Close Topic Options

Who Is Responsible? - Page 2

I have very strong feelings about this. No parent should be responsible for their children's behavior unless you can show that the behavior is a result of true negligence on their part. My son was raised in a home with high standards and morals. However, I couldn't take his free choice away. It was impossible to do. He got in quite a bit of trouble when he was younger. There was nothing I could do to stop him. People who take the attitude that the parents are responsible are wrong in most cases. Just because you have a child who is well behaved, don't be fooled into thinking it is because you are such a great parent. It is not. I am not saying there are not bad parents out there. However, I am saying many good parents have children who choose to follow their own desires.

An example... When my son was in first grade his teacher told me she thought I was a very good parent. Listen to what else she said... "Whenever there is trouble, your son is in it. Most of the time, he starts it. However, every time I ask him why what he did was wrong, he knows why it was wrong. You have done an excellent job of teaching him right from wrong." He was six at the time!

I could teach my son the proper way to behave, but I could not force him to follow those teachings. He is very strong willed. That is a fact of his birth. The saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" is a true statement and applies often with children that get in trouble.

Edited: tenaheff on 17th Dec, 2004 - 9:08pm

Responsible Who

When 2 people elect to create another life, they take on a responsibility for that life that they create. That responsibility is theirs until the child reaches the age that they can provide for themselves. I would agree with most on the age limits. Parents until the child is 13 and then partially until age 18. This is not to say that you have ultimate control over the person (no one does), but rather that you are held accountable for what your child does.

While I have been unsuccessful at getting any of my children to do as I want, they have only gotten into minor trouble. My parents batted about .500 with us kids and we were all raised the same way. We have all become good citizens and family members, so they must have done something right.

Parenting can be one of the greatest joys and deepest sorrows that there is. No doubt about it. For most, the joys outweigh the grief. Enter with caution!

Just a thought,

Vincenzo

Who Is Responsible? History & Civil Business Politics

I think that one must take into consideration the difference between cultures. In my country 18 is the age where the responsibility shifts but law is flexible and some 16 years old that killed somebody will go to some juvenile penitentiary until 18. But I think this is the case everywhere... I believe that parents are less responsible from age of 14 but as I said...it depends on the culture.

Page 2 Responsible Who

It is very hard to set a solid limitation age. For some people, the age of responsibility will vary. Some are not even responsible enough after 18. Some adults maybe strongly influenced by others just like a child is influenced by his parents.

I also do not like the attitude that blames every failure of the child on his parents. I believe the age of full parent responsibility should end at a young age - more around 9, and partial responsibility continue until 18. The parents' impact, though, will vary from case to case.

Responsible Who

I am a parent myself, and I think that the question cannot be answered straight forward. On one hand, parents need to be responsible for their children. On the other hand, I cant be with my children all the time. They need to be responsible for what they are doing.

Every case is not cut and dried. Some children are just bad and need to be punished. Some kids are the direct result of bad parenting. These case need to hold the parents responsible. But some cases involve both situations and both need to receive some sentence. It needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, but I know that isn't possible.

So in the absence of a perfect solution, I think that 13 is a good age for accountability. 13 seems young, but you have to hold them responsible for there actions some time.

Who Is Responsible?

I have strong feelings on this issue, and I would like to start out by saying that I am kind of sick of the standard notion that someone is ALWAYS to blame for anything that happens in life, including parents. Despite the fact that there could have been better preparation and prevention in some cases, I believe that some instances are mere 'accidents'. There have been more and more Americans that want to sue over the most trite reasons because they feel that they have been 'duped', wronged, or deceived in some way. For example, I still remember the McDonalds coffee lawsuit, where someone sued and was awarded a truck load of money because they ordered coffee through the drive through, placed the coffee cup in between their legs, and it then spilled at some point while they were driving. They burned their legs, maybe even second degree burns, and sued McDonalds, claiming that the coffee was too hot. I think that it was proven that the coffee was at a bit higher temperature than it was supposed to be, but come on! Coffee is hot, many places serve it almost boiling hot, and have all of them been sued as well? If you put a hot cup of coffee between your legs, and you are driving, the possibility of the coffee spilling, resulting in burns, is increased. I am not saying that there certainly are valid cases of accountability these days, but I don't believe to the extent that some would make it. I feel the same in some situations where children get in to trouble, are injured, and even if injuring another, that only some parents should be held responsible. Like I said, only in SOME cases.

I also remember seeing a case on Court TV about a year ago occurring in Florida, where one set of parents was suing another set of parents. The parents bringing the law suit claimed that the other parents were responsible for their son's death. The son of the first parents went to a party held at the second parent's home. The second parent's were out of town, with the assigned caregiver being off of the premises, and alcohol was served at the party. Later, far away from the location of the party, the son of the suing parents got into a fight with someone else who was at that party, and was killed by a fatal punch or blow to the head. The first set of parents blamed the parents of the child (who was 17 years old) who hosted the party, choosing to illegally serve alcohol without his parents knowledge or consent, and were suing for a small fortune. Why in the world the second parents should be responsible is beyond me. Even though they chose the caregiver, who left because of a medical need to go to the hospital (I think), and the caregiver trusted that everything would be fine in consideration of the fact that this was a 'good' boy and he had never done anything 'bad' before, I don't see how those parents were responsible for individual choices made by theese young men who knew better. Why weren't the parents of the son who was killed holding the person who killed him responsible? Yes, the killer had charges of manslaughter brought against him, but the first parents were so angry and bent on blaming the other parents, even more so than the killer. They excused the boy who killed their son more because of the effects of the alcohol.


*stepping down off of soap box* As for the question, if my child were to commit a criminal act, do I think that I, as the parent, should be held responsible for it even up to the full force of the law? I agree with Tenaheff on this one, and that question needs to be answered case by case. It all depends on the crime committed, the possibility of negligence by the parents, what other mitigating factors there could be (such as mental illness, influence from alcohol, etc.), and all other pertinent facts to the case. That is why we have trials by a jury of our peers (not that I think that the justice system is perfect, they have been wrong before) because there is more than one person, from different backgrounds and opinions, to decide who's accountable. I would opt not to have a specific age of accountability because children vary in their understanding of 'right' and 'wrong', in their level of maturity, in their ability to follow directions and be obedient, and in making correct, good, and reasonable choices. I have known 6 year olds that I might consider more accountable than an 11 year old, for instance. In fact, that example is from my own family. If I HAD to decide upon an age, then I would say up to age 8 for complete responsibility, age 12 for most of the responsibility, and up to 18 for some responsibility to be held by the parent(s).

Who Responsible - Page 2

General principles (to be differentially applied to different situations): 1) the parent IS responsible, because by and large the "quality" of the child depends on the "quality" of the parent(s) 2) I believe that applied consequences ALWAYS work to change behavior, if the pain of the consequence outstrips the "pleasure" of the behavior. So, in a given case if there's a reasonable way to apply a consequence to a parent that would cause them to work harder at parenting, it should be applied.

Who Responsible Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

A parent should be responsible for a child until that child is an official adult. In an ideal world this would and should work. Yet it is not an ideal or text book case world we live in.

A child needs to be taught right from wrong, I doubt anybody would fault that? Yet mistakes will be made. It is difficult to separate parental responsibility from the child's own responsibility.

Take an innocent game of baseball, your child hits the ball and it goes through the window of a passing motor vehicle. The vehicle crashes and the occupants are hurt. Criminal damage/ personal injury. Where do you take action.

If the game was being played on a park, is it your child's fault he/she can hit a good ball? Is it your fault that he/she can? Yet he/she has committed a crime, so where or who does the responsibility lay?

Another analogy, your 4 year old child, takes your gun from a locked cabinet. While you are on the phone to the Doctor's. Using your keys that you hide out of reach, the child takes the guns and bullets. The child then loads the gun and shoots his best friend by accident. Who is responsible?

One last analogy, your 11 year old child and his/her friend are in the kitchen, they have a falling out over a car/doll/game. Your child stabs said friend with a chefs knife, taken from a drawer. Are the parents at fault for having such a potential weapon in the house. Is the child solely responsible for acting out of anger?

The last analogy, the child is responsible he/she had intent. Yet the question remains, did the parents of the child also are responsible for the actions taken by the child. After all they must know surely that their son/daughter has anger issues?