Parents charged: Precedent setting case

[Advocate]

Under the Parental Responsibility Act

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/arti ... -vandalism

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Supre ... story.html

http://www.theprovince.com/news/groundb ... drop_story


The consent court order includes:

• $7,500 to be paid by the offender and restitution to the two companies that agreed to participate with Langford in the litigation;

• a declaration of parental duty of care over vandalism of a minor and a charitable donation to a local food bank;

• acknowledgement by the young offender to the acts of vandalism;

• agreement by the youth to comply with Langford bylaws and possess no graffiti implements;

• counselling and cleanup

As part of the order, the defendants cannot be named.

"The parents have paid damages to the two companies involved, of I think less than $1,000 apiece to the two companies. There's a $2,000 charitable donation the parents will make to the Goldstream Food Bank ... There's 100 hours of community service to be performed by the offender in the City of Langford and that's to clean up graffiti specifically," DeSouza said.

Key to success of the legal action was the fact the parents were both aware of their child's actions and that they had the ability but failed to take action to stop him, DeSouza said.

"If you've got a kid and he's gone and broken a window, you're not going to be on the hook for that," DeSouza said.



Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Supre ... z1F1ckBLsB

[Advocate]

So, there is a 'fact' that the parents knew about their kids activities, and had the ability to stop him.
I'd like to know how they found that as fact.

Had the parents reported their kid to police, should the police then be held liable and responsible for not stopping this kid from spraying his paint?

In 2008 the youth, now an adult, pleaded guilty to nine charges of mischief and was fined about $350. But Langford felt the fine was insufficient. The municipality sued, claiming damages of about $27,500.


Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Supre ... z1F1fEGJzd

[Catz]

I like to see this.
Thank you for posting it.
I am a firm believer in parenteral responsibilty.
If the parents are forced to pay for the crimes their children committ, perhaps they will keep a better eye on them.
I am ultimately responsible for my children until they leave my house.

[Advocate]

This is a precedent setting case, because there has been no case where parents have been proven to have been able to prevent their child from causing the damages.

Wish I had more details.

[Merry]

There are two sides to this issue. On the one hand, parents should make reasonable efforts to curb their children's unruly or illegal behaviour. And, if they don't, there ought to be consequences. But on the other hand, I know of parents who feel totally impotent when it comes to controlling their teenage child, thanks to well meaning laws that tie their hands.

Here are a couple of incidents I have witnessed which illustrate my point.

A few years back two 10 year olds were firing a bibi gun in their back yard. One of the pellets ricocheted off a tree and broke my screen door. When I 'phoned the parents, one set offered to pay for the damage, but the other set told me to go "whistle Dixie". They said that because their son was underage there wasn't a single thing I could do to make them pay. I called the police and was told they were right. Glass replacement was only $20 and I didn't feel right charging one set of parents and not the other, so I told the responsible parents that I would accept "payment in kind" from the kid in the form of snow removal. Subsequently that kid came over to my house countless times to shovel my drive. Finally I had to tell him to stop coming because I was feeling guilty he'd shovelled so much. His parents also made him apologize, which he did profusely. That kid and I ended up being good friends.

The other example that comes to mind is that of a wayward teen, the daughter of friends of mine, who used to go out of her way to defy her parents. If they told her to come home at a certain time, she'd stay out all night (drinking and doing drugs). If they told her she was grounded, she'd leave the house anyway. One time her father tried standing in the doorway to prevent her exit and she told him that she was going to push past him and that if he attempted to physically restrain her she would charge him with assault. The father checked with police and was told that he could indeed be charged if he attempted to physically restrain her. So the father asked if he could lock her in her room to prevent her leaving, and was told that was also illegal. This girl was only 14 years old, was totally out of control, and the parents were made to feel completely helpless to do anything about it. Their only recourse appeared to be to call in the authorities and have her locked up, and truthfully how many parents want to be responsible for doing THAT to their kids? The law's an *bleep* on this one, and has to be held at least partly responsible for parents feeling they can do little to control their wayward teens.

So, that said, what's to be done? While I welcome the idea that parents be held partly responsible for damage done by their offspring when it can be proven that they knew about it and took no steps to prevent it, I also think the law needs to allow parents more license to control their kids than just reporting them to the authorities.

[Advocate]

Their only recourse appeared to be to call in the authorities and have her locked up, and truthfully how many parents want to be responsible for doing THAT to their kids?

That does not always work either. They will not lock up a teenager who isn't following the rules at home. They will not arrest them for that. The father you spoke of has his hands tied. He wants to make his dd mind, but she is out of control and he has no resources and she has all the power. He is bigger and stronger than she, but she has all the power, even within the law.

The law's an *bleep* on this one, and has to be held at least partly responsible for parents feeling they can do little to control their wayward teens.

This is true Check the Federal Privacy Act Section 8 (2) which forbids parents from obtaining information about their own children from hospitals and police. Most people are unaware of this. The Menal Health Act is the only way to hold a teenager against their will, and you can imagine what that involves. If your child is using drugs, which is leading to these kinds of behaviours, as a parent, you are 'SOL' once again, due to laws that impede your ability to attend to your child's drug problem, becasue in this province, they do have the right to self destruct on illegal drugs without parental or court intervention....to get to court, the drugged teen has to commit a 'real' crime, be arrested, and charges must not be dropped.

Thank God they changed the age of consent three years ago to 16 from 14, which gave 14yo's the right to consent to sex, which, according to police, also gave the right to do pretty much whatever they wanted, including run away and couch surf.

So, that said, what's to be done? While I welcome the idea that parents be held partly responsible for damage done by their offspring when it can be proven that they knew about it and took no steps to prevent it, I also think the law needs to allow parents more license to control their kids than just reporting them to the authorities.

I guess at this point, that is up to the judge who hears the case.
I worked for six years to bring in mandatory rehab for drug addicted teens into this provnice using models from Alberta, but in BC it seems (and according to all government levels I've met with) it is more important to keep our 'human rights' to do whatever we want, than to make sure our kids don't ruin their lives, or die from drug abuse.

[nolanrh]

Keep an eye on http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_cou ... ments.aspx for the full judgment.

[Advocate]

been checking there, but also saw this on another forum

Langford was unhappy with the results of the original court case (340$ fine) and brought suit in small claims court. They reached an out of court settlement and there was no court decision made.