these god forsaken lands, has any right over anyones individual freedoms! But through imprisonment, and the brandishing of their badges and weapons, do they hold their authority over you, but I say to you, who is stronger, they are we? We outnumber those of our own government, and when Americans get sick of being told how high to jump, and how much money out of their earnings they can keep, only then will you know what true freedom is! But she can do whatever she wishes, as long as she is aware that the consequences of her actions can never be known in advance, meaning her life will be in her own hands, which is where all of our lives belong, and not in the hands of some greedy money worshiping system of goverment! By the same man made authority they have taken our individuality away from us, we can take it back just as well!

I hold nothing but hatred and contempt in my heart for all government systems that oppress any body of people!

No. Aside from the obvious ethics issues in this situation, you have to take into account that the oceans are free reign. There are really no laws governing them. She could tell them she's taking a short sailing trip for a day or two, get into international waters, and then flip off the Dutch court system as she heads out to sea. There's nothing stopping her.