Vandalism Bill Could Break Parent

Most of us accept this simple rule of engagement: your 8-year-old throws a baseball through a neighbor’s window, you fork over the dough.

But what if your child’s misdeed runs into the thousands of dollars? What if the “child” is 16 years old and had shown previously he could conduct himself responsibly? Should parents get socked financially for something their teenager did on a one-night binge?

The law says yes.

But like a lot of laws that want to order society into neat answers to difficult questions, it’s flawed. It sounds right to hold parents accountable for their children, but what about real life?

Is a teenager nothing more than an extension of the parent? Is it OK to ding the parents because, presumably, only rotten parenting could produce such a child?

I don’t buy it.

I buy it even less after talking to the single, working mother of one of four young men, including three juveniles, accused of a massive Orange County vandalism spree that resulted in an estimated $100,000 in damage.

The district attorney’s office, invoking the law regarding parental responsibility, is considering holding the parents liable for some or all of the damages.

I ask the single mother what responsibility she bears for her 16-year-old son’s actions.

“Oh my God,” she says, sighing, and then letting the words spill out. “It’s such an awful thing. I just don’t know, OK? I realize to some degree parents are responsible for what their kids do, but once they reach a certain age and they’ve proven to be trustworthy, which my son has, he’s never done anything like this; no trouble with the law, he’s a great student, teachers love him, he’s very involved in his church and youth group. He has shown he’s caring and compassionate. Who would ever think he’d do something like this?”

The woman, whose name is being withheld to protect her juvenile son’s identity, is a receptionist. She lives with her son and a daughter. Her ex-husband lives with their other daughter.

The district attorney’s office, while not making it official, has told her she may be liable for as much as $25,000, she says.

“That exceeds my annual income,” she says. “What am I supposed to do? This thing is consuming my life . . . I feel real bad my son did this.”

She could blame his actions on peer pressure, but she knows it probably won’t help. And, to me, that isn’t the issue.

To reverse the biblical edict, should the sins of the children be visited upon the parents?

“I don’t even have cable TV,” she says. “I don’t have credit cards, I don’t own a computer, we’re barely making it. At one time, we were in a shelter, we crawled our way back up to have our own place, I have a full-time job, I have a car now, I used to take the bus to work. We’re crawling back to living normally. Having this hit threatens to shake my whole world.”

Nor does she disdain the issue of parental responsibility. “As soon as this happened, I said, ‘Oh, my God, what did I do wrong as a parent?’ ”

But she refuses to condemn herself. She thinks she’s been a good parent. “I don’t know what I would say if it were someone else’s kid who did it. I only know there’s a certain amount of control over kids at a certain age. It’s a hard question.”

Bob Gannon, Orange County assistant district attorney in charge of juvenile court, says he has no trouble linking teen behavior and parental culpability and says the Legislature backs him up. He agreed to speak in general terms about the law and not specifically about this mother and son.

“I’ve never seen a case where a parent deliberately condones vandalism,” he says. “It’s safe to say most parents are upset and shocked and offended by that kind of conduct. So, no parent is going to say they authorized this type of conduct. But it’s almost the equivalent of society, through the Legislature, saying, ‘If you’re a parent, you have responsibility for the conduct of your child up to the time they reach adulthood.’ ”

I ask Gannon, the father of three and one of 10 children himself, if that isn’t a scary thought for parents.

“I think it would be scary if you’ve not invested the appropriate time and effort through the formative years, and if you recognized you haven’t put in what is required to minimize the risk of a problem down the road.

“But if you have devoted time and attention, then while you know there are no guarantees, by the time your son or daughter is 17 or 18, you should have some level of confidence that they’ll be law-abiding and responsible members of society.”

Juvenile court studies show, he says, a connection between anti-social behavior and family dysfunction or lack of parental supervision.

I don’t really argue with what Gannon says. It sounds logical.

Except that life isn’t always that simple. You don’t have to be a crummy parent to have a child screw up.

Do you exact justice by throwing a single parent and her children into financial peril for a teen’s mistake?

If that sounds right, then something’s wrong.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821, by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail at dana.parsons@latimes.com.