|
|
|
|
|
parental liability laws and south carolina
|
|
|
Parental control is considered the main cause for juvenile delinquency. There are several statutes in many states that punish the parents of children who have made mistakes thus the parent will assume responsibility and control their children. I’m here tonight to discuss three of South Carolinas code of laws that fall under the theme of parental liability and they are Parental liability section 20-7-340, Truancy section 59-65-20, and Civil Liability section 20-7-8930 (state can sue up to 5,000 actual damage to state property). Let us investigate parental immunity while referring to case number: 2002 SC Lexis 48. Fredrick R. is a 12-year-old child who attacked 9-year-old boy. He had been referred to SC Department of Juvenile Justice nine times previously. Fredrick was removed from his home and placed in a foster home to be removed in four months because he drew a weapon on his foster care provide at which time he was place in a group home for one night and then was placed back with his biological mother when seven days later he attacked Brandon Faille age 9. Under section 20-7-340, the first page of the handout attached states that a parent is liable up to $1,000 if their child is under the age of seventeen years old and damages somoething. I would like to see this law to be change. Should Fredrico’s mother be held accountable or should she also receive immunity when he was sent back home by D.J.J. knowing she could not control him and I want to know why he was not he sent to a D.H. also known as R&E, Rehabilitation and Evaluation. In view of these facts, should Fredrico’s mother be liable for her 12-year-old son’s action? The parental immunity law replies she is responsible because he is not 17 or older. Do you think punishing her will give her more control over her son? I do not; I think all it will accomplish is creating more stress for her and her family. I also think this action will only make her feel more inadequate than she already does. The second case I wish to discuss is Tonisha Case #: 1999 SC Lexis 166. Tonisha is a minor under seventeen who was convicted of truancy section 59-65-20. Section 59-65-90 and section 59-65-20 States that a child can not miss no more than ten unexcused days and if the child misses more than those ten days the parent(s) can be held liable for each of those days and maybe punishable up to $50 and 30 days in jail and each day is considered missed is a separate offense. In other words if Tonisha missed 11 days her mother could be liable for $550 and 330 days (almost 1 year in jail.) because of her child’s actions. Is the system fair in automatically assuming Tonisha's mother has control of her daughter? Let us assume that Tonisha is 16, because the document only states that she is a minor under 17 and not her actual age.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
