Law on Prosecuting Parents of Delinquents Is Upheld

Endorsing a controversial anti-gang tactic, the California Supreme Court decided Thursday that parents may be prosecuted and sent to jail if they do not take decisive steps to prevent their children from committing crimes.

Acting in a Los Angeles case, the court upheld a state law that holds parents liable if their failure to exercise “reasonable care, supervision and control” permits their offspring to become delinquent.

In Orange County, where prosecutors have awaited the Supreme Court ruling, Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi said the statute will provide additional incentives for parents to control their children.

“If someone was otherwise disinclined to hold some control over their children . . . this would provide the needed incentive,” Capizzi said.

Orange County Deputy Dist. Atty. Douglas Woodsmall, head of the office’s gang unit, said he does not believe anyone has been prosecuted yet under the law in the county.

The statute had been challenged as unconstitutional on the grounds that it is excessively vague--failing to clearly define a parent’s duty--and gives authorities too much discretion in judging child-raising techniques.

But the court disagreed in a unanimous decision. The law “does not trap the innocent,” Justice Stanley Mosk wrote, but instead sets a standard of behavior that a reasonable parent can understand.

Prosecutors hailed the decision and said they will use the law as a stick against parents who are not making a clear effort to control their wayward children.

“We are not anxious to put parents in jail,” Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gilbert Garcetti said Thursday. “But we in law enforcement cannot do it alone, and we must hold parents accountable for their children.”

The law, which applies to parents’ acts and omissions that cause or encourage their children to commit crimes, will be an effective tool for prosecutors, Woodsmall said.

However, he cautioned, “you have to bear in mind . . . these cases are not going to be easy to prove.”

“You still have to show a specific act or omission . . . on the part of the parent that causes the misbehavior by the child,” Woodsmall said. “The acts or omissions would typically occur in the home or the home environment. It’s not the kind of thing you will have a lot of witnesses to.”

If a child has run amok and his parents unsuccessfully have attempted to curb his illicit behavior, prosecution is unlikely, Woodsmall said.

Nevertheless, the law should add ammunition to the prosecution’s arsenal, he said.

“It gives a message anyhow,” Woodsmall said. “There will be cases we will be able to prove. With time, as cases are proven and parents are convicted and sentenced, the message will go out even stronger.”

He said that parents already have been prosecuted under other laws for aiding and abetting the crimes of their children. There also exist civil penalties under which parents are fined for damages caused by their children’s criminal behavior, such as graffiti tagging or other acts of vandalism.

Los Angeles City Atty. James K. Hahn added that the law “does not make it a crime for a parent to have tried and failed to keep a child out of gangs. What it does do is recognize that a parent’s inaction in the face of criminal acts . . . by their child is tantamount to approval in that youngster’s eyes.”

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law, expressed disappointment and predicted that the tactic would do little to curb gang activity and other forms of juvenile crime.

“It’s difficult to understand what good putting a parent in jail will do,” said Carol Sobel, who handled the case for the ACLU office in Los Angeles. “Everyone feels frustration with the rising violence in our culture. . . . But it’s unfair to blame poor parents for something that is a failure of our society as a whole.”

Orange County civil rights attorney Ron Talmo said the law represents a growing trend by white middle-class lawmakers to impose their sense of family values on minority communities.

“Say my kid misses school a bunch and engages in graffiti,” Talmo said. “Is the kid a delinquent? From my viewpoint, yeah, . . . but in other communities that’s not necessarily the case.”

Sobel predicted that the law would be used to unfairly target low-income parents in gang-infested areas and said she would bring a new challenge if such a pattern emerges.

“If a kid in Lakewood joins the Spur Posse and rapes 10-year-olds, we will assume he is incorrigible and that the parents did all they could,” Sobel said. “But when it’s a kid in South-Central doing street crime, it’s a different story.”

The law at issue was passed by the Legislature in 1988. The maximum penalty is a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Times staff writer Mark Landsbaum contributed to this story.