Judge tells schoolboy to choose which parent goes to jail

My name is URL

A JUDGE has told a teenage boy that he must decide which of his parents will be sent to jail for a month -- and which will receive a suspended sentence.

Judge Alan Mitchell made the decision during a case brought against the boy's parents because of his failure to attend school.

The 15-year-old from Galway had a long history of skipping school and the court heard that this had continued even after the boy was made aware of the possible consequences for his parents.

Adjourning the matter until today, Judge Mitchell said: "He can consider which of his parents he wants to go to prison for 21 days and which gets the suspended sentence."

Does this seem odd to anyone else? Why is the kid being asked to decide which parent goes to jail?

According to the article, the father had a bench warrant issued against him so surely it should be him going to jail =/

Both parents had previously been summonsed to court but the father had failed to attend, resulting in a bench warrant being issued for him.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-tells-schoolboy-choose-the-parent-who-goes-to-jail-29111798.html

Basically the kid is being asked to do immense damage to the relationship he has with one of his parents. Bizarre stuff imo

PhlegmyMoses

I presume the judge is trying to teach him a lesson about consequences and stuff like that but it seems strange. Send both parents to jail if that's what's going to happen in these cases.

The Barefoot Pizza Thief

It's the Judge who needs 21 days.

For Christ sake, does he not realise that there will be future life-long consequences for this kid based on which parent they choose.

Absolutely moronic to put this kind of pressure on a child when it is without question going to cause deep seethed hostility.

Hope he gives the kid some of his wages for the day, seen as he is asking him to do his job for him.

D1stant

The Wisdom of Solomon

Lollipops23

Suppose he's trying to get the message to hit home for the kid- although I doubt it will. All it will do is create more tension/friction in the home.

hefferboi

Sophie's Choice

suicide_circus

At i guess i would say it is an exercise in teaching the boy that actions have consequences. He knew the possible result of skipping school but did it anyway. He chose to jeopardize his parents liberty and the judge is simply allowing him to complete the decision making process. Harsh i agree but softly softly clearly hasnt worked for this kid.

Micky Dolenz

Bet he picks his old man.

ejmaztec

They should lock up the kid and the parents, the three of them are obviously a lost cause. I don't blame the judge for getting pissed off with them.

I like it.. Kid skips school constantly and understands the consequences for his parents but still does it. Instead of it being the big bad judge sending his parents to jail, he has to choose which of his parents suffers for him being a cnt.

Hopefully the long lasting damage to the family will force the parents to sort their mess out.

TPD

If I were the kid I'd just bring a coin to court and let the toss decide.

Merkin

Far more effective to put him in a juvenile detention facility - the parents sound like a lost cause

fishy fishy

seemingly he was told what would happen if he kept missing school

I'm sure his parents will work it out between them as adults - hopefully the young lad will realise what he has done. After all, it might teach him a lesson and he may grow up to be hard working and honest person as opposed to some drop out looking for handouts.

He will still have one parent to oversee him during the three weeks.

Might be no harm if this was done to other young ones cause burgling, robbing, causing trouble, scaring old people to death. Could be a hard and valued lesson learned.

ejmaztec

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Bet he picks his old man.

It depends on which of them is a soft touch for pocket money.

Napper Hawkins

This will help nothing and just make everything worse.

Johnnio13

Great idea, teach him that there are consequences for his actions.

sfwcork

teach the kid a lesson if u ask me

Micky Dolenz

ejmaztec wrote: »

It depends on which of them is a soft touch for pocket money.

Thread needs a poll.

Personally, it would be my Da every day of the week. you Dad but Ma is no 1. :pac:

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

I like it.. Kid skips school constantly and understands the consequences for his parents but still does it. Instead of it being the big bad judge sending his parents to jail, he has to choose which of his parents suffers for him being a cnt.

Hopefully the long lasting damage to the family will force the parents to sort their mess out.

Aye, but according to the article; the mother complied with the court and appeared when summoned. The dad didn't and had a warrant for his arrest issued against him. Seems clear cut to me who should be doing time. What's the point in wasting time issuing warrants if they're just going to be ignored...

Chuck Stone

Sounds like something from a Charles Dickens novel.

Totally ridiculous.

Plazaman

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Thread needs a poll.

Personally, it would be my Da every day of the week. you Dad but Ma is no 1. :pac:

+1

If Mama ain't happy, nobody happy!

kupus

Another judge who lives in cloud cuckoo land..

This kid does not like school. HE WANTS to do a trade.

Wheres all the why not think of the children brigade on this one?

kowloon

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Thread needs a poll.

Personally, it would be my Da every day of the week. you Dad but Ma is no 1. :pac:

Dads generally can't cook and cause trouble. I'm pretty sure you're not allowed send your mammy to prison. It's written somewhere.

fishy fishy

My name is URL wrote: »

Aye, but according to the article; the mother complied with the court and appeared when summoned. The dad didn't and had a warrant for his arrest issued against him. Seems clear cut to me who should be doing time. What's the point in wasting time issuing warrants if they're just going to be ignored...

well then the dad would only be going to jail because of the warrant for his arrest when in actual fact that is not the issue - the issue is the kid missing school.

Lingua Franca

kupus wrote: »

Wheres all the why not think of the children brigade on this one?

Picking their kids up from school.

kupus

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Picking their kids up from school.

As usually heads firmly stuck in the sand

Potential-Monke

My name is URL wrote: »

Aye, but according to the article; the mother complied with the court and appeared when summoned. The dad didn't and had a warrant for his arrest issued against him. Seems clear cut to me who should be doing time. What's the point in wasting time issuing warrants if they're just going to be ignored...

Bench warrant is a separate issue to the initial summons. The bench warrant is issued when someone doesn't turn up after being served with a summons. It, in itself, is a separate offence. Once in court, the Judge decides on the course of action for the bench warrant (usually, bail), but the original offence for which he was summonsed is still to be dealt with.

It could be a case of if he chooses the mother, the father is still going to jail because of the bench warrant, but i doubt it.

It seems to be a very risky decision the judge has made, and without all the facts of the case it will be hard to agree/disagree, but i just don't understand how the parents can be held responsible if the little shít doesn't go to school??? Granted, if there was evidence that the parents couldn't care less, but from what the article is stating, they tried. And, although he wants to do a mechanics course, he can't until he's 16 so why doesn't he just go to school for 1 more year?!?! Entitled little shíte.

My name is URL

fishy fishy wrote: »

well then the dad would only be going to jail because of the warrant for his arrest when in actual fact that is not the issue - the issue is the kid missing school.

True, but it gives you an idea of which parent is more interested in their child's education etc though. Father can't even be bothered to turn up for court, so it wouldn't be a stretch to assume he's the less interested / involved of the two when it comes to matters of parenting.

Solair

I can see this going to the European Courts or at least up the chain to the courts of appeal.

That's basically a ridiculous situation to put a 15 year old in, regardless of what lessons he's trying teach him.

stevenmu

kupus wrote: »

Another judge who lives in cloud cuckoo land..

This kid does not like school. HE WANTS to do a trade.

Wheres all the why not think of the children brigade on this one?

Most of them probably realise that the law is there to protect and benefit children. And that you can't just ignore the law because "HE WANTS to do a trade".

VinLieger

No proeblem with this, kids a little **** and the parents have done a piss poor job raising him. Well done on the judge for trying something out of the box that hopefully wakes them all up

Newaglish

He gets 21 days of his parents spoiling him now. "Buy me an XBox or I'll send you to jail, old man!"

kupus

Solair wrote: »

I can see this going to the European Courts or at least up the chain to the courts of appeal.

That's basically a ridiculous situation to put a 15 year old in, regardless of what lessons he's trying teach him.

More waste of money lawyers cashing in on this so, ah well at least it'll keep a lawyer in his job.

Kid doesnt like school so why force him when he wants to go and do a trade.
Jailing the parent is a waste of time. Sweet jesus Gary o flynn is after getting off for threatening cops, women and owners of an establishment.

ShadowHearth

Am i the only one who thinks that kids does not give a flying feck if parents will go to jail or no.
By the looks of it parents did send him out to school, but little **** just skips it and hangs out with his awesome buddies on some bench in Main Street. So there is a huge conflict between parents and kid. So my guess would be its going to be fun for him to put one of his parents, who are "bitching" about him skipping school, to jail.

My name is URL

kupus wrote: »

More waste of money lawyers cashing in on this so, ah well at least it'll keep a lawyer in his job.

Kid doesnt like school so why force him when he wants to go and do a trade.
Jailing the parent is a waste of time. Sweet jesus Gary o flynn is after getting off for threatening cops, women and owners of an establishment.

He can't legally begin an apprenticeship until he turns 16. To be fair, he should just suck it up until then. Being dragged to court and so on isn't going to do him any favors when he does seek employment.

I agree that jailing the parent(s) at this stage would be pointless though.

TeddyTedson

Kids everywhere are going to start skipping school for this kind of power.

Solair

I'm just wondering, from a legal point of view, shouldn't the judge be making the decision?
It seems somewhat strange to allow a third party to decide the sentencing arrangements.

I'd say this could really get very legally messy.

herisson

Is it terrible that I quite like this punishment? He knew that this was the consequence that faced him but he didn't cop on and listen. It's harsh but it might teach him a lesson.

MadsL

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Thread needs a poll.

Personally, it would be my Da every day of the week. <3 you Dad but Ma is no 1. :pac:

We know how after hours feels about yore ma, a poll would be a landslide.

P_1

Not sure what to think about this one tbh.

On the one hand we have the child feeling that school is useless to him at this stage, on the other we have the state saying that he has to stick it out for another year.

Also what is expected of the parents, should they have dragged him kicking and screaming to school every morning?

Micky Dolenz

P_1 wrote: »

Not sure what to think about this one tbh.

On the one hand we have the child feeling that school is useless to him at this stage, on the other we have the state saying that he has to stick it out for another year.

Also what is expected of the parents, should they have dragged him kicking and screaming to school every morning?

Key word there is child. Loads of children hate school and feel it isn't for them. This is where parents step in and make the decision for their child. If that means they drag them to school kicking and screaming and sit them in class every morning. so be it.

P_1

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Key word there is child. Loads of children hate school and feel it isn't for them. This is where parents step in and make the decision for their child. If that means they drag them to school kicking and screaming and sit them in class every morning. so be it.

Fair point, isn't that a somewhat unrealistic expectation on the parents though?

Jimoslimos

Johnnio13 wrote: »

Great idea, teach him that there are consequences for his actions.

Yeah, that someone else will take the punishment for those actions. Great lesson alright.

Micky Dolenz

P_1 wrote: »

Fair point, isn't that a somewhat unrealistic expectation on the parents though?

Well it should never have got to that stage and that's why the parents had to answer questions in court.

When I was 13 and onwards I would rather have been anywhere then in school. I wanted to be out working. My parents weren't long setting me straight. something that failed to happen in this case by all accounts.

sillysmiles

kupus wrote: »

Another judge who lives in cloud cuckoo land..

This kid does not like school. HE WANTS to do a trade.

The kid doesn't like school, but it is the judge who lives in cloud cuckoo land?? Seriously?

Most kids don't like school, but go. Most parents ensure they are there and do something about it. Clearly if it has gotten to a court stage the little yoke doesn't give a crap about anything and has never had to face consequences.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens.

P_1

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Well it should never have got to that stage and that's why the parents had to answer questions in court.

When I was 13 and onwards I would rather have been anywhere then in school. I wanted to be out working. My parents weren't long setting me straight. something that failed to happen in this case by all accounts.

Yeah we've all had moments like that in fairness.

When should we draw the line between parents being responsible for their children's actions though? I know the law says this line is when the child turns 18 but in reality that is difficult to enforce for the parents, particularly when the child has nearly completed their physical development.

MickFleetwood

Judge Mitchell said he may consider suspending any sentence until the end of the school term in order to review the teenager's attendance from now until the end of the school year.

"If he wants his mother or father to go to prison he should continue on the way he is," added Judge Mitchell.

Just the end of it.

sillysmiles

P_1 wrote: »

Fair point, isn't that a somewhat unrealistic expectation on the parents though?

Really? Teaching the child about consequences and that sometimes you just have to do stuff you don't like and that going to school is important is an unrealistic expectation of parents?

Can't wait to be a parent if that's the case.

P_1

sillysmiles wrote: »

Really? Teaching the child about consequences and that sometimes you just have to do stuff you don't like and that going to school is important is an unrealistic expectation of parents?

Can't wait to be a parent if that's the case.

No I meant physically dragging the child to school. They send the child off each morning with specific instructions to go to school, the child fails to obey these instructions. Why should the parents be punished for the child failing to obey their instructions?

sillysmiles

P_1 wrote: »

No I meant physically dragging the child to school. They send the child off each morning with specific instructions to go to school, the child fails to obey these instructions. Why should the parents be punished for the child failing to obey their instructions?

If it was that bad they should have delivered him to the school and handed him to a teacher or someone in the school willing to work with them on this issue. Undoubtedly the school would have worked with them if they had done more that "sent him to school". If there was no one in the school able to give their time then they should have stayed with him for the day/s required until he copped on. I know people are going to freak out about that, but if it involves using your annual leave for your child then so be it.

Why should they? Because as you pointed out they are the parents and he is a child. Surely this didn't happen overnight but has been going on for a long time? His unwillingness to follow simply instructions from his parents obviously didn't manifest overnight either.

Micky Dolenz

P_1 wrote: »

No I meant physically dragging the child to school. They send the child off each morning with specific instructions to go to school, the child fails to obey these instructions. Why should the parents be punished for the child failing to obey their instructions?

It should never get to the stage of being physical with a child. You don't have to be physical to get a child to do as you wish. Parents do it all the time. I often did things under protest while a child and even more so as a teenager.

This isn't something that just happened over night, there clearly is a discipline issue which happened over a long time.

The parents had ample chance to address the issue but failed their child by not acting or not acting effectively. Every parent is directly responsible for the discipline of their child and rightly so. It comes from them.