Should parents be held responsible for their childs actions?

At the age of 16, mmmm, yeah I think he/she should take the bigger spotlight than the parents. It is adolescent stage and that should be understood that the individual has more control of himself/herself. I see it this way. Like maybe 14 or below, the parents should be accountable. If the person is more than 14 years old, I think it should be a little bit of both being accountable. 18 and above, it should be solely his/her responsibility.

In a way yes, but all over, no! Ok Let me explain this, this saying runs since from the start of the civilization that: "The first School of the children are found inside his home" So in a way I think what a child sees, experience in her family or in her home greatly affects their personality and of course their lives. Parents should understand this. I hate it when parents try to talk to the kids and MAKE THEM understand their failing marriage that ends up divorcing. They're kids for heaven's sake! I think this is so unfair for the children because they are the primary victim of this issue. It is proven in research that most divorcees, criminals and people who can't have a steady relationship is more likely came from a broken family or have a domestic problem. We should remember that our children is like a blank piece of canvas, and as parents we are responsible for painting an artwork on that blank canvas. If we didn't finish the painting, THE PICTURE WON'T BE COMPLETE. The same as for the kids we need to nourish them, keep on their side and give them full support morally and emotionally, physically. That's why we are called parents. And about the program you saw about the teen-age vandalizing kids. Yes of course they are the primary doer of this act and they must be PUNISHED by a reasonable way. But I think the court gave the legal punishment is because the teenagers are not yet adults and base on law, 16 years old is still a minor but there are also limit of this immunity. I think when a 16 year old killed someone he could be sent to prison. But bottom line of this issue: Take care of your children, nourish them in your best way, teach them the rights and wrongs of life. Don't let them down, shape them!

Any vandalism done by a child should have an indirect impact on the parents. This is undeniable as the parents are the guardian of the child and should have taught their children from an early age to be law abiding . A child under 16 should be well monitored by his parents and the parents should shoulder the costs if property is damaged by their children. Any age above 16 but less than 21 who has uncontrolled character like stealing or a nuisance to public property should be send to juvenile detention centre.

tibo822 hi yes I think that the parents of a sixteen year old should be held accountable for their kids actions. and'those of a twenty year old, if living under same roof. also though I feel that those same parents also need to extend some sort of consequences for the vandalizing their kid did. He should]be made to repay the expenses paid out by them for the kids misdoing. this way both parents learn to better handle their teen and the teens learn they do a crime they had better be able to do the time. time to earn money to repay parents that is.

If a child is very young then yes I think the parents are responsible, because they should have control over what their child does and where he/she goes. However, at the age of 16 its pretty much impossible to know where your child is all the time. I read quite a few replies here and was rather surprised by how many think the parents should be responsible until the child turns 18. It makes me wonder how many of them remember being 16, and often away from home and not controlled by the parents. We as parents can only do so much in teaching our children right from wrong. But there comes a point in time where the child must be held responsible for their own actions. So my vote is no, at age 16 the parents should no longer be responsible for their actions or forced to pay damages. The "child" should be forced to work and repay the damage done.

At the age of 16 children are old enough to understand what is right and what is wrong. But parents are still responsible for because the court may think that parents did not train his/ her child from being away from these matters and problems. At the age of 18 a person becomes responsible for what they doo. Because thats just the age of maturity and a person can have cammand over them.

well here in united states parents are responible until the child turn 17 after they turn 17 that child can be treated as a adult.i was mad when they tried to do this however its a waste of energy because it is what it is.i think at 16 that child should no right from wrong.but the court have taken a lot of the responiblity form the parents wanting to go to court for every little thing.back in the day children played together and worked out there problems but now anything go down the child is in court.i think the court is trying to just get paid these days.

Not at all times. Because there are things which children choose and decide for themselves. With out the saying or decision of their parents. They are thinking already in their own and parents has noting to do right at that particular moment for them.

Being 16 the kid should know right from wrong by now. However if that child is still under the parents roof the parents as well as the child should pay for the repairs. I say the kid should be working off this debt as well. I think the courts make the parents pay for these type of circumstances because they are living under their roof as well as they are under the age of majority. So whatever their state of majority age is being 18 or 21 the parents are the ones that have to pay for what their child has done. I still think that the kid should be working for the person that they vandilized to pay for the damages.

Well, at the age 18, they be held responsible for thei own action. This age is considered legal age. But under 18, they are still under the parents custody, so whatever things they do, parents still should be held responsible for what thier teen agers do. But at this age 16? the teen ager should also be given due consequence of what he did to let them realized that in every bad action there is a counter part.

This is a good question. It is not very easy to answer. Sometimes I think the parents are responsible and sometimes I think that when a child gets old enough in through his teens he should know better. It can have a lot to do with the upbringing of the child. A child needs a lot of special attention especially in the earlier years and values placed in order for them to think more clearly about decision making as they grow older. If a child doesn't get what he needs emotionally and morally as a youngster there will be problems later on. In a sense I am leaning toward it being a parent's fault moreover. It is not to say the the child should not be punished. They definitely need to be taught a lesson.

Actually they should, if kids are not well behave and not taught well the parents is responsible for everything that the kids do. Babies we don't need to say, and we start the age from 5 - 12 yrs they are still at the age of learning, parents should take the responsible to teach them the good things. Not their friends teach them, and when they grows up to teens. They have to be punish the ways they do, like one film had said, "There's no world that a kids can't be taught, it's only the parents of how they teach."

I think kids certainly should learn responsibility. Legally, we're not considered adults until 18, so I can see why the court ruled the parents should pay. However, the parents could just as easily have the kid turn over part of their allowance, or even their paycheck to pay the parents back for this. If the kid refused, thent he parents could take back things like a TV or stereo they had purchased for the kid, and sell the items to get the money back. I know my folks would have. _

I definately say yes to that one. Parent only can make a child a resposible person in future. If parent try to avoid childs bad habbits in childhood then it will be good for child in future and for parent too. But if they could not able to stop his bad habbits in child hood and can not give some time for a child then in future if any situation come that whole family have ti suffer then i think ITS TOTALY PARENTS MISTAKE....that they should keep some time aside for their child.

I agree with you but the law says until they are 18 the parents are liable.It is up to the parents to make the child at the age of 16 do something to work off the damage that they have done,,,It is up to the parent to correct the child and find out why the child did it to begin with...I know if a felony alot of 16 year olds can get charged as adults, I think community service should be a must no matter what offense at age of 16 they know better.

I think it is only right to hold parents responsible for the actions of their children until they get eighteen because as long as they are under the age of eighteen they are a minor and should be punished but should be held fully responsible because it is up to the parents to teach their kids right from wrong and to help keep them from committing bad deeds such as vandalizing stuff or doing other stuff that could ruin their lives.

I think that we should be responsible for our children and their actions wile they live at home. Regardless of their age, I would pay for the damage caused by my children. Why should the victim have to be responsible to to foot the bill? Of course here at home, my child would then have to pay for the damages. Whether that involves getting a summer job, or doing a whole lot of things around the house, they would not get away with that kind of behavior. Hopefully we will be able to teach them to respect themselves and other people before they get to that point.

The person with the damaged car wants their car fixed. Community service isn't going to fix the car. You can't sue a minor so the parents have to pay and then the parents can force their kid to pay them back. Parents can make their kids life a living hell more than any court ever could.

Well parents is still responsible for thier kids actions and liable for what thier kids done wrong. As a parents they need to supervise thier kids and whatever thier kids damaged must be paid by them. I think the right age that the parents are no longer liable and responsible for thier kids action is age 18, which they are be independent.

i think that kids should take their responsibilities when they're in high school..in middle school, yeah make them take some responsibility but in high school? high school should teach kids how to act in the real world.....