Should Parents be held legally responsible for their Children's acions?

[OriginalShroom]

If a minor ( Under 18 ) child causes damage or injury to another person or their property, should the parents be held legally responsible for the damages and have to pay the bills which the owner of the damage property or victim has as a result of the actions of their child?

For instance, when my son was about 8 he rode his bike into the rear quarter panel of a Classic Caddy. I voluntarily ponied up about $300 to fix the damage.

If I had refused, should the owner of the vehicle be able to sue me for the repair bill?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Unless the parent intentional abated or acted as an accomplice, no.

Also, would this mean that the parent faces the charges and suffers the penalties, instead of their child? If not, prosecuting and punishing both the child and parent would actually be double jeopardy.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Unless the parent intentional abated or acted as an accomplice, no.

Also, would this mean that the parent faces the charges and suffers the penalties, instead of their child? If not, prosecuting and punishing both the child and parent would actually be double jeopardy.

So, in my case, I should have left it up the Car's owner to fix his car and either pay for it out of his pocket or use his insurance?

 

[dblack]

If a minor ( Under 18 ) child causes damage or injury to another person or their property, should the parents be held legally responsible for the damages and have to pay the bills which the owner of the damage property or victim has as a result of the actions of their child?

For instance, when my son was about 8 he rode his bike into the rear quarter panel of a Classic Caddy. I voluntarily ponied up about $300 to fix the damage.

If I had refused, should the owner of the vehicle be able to sue me for the repair bill?

Yes. The whole point of classifying children as 'minors' is that they aren't legally responsible for themselves, their parents are responsible for them. Obviously, it's not all or nothing - as children grow older thay can be held more accountable for their actions. But whatever responsibility children are forgiven is transferred to their parents - it doesn't just go away.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Unless the parent intentional abated or acted as an accomplice, no.

Also, would this mean that the parent faces the charges and suffers the penalties, instead of their child? If not, prosecuting and punishing both the child and parent would actually be double jeopardy.

So, in my case, I should have left it up the Car's owner to fix his car and either pay for it out of his pocket or use his insurance?

No, you did the right thing. You weren't legally required to, though.

 

[OriginalShroom]

If a minor ( Under 18 ) child causes damage or injury to another person or their property, should the parents be held legally responsible for the damages and have to pay the bills which the owner of the damage property or victim has as a result of the actions of their child?

For instance, when my son was about 8 he rode his bike into the rear quarter panel of a Classic Caddy. I voluntarily ponied up about $300 to fix the damage.

If I had refused, should the owner of the vehicle be able to sue me for the repair bill?

Yes. The whole point of classifying children as 'minors' is that they aren't legally responsible for themselves, their parents are responsible for them. Obviously, it's not all or nothing - as children grow older thay can be held more accountable for their actions. But whatever responsibility children are forgiven is transferred to their parents - it doesn't just go away.

At what point, prior to age 18 are the parents NOT responsible for the actions of their child?

 

[Darkwind]

I would alter the law to say that Parents have limited liability for children aged 15 to the day before the 18ths birthday. After the child turns 18, they are adults and should be able to reasonably take care of themselves.

From 15 to 18, a child should know right from wrong and that should limit the parents responsibility. However, the parent should face steep fines for offspring who are menaces to society.

If you cannot instill decency and morals into children who are like sponges and impressionable up to age 14, then you really have no business being a parent.

Maybe there should be fines for that.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Unless the parent intentional abated or acted as an accomplice, no.

Also, would this mean that the parent faces the charges and suffers the penalties, instead of their child? If not, prosecuting and punishing both the child and parent would actually be double jeopardy.

So, in my case, I should have left it up the Car's owner to fix his car and either pay for it out of his pocket or use his insurance?

If you wish to take up that burden, sure.

If not, no. You are not responsible. The court could put a lien on your son, which would take a portion of his paychecks (once he starts working) or a portion of any monetary benefits that he is currently or will receive. You can still represent your son in court if he is too young, and discipline him yourself, but the lien is still on him.

 

[westwall]

In some cases, yes. Columbine is an excellent example of parents who enabled their kids to commit that horrible act.

 

[Politico]

Yes.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

When you guys respond to this, do you mean:

Absolutely, they should be coerced (if they do not wish tot aka responsibility) by force of arms.

OR

Yes, they should volunteer to take up the burden, but ultimately you cannot force them.

-------------

Which type of yes?

 

[OriginalShroom]

When you guys respond to this, do you mean:

Absolutely, they should be coerced (if they do not wish tot aka responsibility) by force of arms.

OR

Yes, they should volunteer to take up the burden, but ultimately you cannot force them.

-------------

Which type of yes?

When I say yes, that means that the parents could be taken to court and sued for the actions of their children.

If their "minor" ( under 18) child were to break into a school and cause damage, the parents are legally responsible for all the repair bills.

If their "minor" (under 18 ) child were to cause another person to break a leg, they would be legally responsible for the medical bills and other expenses incurred, including lost wages.

 

[jan]

If a minor ( Under 18 ) child causes damage or injury to another person or their property, should the parents be held legally responsible for the damages and have to pay the bills which the owner of the damage property or victim has as a result of the actions of their child?

For instance, when my son was about 8 he rode his bike into the rear quarter panel of a Classic Caddy. I voluntarily ponied up about $300 to fix the damage.

If I had refused, should the owner of the vehicle be able to sue me for the repair bill?

Yes! They should be able to sue you...and I think legally they can! Parents are responsible for the actions of their child until they are of legal age. Period.

If you don't want the responsibility, don't have the children.

 

[Noomi]

Unless the parent intentional abated or acted as an accomplice, no.

Also, would this mean that the parent faces the charges and suffers the penalties, instead of their child? If not, prosecuting and punishing both the child and parent would actually be double jeopardy.

So, in my case, I should have left it up the Car's owner to fix his car and either pay for it out of his pocket or use his insurance?

It was an accident. No one is at fault.

 

[DiamondDave]

Unless the parent intentional abated or acted as an accomplice, no.

Also, would this mean that the parent faces the charges and suffers the penalties, instead of their child? If not, prosecuting and punishing both the child and parent would actually be double jeopardy.

So, in my case, I should have left it up the Car's owner to fix his car and either pay for it out of his pocket or use his insurance?

It was an accident. No one is at fault.

Typical liberal mindset...

There is indeed fault when there is intent and/or decisions made... Fault for a liberal is like a fucking unicorn.. a myth.. for they, like you, have no concept of personal responsibility

 

[Noomi]

So, in my case, I should have left it up the Car's owner to fix his car and either pay for it out of his pocket or use his insurance?

It was an accident. No one is at fault.

Typical liberal mindset...

There is indeed fault when there is intent and/or decisions made... Fault for a liberal is like a fucking unicorn.. a myth.. for they, like you, have no concept of personal responsibility

A kid having an accident on his bike and running into the back of a car is not his fault, nor his parents, nor the owner of the car.

 

[dilloduck]

It was an accident. No one is at fault.

Typical liberal mindset...

There is indeed fault when there is intent and/or decisions made... Fault for a liberal is like a fucking unicorn.. a myth.. for they, like you, have no concept of personal responsibility

A kid having an accident on his bike and running into the back of a car is not his fault, nor his parents, nor the owner of the car.

Never the less someone is still responsible for repairing the car.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Unless the parent intentional abated or acted as an accomplice, no.

Also, would this mean that the parent faces the charges and suffers the penalties, instead of their child? If not, prosecuting and punishing both the child and parent would actually be double jeopardy.

So, in my case, I should have left it up the Car's owner to fix his car and either pay for it out of his pocket or use his insurance?

no

you did the right thing

 

[editec]

Why stop at mere property damages?

Why not also punish parents of criminal children with prison sentences?

We keep telling ourselves that people who are 17 or under are CHILDREN, do we not?

 

[jon_berzerk]

When you guys respond to this, do you mean:

Absolutely, they should be coerced (if they do not wish tot aka responsibility) by force of arms.

OR

Yes, they should volunteer to take up the burden, but ultimately you cannot force them.

-------------

Which type of yes?

When I say yes, that means that the parents could be taken to court and sued for the actions of their children.

If their "minor" ( under 18) child were to break into a school and cause damage, the parents are legally responsible for all the repair bills.

If their "minor" (under 18 ) child were to cause another person to break a leg, they would be legally responsible for the medical bills and other expenses incurred, including lost wages.

Why stop at mere property damages?

Why not also punish parents of criminal children with prison sentences?

We keep telling ourselves that people who are 17 or under are CHILDREN, do we not?

out here the parents are responsible for the

any restitution involved with a criminal case of a minor

parents are responsible for the lock up fees

probation costs

damages and fines