If children commits the crime, parents do the time!

positron

Listening to Newstalk, France is planning new law to tame juvenile delinquency, and the general gist of the proposal is if the children do the crime, parents will have to take the blame - as in pay the fine and/or do the jail term.

Would you support something like this in Ireland? Please vote!

liah

Depending on the age of the child and the crime, I think it's a good idea, but I don't think the child should go totally unpunished, either.

Definitely pro-more parent responsibility, though.

allanb49

It's really a double edged sword,

Kid breaks law parents get fined
Parent hits kid for costing them €
Kid reports parent to social services
Parent gets another black mark on the record

Or

Kid breaks law
Parent doesn't care
Parent goes to jail for not paying fine
Kid runs free doing more damage

Pretty much the kids will see they are untouchable and go wild.

The parents won't be able to disipline them as if they've already done something that warrents police intervention whats grounding them going to do?

It could be for small crimes where kids are caught with drink parents are fined €100

But then thats having cops do more work for something that is a small problem compared to the other bigger stuff they could be working on.

So when all this goes batsh1t

Thats when we have a battle royal type gameshow on bull island

positron

I agree there are pitfalls and trap doors with this for parents, but with proper planning and right clauses - this is a great way to put a stop to some parents who just shove their off-springs out the door, and couldn't care less what they get up to.

Everytime you see a bunch of kids running around causing mayhem in the neighborhood or in town, staying out at night and get up to all sort of anti-social activities - remember, each of them have parents who are NOT taking the responsibility right now.

I am all for this law!

orourkeda

Will a law like this just encourage some kids to go on a rampage if they go unpunished.

They know someone else is going to take the fall for them.

Dunjohn

The parents should be punished, but not necessarily by doing jail time. It's clear the kid needs some control, shifting him off to the social services will only mess him up more

positron

Will a law like this just encourage some kids to go on a rampage if they go unpunished.

I wouldn't think it would.

This law would obviously be in addition to what children gets. But in some cases children are not punished because of their age. In these situations, state (us) bares the cost of their actions. And the parents walk away care free.

This law, hopefully, would mean that the parents would feel the pain for their irresponsible behavior - this will be a nice incentive on them to keep track of their children and to make sure they are not getting up to any mischief.

old_aussie

Put the kid in jail with a couple of huge horny room mates.

I'll bet he keeps his nose clean when he gets out.

Cookie_Monster

Force the kid to go to England for the summer to learn english, sounds like harse enough punishment to me.

Its a bit unfair against parents. They may be law abiding folk with good job and then all of a sudden get thrown in jail cos their kid played a stupid stunt that went wrong...

easyeason3

What ever happened to getting a clip around the ear or having the wooden spoon broken off the back of your legs?

Parents going to jail because they're child is a bit wild seems extreme. You want to teach the child a lesson then hand out the punishment to the child.

prinz

easyeason3 wrote: »

What ever happened to getting a clip around the ear or having the wooden spoon broken off the back of your legs?

For many it's a thing of the past. An initiative like this might make more parents think about giving their kids a clip round the ear long before it becomes an issue. At the moment there is almost total immunity so a lot of parents don't give a toss what their kids are getting up to.

stovelid

One or two of the lads I knew (when growing up) that ended up the wildest and in bad trouble had no fathers around and their mothers found it hard to control big, strong boys (virtually men) in their care.

I think it would be far better to overhaul the social services and allow neglected children to be targeted and dealt with before they end up as criminals.

It seems a bit rich that the authorities don't have the resources or the inclination to deal with children in the care of junkies or out on the streets but when they get to an age where they come under the Joe Duffy radar, or more likely, start to affect The Decent Citizens through robbery and the like, we all suddenly want to start dealing with the problem.

Hank_Jones

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Force the kid to go to England for the summer to learn english, sounds like harse enough punishment to me.

Ahh why of course...and their families will all just be able to pay to send them off to England no problem...

I'm sure the families wouldn't mind just sending off all their kids to other countries in Europe for the summer...

prinz

stovelid wrote: »

It seems a bit rich that the authorities don't have the resources or the inclination to deal with children in the care of junkies or out on the streets....

What we need is a street catcher!

http://okathleen.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/downloadblog.jpeg

azezil

Just kill them both, parents and child. Problem sorted ^_^

L.Jenkins

I support the idea of a repremand, but not jail time. How are the parents going to sort the kids out if Mammy and/or Daddy is behind bars and the little feckers are out running rampent around the place.

If I was sent to prison for something my kids did, as soon I get out I'd have to be send back in again because I'd kick several different shades of shíte out of them to be honest.

funk-you

positron wrote: »

I agree there are pitfalls and trap doors with this for parents, but with proper planning and right clauses - this is a great way to put a stop to some parents who just shove their off-springs out the door, and couldn't care less what they get up to.

When have you ever seen that happen in Ireland?

-Funk

Coriolanus

I wonder up until what age can you give a child up for adoption. If a kid of mine ever got me locked up for 6 months for some juvenile delinquency rap, I'd put them up for sure.:mad:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

So what the French are saying to their kids is that they can do whatever they like, someone else will handle the consequences?

Lovely message for kids. Good luck to them with that.

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

So what the French are saying to their kids is that they can do whatever they like, someone else will handle the consequences? Lovely message for kids. Good luck to them with that.

I don't think they are tbh. On the other hand that is the message that we seem to send out as a society.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

I don't think they are tbh. On the other hand that is the message that we seem to send out as a society.

Oh, they are. They might not want to, but they are. If you were a rebellious teenager who didn't get on with your parents, you get to commit crime AND punish them at the same time - double whammy! Whoever thought up this idea has no idea what the problem is and is incapable of listening to another opinion.

Society is ultimately responsible, but will never accept this. Passing blame on to antother party - be it MTV, Marily Manson, Eminiem, the Church, the Police or, in this case, parents - is far easier than actually accepting blame and trying to understand why. Listen? Hah! We're perfect - why do we need to listen to other people! Now power up the chair, we've got another murderer to murder so we can cut down on the murder rate!

the_syco

positron wrote: »

Listening to Newstalk, France is planning new law to tame juvenile delinquency, and the general gist of the proposal is if the children do the crime, parents will have to take the blame - as in pay the fine and/or do the jail term.

Would you support something like this in Ireland? Please vote!

Well, since the parents can smack the kids, no. And before someone says that there are other ways to discipline a child, I'd like to ask: what other ways are there to deal with a violent kid, who is bigger and stronger than you?

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Oh, they are. They might not want to, but they are..

They aren't. The kid has to share the consequences. They don't get off scot free. If a parent has a "rebellious teenager" :rolleyes:, then I am sure they can inform the authorities that they have no control and let the state step in.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Society is ultimately responsible, but will never accept this. Passing blame on to antother party - be it MTV, Marily Manson, Eminiem, the Church, the Police or, in this case, parents - is far easier than actually accepting blame and trying to understand why. Listen? Hah! We're perfect - why do we need to listen to other people! Now power up the chair, we've got another murderer to murder so we can cut down on the murder rate!

Sorry I am not responsible for some parents who have no control of the endless little knackers they spawn. The children should be held responsible, as their parents are responsible for what they get up to the parents must also share in the responsibility for their child's actions.

Chairman Meow

Thats bull****. If the child comits the crime, the child should be sent to ****ing shawshank followed by immediate prison rape, that'll teach em.

Kintarō Hattori

easyeason3 wrote: »

What ever happened to getting a clip around the ear or having the wooden spoon broken off the back of your legs?

Parents going to jail because they're child is a bit wild seems extreme. You want to teach the child a lesson then hand out the punishment to the child.

Wasn't there discussions within Europe recently about banning smacking?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

They aren't. The kid has to share the consequences. They don't get off scot free. If a parent has a "rebellious teenager" :rolleyes:, then I am sure they can inform the authorities that they have no control and let the state step in.

Sorry I am not responsible for some parents who have no control of the endless little knackers they spawn. The children should be held responsible, as their parents are responsible for what they get up to the parents must also share in the responsibility for their child's actions.

If there is support for the parents, yes - but I wouldn't trust the French to put this forward. Ultimately, the teenager is responsible. And the teenager is a product of society.

You are not the entire society. But why are there "endless little knackers" in the first place? True - you're always going to get a few, but if society is rampant with them, something deeper is the problem.

starbelgrade

The presumption here seems to be that if a child breaks the law, then the parents are irresponsible, or "scumbags".

This isn't always the case. I broke the law many, many times when I was under 16 & was arrested on a number of occassions... for shoplifting, drunk & disorderly, possession of drugs, being a passenger in a stolen car etc.

My parents were decent people & brought me up well - but I was a wild little brat who did whatever the f*ck I wanted to, when I wanted to. If they had punished my parents, instead of me, that would have made zero difference to my behaviour whatsoever.

Parents are responsible - up to a certain point ie., the point where they educate their kids as to what is wrong & what is right and to try and discipline them. After that, whatever the kids do is their own responsibility & how they are treated for it, is a matter for society to decide.

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

And the teenager is a product of society..

Primarily the product of their parents first. I don't quite fancy encouraging the state to take the place of parents.. that hasn't worked out too well in the past.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You are not the entire society.

But I am a member of it and you are trying to socialise blame, which means you are saying I, as a member of this society, am responsible because some other parents can't keep track of their kids.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

But why are there "endless little knackers" in the first place? True - you're always going to get a few, but if society is rampant with them, something deeper is the problem.

Yes there is. A major problem. Scumbaggery is condoned verging on encouraged, and the cycle continues. Society is rampant because it hasn't been properly tackled.

starbelgrade wrote: »

The presumption here seems to be that if a child breaks the law, then the parents are irresponsible, or "scumbags"....

Not really.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

Primarily the product of their parents first. I don't quite fancy encouraging the state to take the place of parents.. that hasn't worked out too well in the past.

At some point, the state has to step in. Obviously, we'd rather it didn't have to.

But I am a member of it and you are trying to socialise blame, which means you are saying I, as a member of this society, am responsible because some other parents can't keep track of their kids.

No I'm not.

Yes there is. A major problem. Scumbaggery is condoned verging on encouraged, and the cycle continues. Society is rampant because it hasn't been properly tackled.

I assume that should have read "Scumbaggery is rampant..." And if society is condoning it, how is society not to blame?

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

At some point, the state has to step in. Obviously, we'd rather it didn't have to.

Yes it does, but already in this thread we have people saying 'parents can't be held responsible for the actions of their kids' are they really going to go along with the state stepping in and removing kids from the home etc? Or is your idea of the state stepping in building a new playground or some such?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No I'm not..

You said 'Society is ultimately responsible..'

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I assume that should have read "Scumbaggery is rampant..." And if society is condoning it, how is society not to blame?

Parents first. Society later.

whatdoicare

I think this is a great idea and I don't accept that it's not down to parenting.

Parenting takes a huge amount of time and effort and I never see the parents of "wild" children do the work. I see then wringing their hands and telling everyone their woes but no actual parenting at all!
And the excuse about mothers on their own unable to control strapping lads is B**lsh*t! I'll give examples:

My dad was working 15/18 hour days to pay for us so we saw him maybe half a day on Saturday so he just wasn't there to help my mother (plus he's a pussy cat and usless at discipline)!
My own mother, she's 5 ft nothing, 9 stone at most and I have three gorilla sized brothers - I'm talking 6ft5, 18stone, size 14 shoes. She rules with an iron fist and demands respect at all times - even now, when the youngest is 28!
Looking back I realise now just how much work she put in to make sure she commanded this illusion of respect: She watched every move they made, knew where they were at all times (at a time before mobile phones), had them enrolled in every sport available, noone was allowed out after dark - if they stayed over at someones house, she was ringing the parents all night.
She gave them grief for the slightest misdemeanor.
Now, we lived in a roughish area, if she hadn't put the work in, they were guaranteed to have gone down a bad route, the boys on either side of us are now drug addicts, my mam never,ever let my brothers hang out with them!
And don't even get me started on the grief I had as a girl- I wasn't allowed into nightclubs unless my older brothers, who were bouncing at the time, were working that night, at that particular club! My muslim friends had more freedom! Oh, the embarrassment as my brother escorted me out at 2am to my dad waiting outside in his car!

I see this hard work even now with my own neighbour, she has four young boys and has just had a girl. My ghod she is on her toes at all times with them! They get away with NOTHING and I mean nothing. She has to spend all day running around bringing them to sports and extra curricular activities (and staying there with them). I know for a fact that she can't afford to do this and is sacrificing a hell of a lot for them. Her husband is working all hours of the day for them.
It's hard work, very, very hard work - but I can guarantee those boys will all be good hard working men ten or fifteen years from now. Then the parents can reap the benefits of all their hard work.

Parents need to know where their kids are at all times, who they are with, what they are doing with that person. They need to take responsibility for them, it is not up to anyone else to raise their kids for them, it is 100% up to the parents/parent. It's sad that the gov in France has to force parents to care about their kids but the reality is that some people had their kids to keep them in the good life with the free house, money, stuff etc etc. and don't actually give a rats a** about them. They might give more of a crap if they have to take the rap for any damage that their kiddies do!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

Yes it does, but already in this thread we have people saying 'parents can't be held responsible for the actions of their kids' are they really going to go along with the state stepping in and removing kids from the home etc? Or is your idea of the state stepping in building a new playground or some such?



You said 'Society is ultimately responsible..'



Parents first. Society later.

There is a simple difference between me saying an individual is responsible for something and a large group is responsible (even though they may not sure the same viewpoint). Society elects a government, if that government turns out to be bad, even the people who didn't vote for it will share the consequences. Not debating this any further - you know exactly what I mean. if you disagree, fine, but then you need to tell my why you think society is not to blame.

Not disagreeing with you about parents first or that inattentive parents should not be investigated.

Dissmissing an idea as "building a new playground" is a bit condescedning. I believe that better facilities and more options for teenagers would help, though, yes. If you think they should be ignored and just do what they're told, fine. How's that working out for you?

positron

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

So what the French are saying to their kids is that they can do whatever they like, someone else will handle the consequences?

I don't think so. I think the French are saying if your kids act maggot, the kids will punished, but don't think you are parent can get away saying "ah it's dem kids and their hormones", you have to take the responsibility that you were supposed to bring up your child properly so that he/she wouldn't have done what he or she just did. Now if you had a suspicion that he/she is getting out of hand, you should have asked for help - should have called the guards etc in advance, saying you can't handle your offspring. Then he/she would be taken away from you, and may be given to someone who can provide better care and guidance to the child.

Having a child and letting it run riot in the streets and making life miserable for other ordinary decent people is not acceptable and this is an attempt to stop that.

starbelgrade wrote:

The presumption here seems to be that if a child breaks the law, then the parents are irresponsible, or "scumbags".

Exactly. I would think so too.

starbelgrade wrote:

My parents were decent people & brought me up well - but I was a wild little brat who did whatever the f*ck I wanted to, when I wanted to. If they had punished my parents, instead of me, that would have made zero difference to my behaviour whatsoever.

Again, I don't think this law is an excuse to not to punish young criminals. In your case, you should be punished - as hard as possible. Yet, in many instances courts are lenient and/or is impossible to give a proper punishment as 'it's only a child'. The point of the law is 'if it's only a child' the parent should be able to control them. If it's indeed only a child and the parents can't control them - responsibility lies with the parents to notify garda/social services that they can't control their child. If they don't, and if the child commits crime, then the parents should be held responsible - which is how I would like to see this.

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Dissmissing an idea as "building a new playground" is a bit condescedning. I believe that better facilities and more options for teenagers would help, though, yes. If you think they should be ignored and just do what they're told, fine. How's that working out for you?

(a) lack of 'facilities' is the usual BS excuse trotted out tbh in the majority of cases.

(b) What does being ignored have to do with anything?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

(a) lack of 'facilities' is the usual BS excuse trotted out tbh in the majority of cases.

(b) What does being ignored have to do with anything?

Yes it is, because it's a valid point and not BS. I used to work with them - in Ireland and in Denmark - and the Danes have much less problems because they have a much wider range of activities and much bettter facilities on offer. As you are unwilling to accept even the possibility, I can only assume it's either too much work or you're happy with the status quo.

It has everything to do with it. If you aren't talking to people who are might, in two years tie be scumbags, how do you know who the problem kids are goign to be? Teenagers are essentially attention-seekers. Keep ignoring that and see what happens.

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Yes it is, because it's a valid point and not BS..

Can you explain why one person can grow up living miles from anywhere, with no access to anything except their own home and not turn into a scumbag, whereas another person can grow up with numerous state provided and other entertainment/sport etc facilities on the doorstep and cry about having 'nothing to do'?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

As you are unwilling to accept even the possibility, I can only assume it's either too much work or you're happy with the status quo...

You know what happens to the facilities that are provided? They frequently get vandalised and destroyed. Not to worry, the tax payer will stump up again to replace them.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It has everything to do with it. If you aren't talking to people who are might, in two years tie be scumbags, how do you know who the problem kids are goign to be? Teenagers are essentially attention-seekers. Keep ignoring that and see what happens.

Again, parents.

whatdoicare

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Yes it is, because it's a valid point and not BS. I used to work with them - in Ireland and in Denmark - and the Danes have much less problems because they have a much wider range of activities and much bettter facilities on offer. As you are unwilling to accept even the possibility, I can only assume it's either too much work or you're happy with the status quo.

It has everything to do with it. If you aren't talking to people who are might, in two years tie be scumbags, how do you know who the problem kids are goign to be? Teenagers are essentially attention-seekers. Keep ignoring that and see what happens.

I think this is a valid point- actually this is a point I just made- The more teenagers are left to hang around doing nothing, the more likely they are to try drink,sex, drugs and vandalism.
The Government should provide facilities but at the same time, until they do that, parents need to make sure their teens are occupied and sacrifice what they can to make it happen!
Parents can't be left to just shrug their shoulders and go "Ah, sure what can I do, the government didn't provide me with any facilities- I'll just let my kids do what they want."

starbelgrade

positron wrote: »

Again, I don't think this law is an excuse to not to punish young criminals. In your case, you should be punished - as hard as possible. Yet, in many instances courts are lenient and/or is impossible to give a proper punishment as 'it's only a child'. The point of the law is 'if it's only a child' the parent should be able to control them. If it's indeed only a child and the parents can't control them - responsibility lies with the parents to notify garda/social services that they can't control their child. If they don't, and if the child commits crime, then the parents should be held responsible - which is how I would like to see this.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote with any due care. I never said that this was an excuse not to punish young offenders, nor did I say that the parents do not have responsibilities. All I said was, that punishing the parents would have - in many cases - little or no effect on the child's future behaviour.

stovelid

whatdoicare wrote: »

I think this is a great idea and I don't accept that it's not down to parenting.

Parenting takes a huge amount of time and effort and I never see the parents of "wild" children do the work. I see then wringing their hands and telling everyone their woes but no actual parenting at all!
And the excuse about mothers on their own unable to control strapping lads is B**lsh*t! I'll give examples:

My dad was working 15/18 hour days to pay for us so we saw him maybe half a day on Saturday so he just wasn't there to help my mother (plus he's a pussy cat and usless at discipline)!
My own mother, she's 5 ft nothing, 9 stone at most and I have three gorilla sized brothers - I'm talking 6ft5, 18stone, size 14 shoes. She rules with an iron fist and demands respect at all times - even now, when the youngest is 28!
Looking back I realise now just how much work she put in to make sure she commanded this illusion of respect: She watched every move they made, knew where they were at all times (at a time before mobile phones), had them enrolled in every sport available, noone was allowed out after dark - if they stayed over at someones house, she was ringing the parents all night.
She gave them grief for the slightest misdemeanor.
Now, we lived in a roughish area, if she hadn't put the work in, they were guaranteed to have gone down a bad route, the boys on either side of us are now drug addicts, my mam never,ever let my brothers hang out with them!
And don't even get me started on the grief I had as a girl- I wasn't allowed into nightclubs unless my older brothers, who were bouncing at the time, were working that night, at that particular club! My muslim friends had more freedom! Oh, the embarrassment as my brother escorted me out at 2am to my dad waiting outside in his car!

I see this hard work even now with my own neighbour, she has four young boys and has just had a girl. My ghod she is on her toes at all times with them! They get away with NOTHING and I mean nothing. She has to spend all day running around bringing them to sports and extra curricular activities (and staying there with them). I know for a fact that she can't afford to do this and is sacrificing a hell of a lot for them. Her husband is working all hours of the day for them.
It's hard work, very, very hard work - but I can guarantee those boys will all be good hard working men ten or fifteen years from now. Then the parents can reap the benefits of all their hard work.

Parents need to know where their kids are at all times, who they are with, what they are doing with that person. They need to take responsibility for them, it is not up to anyone else to raise their kids for them, it is 100% up to the parents/parent. It's sad that the gov in France has to force parents to care about their kids but the reality is that some people had their kids to keep them in the good life with the free house, money, stuff etc etc. and don't actually give a rats a** about them. They might give more of a crap if they have to take the rap for any damage that their kiddies do!

Anybody else humming the Hovis tune?

Mango Joe

Since when are the natural responsibilities or Parent an optional thing???

PeterIanStaker

I dont want to sound like Jeremy Kyle or someone, but it says a lot about society when we have to force parents to do what the job description suggests, and "parent" their wayward little bastards.

There are a few ways to look at this, is it nurture vs nature, or should people start taking responsibility for their own actions? But there are some people who can't pass any kind of sense of responsibility to the brats they spawn, because they have none themselves.

whatdoicare

stovelid wrote: »

Anybody else humming the Hovis tune?

I'm telling my mammy on you :P

goat2

orourkeda wrote: »

Will a law like this just encourage some kids to go on a rampage if they go unpunished.

They know someone else is going to take the fall for them.

there are loads of great parents setting standards for their children and having a point at where things are not acceptable

then there are the parents who dont care what their children are up to or dont dare whether they leave school early, drink early

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

goat2 wrote: »

there are loads of great parents setting standards for their children and having a point at where things are not acceptable

then there are the parents who dont care what their children are up to or dont dare whether they leave school early, drink early

There are also loads of great parents setting standards for this kids who wind up with kids who leave school early and drink early.

aDeener

a bit ridiculous this. i know of parents, really nice hard working people that somehow managed to rear pricks of sons. they would not deserve to be punished for the actions of their children.

as was said earlier a few more clips round the butt of the lug is whats needed

whatdoicare

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

There are also loads of great parents setting standards for this kids who wind up with kids who leave school early and drink early.

And where are the parents that the kids can leave early and drink? My brother tried that once and the school rang my mam to tell her he was missing. She beat several shades of poo out of him and escorted him to and from school for the rest of the year until he proved himself trust worthy.
This is called "Parenting"

aDeener

aDeener wrote: »

a bit ridiculous this. i know of parents, really nice hard working people that somehow managed to rear pricks of sons. they would not deserve to be punished for the actions of their children.

as was said earlier a few more clips round the butt of the lug is whats needed

Being "nice" doesnt mean they're a good parent. You said it yourself, they reared the kids.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

whatdoicare wrote: »

And where are the parents that the kids can leave early and drink? My brother tried that once and the school rang my mam to tell her he was missing. She beat several shades of poo out of him and escorted him to and from school for the rest of the year until he proved himself trust worthy.
This is called "Parenting"

So this one case means that everything I said is rubbish ...? Sometimes kids are ****, end of.

Pherekydes

Simple question to all the non-parents:

When does one start to take responsibility for one's own actions?

whatdoicare

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

So this one case means that everything I said is rubbish ...? Sometimes kids are ****, end of.

No, not what I said at all, yr completely missing the point here.
All kids are "****" as in all kids push boundaries and chance their arms to see what they can get away with- if my brothers could have gotten away with ditching school they would have done it all the time.
The point I'm making is: Why did the parents let the child get away with this? Where were they? What action did they take to prevent it happening again?
My family is no different than any other family, we were poor, lived in a rough area and had no facilities but our parents made damn sure that we didn't do what we wanted and they were responsible for us 24/7 weither we liked or not.

Being nice or sound is not part of the Parent job description. Doesn't matter how nice or clean living a parent is, if they don't take action to control their kid then they failed at their job.

goat2

Pherekydes wrote: »

Simple question to all the non-parents:

When does one start to take responsibility for one's own actions?

by law 18 or 21
i am a parent, i took total responsibility, it paid off
was always there and available to bring them home from discos and nights out, took them to and from school from the first school day to the last, found acommodation for them when going to college, i saw it as my job as i had brought them into this world
also got to know their friends, always had an open door for all friends, this is how i knew who they were going around with, and if i thought there was a person who could bring trouble on our home, i would air my views.

but i also know good homes where young ones took a bad path, making life miserable for their family.