- Oct 13, 2001
- 161,073
- 143,024
By seeing how negligent they are to their child's behavior, making them culpable of not trying to curb it.
If you don't know the names of your kid's friends they always hang out with? You're culpable.
If you haven't sprung for a cheap doorbell camera to get alerted when they try to sneak out? You're culpable.
If you're child has gotten a first offense while at school or sneaking out, and you didn't do any of the above? You're culpable.
None of these are hard to do for parents who actually invest in their child beyond food, water and shelter.
One time offenses aren't the issue. It's the multiple occurrences that this law is trying to address because a lot of these things are done by the same individuals. Some parents won't be bothered to discipline or manage their kids unless a fire is lit under them.
Children switch friends as often as they switch clothes. Legally, who is going to use THAT as evidence of how much a parent is invested? Who is going to perform that quiz?
Camera system/Ring: Who is going to pay for that? You say a cheap one but what if someone lives in an apartment and isn't allowed to install those devices, then what? Not sure you thought that one through.
So again, proving the parents are at fault from a LEGAL POV will be damn near impossible.
Yall keep pushing this hold the parents legally responsible for children that have fully functioning free-willed brains that would probably physically overpower their parents. But these parents are supposed to somehow be able to keep them from doing dirt? Nah.
Now I do believe due to broken homes (different convo) a lot of these issues arise but to LEGALLY blame parents will be hard to do.