CS # 21 -- Amplification:  The second main clause gives details on the degree of "love": "I picked my Parents because I love them -- I'll do anything that they ask of me."

RO #26 -- Other: This may be a careless error. If  the second clause began with a word that was capitalized, but not automatically, so (as is "I"), it would not have been counted as a run-on.  The logical connection (the reason for) this statement threw me until I thought about it for a while. Then, being a smoker myself and knowing how my son feels about my smoking, I realized that the writer was probably trying to further amplify "love" -- if his father stops smoking, he won't die early.
RO #27 -- Other: It is probably a careless error.
RO #28 --  Amplification: The second main clause gives detaills on "what I ask of them": "[A]s I was saying my Parents give me what I ask of them -- I hope he gets me a Job in town."
RO #29 -- Other: It is probably a careless error.
RO #30 -- Other: It is probably a careless error.
RO #31 -- Subordination (and length and possibly amplification): The second main clause gives the reason for the "hope" -- "I hope they will stop arguing with my sisters, because I can't stand hearing my sister yell at my Parents like she does." This combination contains 23 words, more than twice the average per main clause (9.8) for this passage. The writer does use a 23-word main clause, but it is the one just before the two that create this run-on. (My mom and Dad said . . . .) Producing two very long main clauses in a row probably puts a strain on STM in the same way that having a wide receiver go deep twice in a row affects the second run of the receiver. Thus, length may have been a factor here. Many readers probbaby would also accept a dash here: "I hope they will stop arguing with my sisters -- I can't stand hearing my sister yell at my Parents like she does."
RO #32 -- Amplification?:  A dash or colon probably wouldn't work here, but the two main clauses are clearly more related to each other than they are to what comes before or after them. In general, I have been counting as "amplification" those cases in which a colon or dash would be acceptable, my suggestion being that perhaps we should emphasize to students these punctuation marks (tools) and the logical connections that they convey. The idea is to get students to consider their punctuation. Here I am suggesting that, at some subconscious level, the student perceived the second clause as amplifying the first. Not having the tool, and thus not understanding it, he simply skipped the punctuation altogether. If he had had the tool, he might have considered it and then decided on a simple ", and."
RO #33 --  Amplification: The second clause gives further details on the incident of the "telling." "I told my mom I had after school detention Monday -- she Just says you'll have to walk home young man but she does'nt yell at me." I don't see the dash as the best alternative here, but I am suggesting that the run-on was the result of the writer's sense that the second main clause provides further details about the first. A better version of the sentence would probably be "When I told my mom I had after school detention Monday, she Just says you'll have to walk home young man but she does'nt yell at me." My experience has been that it is more difficult for students to revise a sentence by subordinating the first of two main clauses than it is to subordinate the second. Here, we are talking about a seventh grader who, in the ideal KISS Curriculum, would just be starting work with clauses. I would thus opt for suggesting the dash. If this were the writing of a ninth grader who already had two full years of experience identifying and manipulating subordinate clauses, I would suggest the subordination.
RO #34 -- Subordination:  Based on the KISS psycholinguistic model,  I have analyzed the "when" clause as part of the first main clause: "\-\She doesent really get mad at me [RAVFwhen I get suspended from school] \R\she does'nt do anything but ground me." The sentence reflects, however, what Mina Shaughnessy called a "slipped pattern." The "when" clause could be detached from the first main clause and attached to the second. This slippage probably occurred as the student wrote the sentence. 
     [Might I suggest that the typical instruction in grammar would not have helped this student? Typical instruction presents students with numerous terms, concepts, and simple examples, but the overwhelmed students never know what does or does not apply to their own writing. Within the KISS Approach, if this student were analyzing his own writing at Level Two (clauses), he would not only find and understand the run-ons, but also learn how to fix them.]