Do parental responsibility laws prevent delinquency An international perspective.

1
Do parental responsibility laws prevent
delinquency? An international perspective.

• Elizabeth Burney
• Hon.Senior Research Fellow
• Cambridge Institute of Criminology

2
Focus on parenting

• Traditional importance of wise parenting
• Modern demand for support and know-how
• Government-sponsored training
• Crime prevention is one aim

3
Poor parenting as a risk factor

• Academic evidence that harsh, inconsistent or
  negligent parenting is a risk factor in
  delinquency
• E.g. Farrington et al (Cambridge) Patterson et
  al (Oregon Social Learning Centre) Loeber,
  Pittsburgh study

4
typical quote

• Pattersons careful observation of
  parent-child interaction showed that the parents
  of anti-social children were deficient in their
  methods of child-rearing. These parents failed to
  tell their children how they were expected to
  behave, failed to monitor the behaviour to ensure
  that it was desirable, and failed to enforce
  rules promptly and unambiguously with appropriate
  rewards and penalties. The parents of anti-social
  children used more punishment (such as scolding,
  shouting or threatening) but failed to make it
  contingent on the childs behaviour. (Farrington
  2007

5
Public opinion blames parents

• 80 believe parents responsible for childrens
  anti-social and criminal behaviour
• 53 thought that parents not bringing up their
  children appropriately caused anti-social
  behaviour
• 55 thought that better parenting would do most
  to reduce crime
• 80agree that parents should be held responsible
  for the bad behaviour of their children and
  should be made to take help if need be.
• (Government sponsored Mori opinion poll, Britain
  2006)

6
Governments follow popular and academic opinion
with PRLs

• How far justified?
• How far effective?

7
Two categories civil and criminal

• Civil liability demands parental restitution for
  harm or damage caused deliberately by children.
  Found in for example
• All or most states in America
• 3 Canadian provinces
• All or most Australian states
• Enacted in Britain for parents of children too
  young to be prosecuted. Has been piloted.
• Aim better supervision.

8
PRLs in USA

• Civil liability commonest.
• Criminal responsibility at first limited to
  parents who had abetted childs offence or been
  grossly negligent. Justification child welfare.
• Following California 1994 law directed at gang
  violence, in many states parents made answerable
  for not exercising sufficient supervision or
  control. Justification public protection
• Punishments range from small fines to
  imprisonment
• Parental training sometimes part of sentence,
  sometimes alternative to.

9
PRLs in Britain(England and Wales Scotland
slightly different)

• 1991 parents obliged to attend court with child
  made responsible for childrens fines sureties
  can be demanded parents can forfeit up to 1,000
  if they fail to take care and control of
  delinquent children. Extended in 1994 to ensure
  child obeys order of court.
• 1998 New Labour enacts Parenting Order (P.O.) A
  civil order which becomes criminal if breached.
  Parent of child convicted of crime or given ASBO
  or sex offender order or parent prosecuted for
  not ensuring school attendance
• gets up to 3 months counselling or training and
  may have other obligations for up to a year. Not
  automatic court discretion.

10
Britain continued

• The new Parental Compensation order
• Parents not normally liable for harm/damage by
  children. This imposes liability on parents of
  children too young to prosecuted, but who have
  acted deliberately.
• Aggrieved parties can apply to local council who
  will ask magistrates to make an order for payment
  up to 5,000
• Alternative methods of resolution, eg mediation,
  advised first, also means of parents considered.

11
Spreading the net

• Growing emphasis on local agencies, not just
  youth justice teams, being qualified to applied
  for P.Os. Social landlords and schools. Teachers
  refuse to use POs for misbehaving children but
  schools do use voluntary agreements with parents,
  and fixed penalty notices for truancy.
• Youth Offending Teams can now apply for POs if a
  child is believed to be anti-social or criminal
  but has not been brought to court.

12
Human rights?

• 2003 a test case declares although the PO is an
  infringement of private family life (Art. 8) it
  is justified as necessary.
• It is not in breach of the right to a fair trial
  (Art. 6) as it is a matter of evaluation.
• R(M) v Inner London Crown Court 2003 (EWHC 301
  Admin

13
Other examples

• Australia Parental restitution laws in all
  states but research suggests little used or
  enforced
• New South Wales and Western Australia have a
  version of the parenting order
• Recent legislation puts parental responsibility
  in context of child protection
• Netherlands Training can be enforced on
  delinquent families through welfare agencies,
  with sanction of reduced welfare cheque for
  refusal.
• Belgium Controversial new law to be described by
  next speaker.

14
Justifications for PRLs.

• Civil liability probably OK if not a substitute
  for punishment. Means of parents and degree of
  negligence must be taken into account.
• Criminal or quasi-criminal responsibility
• Demands greater justification
• Least controversial where parent clearly connived
  at crime or was grossly negligent
• More controversial where invoked as means of
  public protection with few defences available.

15
The Parenting Order and public protection

• Not justified for following reason
• The key flaw is that, although 10 years is the
  minimum age for criminal responsibility in
  England and Wales, it is also the maximum age for
  any soundly proven effect of parental training on
  the future criminality of a child. The test case
  which assumed otherwise was informed by
  government-sponsored research (Ghate and Ramella
  2002) now admitted to be flawed.
• Therefore there is no firm foundation for
  imposing P.Os for the purpose of public
  protection.

16
Early years parental training

• In contrast there is a wealth of evidence from
  academic studies that parental support and
  training in earlier years (birth to eight) has
  benign effects later on, in educational
  achievement and criminal behaviour.
• No comparable evidence for the parents of
  adolescents, except perhaps for a few very
  intensive studies, not widely replicable.

17
In favour of POs

• Evidence that parents forced to attend appreciate
  the training as much as those attending groups
  voluntarily.
• Anecdotal evidence that parents feel less
  isolated, more empowered, and have better
  relationships with their teenagers
• Relationships are important in promoting
  desistance. This effect needs testing. Nothing
  yet to prove it is the key to reducing crime.

18
Finally

• PRLs are a crude instrument for enforcing better
  care and supervision of children. Fall most
  heavily on poor single mothers.
• Best when combined with support services and
  recognition of stresses which hamper good
  parenting.

19
And anyway.

• Despite all the rhetoric, PRLs are seldom firmly
  enforced or severely punished
• relatively few imposed in Britain, and breaches
  are rarely prosecuted. Parents on POs greatly
  outnumbered by other parents of delinquents who
  attend voluntarily.
• In US fines set low and often seen as not worth
  prosecution
• Some evidence from Australia on non-enforcement
  on poor families.

20
Conclusion

• PRLs are largely symbolic.
• Public blames parents for delinquency and wants
  action.
• But politically PRLs represent an upholding of
  values rather than a genuine tool of crime
  prevention.