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

[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.

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

I think it needs to remain a judgement call (as in decided by judges, on a case-by-case basis). Using age as the only guide would be quite arbitrary, depending the people and situations involved.

 

[dblack]

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?

The former. If someone were to raise a dangerous animal and unleash it on their neighborhood, they can - and should, be held accountable for any harm it causes. Likewise with a kid.

Raising children is, essentially, the process of preparing them to accept responsibility for themselves. Until they've reached a point where they're ready to do that, the parents retain that responsibility instead.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

So when some drunk plows through a red and t bones you it was just an accident. He didn't mean to do it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

In Missouri you are financially responsible till the age of 18, despite the child being considered an adult at 17. Found out when I divorced my girls mother. And im not referring to child support.

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

The state of EXISTING law is that parents are responsible for all damages done by their children. Whether anyone THINKS they should or not. The state of the law in all 50 states is that they are.

 

[Edgetho]

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?

There's two questions there.

Yes, you can be held liable for damages. And should be.

A child can not be held Financially Responsible since a child can not BE Financially Responsible.

Financial Responsibility. Learn it.

Criminally? No.

If your child breaks the law, you can not be held criminally responsible, but you CAN be held Financially Responsible.

I didn't read the rest of the responses since mine will be the only correct one anyway.

 

[Edgetho]

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.

No such thing as a "Not at Fault Car Accident". Unless a meteor falls from the sky.

In legal doctrine, most States are "Comparative Negligence" States.

In most States, you're 1% at fault for just being there. Then it goes up from there and whoever is found to be MORE at-fault is generally held responsible for damages.

If it can not be determined who is more at fault, then BOTH people are equally at fault.

No such thing as 'Not At Fault' accidents.

In the case of a child hitting a car on his bike, bicyclists can be thought of as pedestrians or motorists.

In the case of child, the child would almost certainly be considered a pedestrian. A wise car-owner might just want to come to friendly agreement with the parents of the child hitting his car unless it was egregious.

In which case the child's parents Homeowners Insurance would kick in. Depending on the State. Probably that way in the majority of States.

 

[Defiant1]

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?

There's two questions there.

Yes, you can be held liable for damages. And should be.

A child can not be held Financially Responsible since a child can not BE Financially Responsible.

Financial Responsibility. Learn it.

Criminally? No.

If your child breaks the law, you can not be held criminally responsible, but you CAN be held Financially Responsible.

I didn't read the rest of the responses since mine will be the only correct one anyway.

Good information. A parent needs to know and understand this before their child learns to walk.

 

[deltex1]

No. That would cause a spike in the abortion rate...and legislation to extend abortion to the 18th year.

 

[Katzndogz]

Just understand two words

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

 

[Granny]

Ideally, parents should be teaching children to have respect for their own property and by extension the property of others. Do accidents happen? Yes - and by virtue of the fact that one has a minor child, that parent is responsible for damages. BUT that parent also has the responsibility of taking that accident as an opportunity to teach their child about "consequences." Maybe the child should personally apologize for his/her carelessness; perhaps do chores he/she might not ordinarily do ... but that "something" should be a thing that makes "consequences" stick in the child's mind.

In any event, the child doesn't need and shouldn't get the crap beaten out of him to "teach him/her a lesson."

 

[Connery]

Moved to proper forum

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I believe that you are incorrect. He was legally responsible for that and could have been sued for damages.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

This, exactly.

You should be responsible for your children’s action, to a limited extent, until they turn 18. Like you said, if you don’t want that responsibility then you should not have had children. As that is your choice, you can accept the consequences.

I would note that so far fault and responsibility have been used interchangeably in this thread and I think that is incorrect. IMHO, there is a massive difference. In the example given of the car and the child on the bike – there was no fault. There was an accident. Even without fault though, he STILL had the responsibility to pay for the actions of his child as it was the child that struck the car. Someone is ALWAYS responsible even if there is no one that was at fault.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Yes as in they should be held responsible by the force of law.

 

[Katzndogz]

The laws holding parents responsible for the acts of their children date back 150 years. How can it be that people don't know that today.

Laying Blame: Parental Responsibility for Children's Misdeeds | LegalZoom

Parents' Responsibility for Their Child's Actions - Lawyers.com

http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawrevie...he-programs-that-must-accompany-them-27-2.pdf

We don't know this anymore? Really? How can this be? Inadequate education, deliberate ignorance? How come this isn't such general knowledge that the question would never be asked?

 

[FJO]

Some kids, while they are still considered children by law, are totally uncontrollable by their parents.

When a judge finds that crime(s) committed by a minor are in spite of the best intentions and best efforts by the parents, the parents should not be held responsible.

 

[Mr Natural]

If it was up to me, parents would be responsible for their spawn for their entire lives.

If you can't raise them properly, don't have them. It's not as if we're suffering from a shortage of people.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

Wouldn't the insurance comany have legal grounds to sue for the damages? I am sure they would. Though I'm not sure it would have been worth the effort, for them.

 

[FJO]

If it was up to me, parents would be responsible for their spawn for their entire lives.

If you can't raise them properly, don't have them. It's not as if we're suffering from a shortage of people.

I suppose you would apply the same criteria about supporting, feeding, clothing and educating one's spawn for their entire lives.

Well, HURRAY!!! No more need for welfare, food stamps, public schools and any kinds of social programs, libraries, publicly funded facilities, after all, if you can't provide all those things for your children, you should not have children.

If I were a typical name-calling liberal, I'd call you an idiot, but I am satisfied that you are just incredibly naive.