Parental authority & responsibility.

Parental authority & responsibility.

Postby holy vehm » Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:41 pm

We have heard the phrase "parental responsibility" used on a daily basis since the riots over a week ago so i thought a little about just what that is in la la land.

To me, parents have had the parental authority and responsibilities stripped away over the last decade so when we hear governments and its agents use the phrase, does it actually exist anymore?

In schools, the authority is with the school and its agents, parents have to abide by all sorts of rules.
When a child is out on the streets, the authority is with the police, council and an assortment of agents.
When the child is at home, the authority is with child services and its agents.

So just where is this parental responsibility and authority, parents in la la land do not have any of that these days, not to my mind anyway.

But now the government is threatening ANY parent who's child breaks the law with all manner of sanctions, from evictions to loss of social benefits, there is even talk of making parents carry out community service if the child is under 13.

So how can the government remove our parental authority and responsibilities yet make parents liable?
If we are liable, then we must also have the authority to be liable for.

Under a common law juristiction, we are responsible because we are the authority. If a child causes loss, harm or injury, then rightly, the parents must also except some of the blame so far as is reasonable. If a parent allows a child to roam the streets without thought then that is not being responsable, but if a parent does all that is reasonable to ensure they know where the child is and what they are doing and that child then goes off and does something else then can that parent then be held liable.
What if society removes the part of society that keeps children safe and from committing any crime, such as not providing areas of entertainment, places that keep the children themselves safe from loss harm and injury, should that society itself be held liable, has it done what is reasonably expected in a society?

It seems to me that the state and its society wants to control every aspect and adopt all the authority without any of the liablity.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm

Re: Parental authority & responsibility.

Postby diasan » Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:01 am

If a child causes loss, harm or injury, then rightly, the parents must also except some of the blame so far as is reasonable

As I recall, that is not the law.

Under the age of criminal responsibility - generally 10 - I'm not sure what happens.

But above that age, the child is responsible for their own acts. If they cause loss / damage, they can be sued for damages.
However, this is generally not done as they tend not to have assets; however the parent cannot be sued for damages in such a case.
Parents tend to provide compensate out of a feeling of moral responsibility, and to be good neighbours.

Recall that in days gone by, children (not the parents) would be transported for crimes. I also recall reading of a child being hanged for theft (17th or 18th century).

Return to The Person (legal fiction)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests