DEAR EDITOR:
I wish to take issue with a statement made by James Fennell in
his column on the Gilroy High School lockdown incident.
DEAR EDITOR:
I wish to take issue with a statement made by James Fennell in his column on the Gilroy High School lockdown incident. Fennel states: “Let’s put the financial burden where it belongs. If you’re a parent, then you had better understand that you are liable for the financial damages and expenses that your kid incurred when breaking the law.”
Not necessarily so, Mr. Fennell. From a moral perspective, this viewpoint assumes that a parent can control the behavior of his teenager and therefore should be held accountable for his or her actions.
To be sure, most parents can manage the behavior of their teenager, at least to some extent. Their kids understand the limits of acceptable behavior and respond to the punishment and cajoling meted out by their parents. But there are some teenagers who are just plain incorrigible, and who are going to be in trouble regardless of the efforts of their parents.
Fortunately, the legal system understands the limits of parental control and, with a few exceptions, a parent is not liable for the negligent acts of his child. A parent is liable for the deliberate acts of his child, but the damages are capped at $25,900. It would probably cost the school district or the Gilroy Police Department $25,000 to pursue a law suit against the parents of the children, with an uncertain recovery. From my point of view it doesn’t make economic or moral sense to try and punish the parents in this case
Dan Moyles, Gilroy
Submitted Wednesday, May 26 to ed****@****ic.com
