Parental responsibility is difficult to mandate

July 25, 2007
By Billy Dennis

Mayor Jim Ardis told the city council last night that he wants to put the issue of a “parental responsibility ordinance” on the agenda of future council meetings. It was an idea batted around some last year, but nothing came of it.

I Googled “parental responsibility” and found this Wikipedia entry. It said:

There is a political movement for greater parental accountability following of a number of highly publicised violent crimes committed by children. While all US states allow parents to be sued for the various actions of their children, the idea of criminal legislation to enable the prosecution of adults for “neglectful” parenting is relatively new. For example, a number of states have enacted or proposed laws that will:

  • automatically hold parents financially responsible for all expenses associated with a second false bomb threat or 911 call made by a child;
  • impose a prison term of up to 18 months and order payment of restitution to any victims if the child commits a serious crime;
  • imposes a fine and/or a prison term if a child uses a gun owned by the parent to commit a crime fine and/or imprison parents whose children fail to attend school or skip school more than 10 times in a year.

    • The article stated that there are privacy concerns with such legislation, but these sorts of laws have beenupheldd by the courts.

    The idea is certain to have popular support. Look at the comments to news articles and blog entries about the case of the woman who was killed by a brick throws from an interstate overpass. The accused is a 15-year-old who was our wandering the streets with his buddy at 1 a.m.

    People want adults to better control their children. Unsupervised children are cause of a huge number of social problems, ranging from crime to unplanned pregnancy. People are furious at the idea that their quality of life is beingdiminishedd because other people treat their children like free-range pets.

    The question is whether or not parental responsibility legislation is the answer. I’m not aware of any that have been put in place elsewhere that are working. If there are, it’s up to supporters to find these examples anddemonstratee how they produce the designed result: Lower crime.

    I have strong libertarian suspicion of new laws being presented as a solution to crime problems. Likewise, I don’t want the government mucking around in family relationships. The less social workbeingn done by government, the better.

    And as is the case whenever new anti-gun legislation is proposed, I suggest that better enforcement of laws that already exist is in order. And there needs to be a place to PUT all the juvenile offenders we have now, as well as places to send them to school without taking up a seat at schools attended by normal, law-abiding children.

    If you put 10 people in a room and ask them to define “neglectful” parenting, you will probably get 11 definitions. What one family might consider good parenting, another would consider far too fax, and other might consider too strict. It’s easy to point a finger at some other kid’s parents and say “bad-parenting.” And what’s the strict difference between being a bad parent and simply being a single parent without a lot of resources or options. How do 11 members of the city council draft a law that recognizes the difference?

    If there is going to be ANY such ordinance, it has to clearly define what behavior by parents is banned, and there has to be consideration to parents who are trying their best. A broadly written ordinance that simply lets the city fine Mom and/or Dad when little Johnny doesn’t bad shouldn’t won’t work.

    It just might be the case that there IS no government solution to the problem of parents whose children commit crimes, other than to put the little darlings in the clink and send mommy and daddy the bill.

    What the Peoria City Council doesn’t need to so is spend time and energy trying to create new ordinances that won’t have much of an effect.

    Journal Star article here.

    This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

    One Response to “ Parental responsibility is difficult to mandate ”

    1. Eyebrows McGee on July 25, 2007 at 12:49 pm

      I have two problems with these laws.

      First, the best parent in the world doing the world’s best parenting can have a bad child. A parent shouldn’t be racking up misdemeanor after misdemeanor because their superbly-supervised child is an evil genius. I realize the majority of chronic juvenile offenders are NOT having great parenting at home, but some of them do.

      (I don’t have a problem with having parents pay fines, particularly for second offenses of petty obnoxious crap.)

      Second, all these laws seem to assume that bad children are only children. “Hey, you’re doing a terrible job supervising your third child, so we’re going to throw you in prison for six months so you can’t supervise ANY of your four children!” It’s like throwing people in debtor’s prison until they earn enough money to pay for their release!

      Maybe putting the fear of God into misbehaving KIDS by actually enforcing the laws (and only involving the parents if the parents refuse to cooperate or attempt to shield the child). And the punishments should be unpleasant and relatively onerous, not just a slap on the wrist. Better gargantuan amounts of community service NOW than escalating to violent offenses later.

      (However. This is me speaking from growing up in a privileged suburb where mom and dad’s money was typically sufficient to shield EVERY teenager from the consequences of his actions, and that always pissed me off. The habitual offenders where I grew up simply never, ever, ever, EVER suffered any consequences. I think before handing mom and dad misdemeanors, how about actually having JUNIOR suffer the full force of the law for once?)