Son damaged neighbours car. Advice please

Broken_hearted

A seven year old knows it's wrong to throw bricks.

morg_monster

it is ridiculous painting this kid as a malicious vandal. When i was 7 i used a needle to scratch my name into the plastic cover on our church noticeboard ... all my own doing. I was really proud of what i had done, so i went to tell Dad. He was fairly gobsmacked that his daughter who he thought was a pretty bright, sunday-school attending kid had done something so stupid! I genuinely didn't see what the problem was... although i did know right from wrong and i knew that, say, drawing on a book was wrong, and pinching someones crisps without asking was wrong. When my dad pointed out it was a really naughty thing to do, I was absolutely mortified. I just don't know why i didn't think it was wrong as i was doing it!!!

the outcome of the story is dad paid for the plastic to be replaced, and I learned another lesson. Oh and i'm a model citizen and taxpayer now btw!

Kids that age - even the best behaved ones - just sometimes don't think! they don't always link cause and effect. These boys just thought it'd be fun to chuck some stuff over a wall. They didn't think that it could cause a problem. They probably were only interested in the immediate fun of chucking bricks over a wall. Although I'm sure if you asked them they would know it was wrong to throw a brick AT something (as brokenhearted says above), well thats not what they thought they were doing. they weren't throwing a brick AT anything, just over a wall. I think that is simply the fact of being 7 years old with a not totally developed brain and not much experience of life. Remember its these two same things which means kids have such brilliant imaginations, so don't knock it too much. I'm sure many smart clever kids have done similarly stupid things in their younger years which are then immortalised as a family joke much to their embarrassment for the next 10, 20 or 30 years... (like me...)

chuckles1066

loftus wrote: »

As has been pointed out the children are way below the age of criminal responsibility so negligence doesn't come into it.

No-one has mentioned "criminal" responsibility?

No-one has mentioned that the act of a 7 year old throwing a brick over a 6 foot fence was a criminal act.

Negligent, for sure. Culpable, definitely.

To anyone still reading, here's one for you; start a new post (a yes/no poll if you please) asking "should parents be held responsible for the actions of *their* offspring or should totally unrelated, random, innocent outsiders ultimately find that they can somehow be deemed to be responsible"?

Go on, I dare someone.

Broken_hearted

Yes chuckle they should, I'm sick to death of teenagers being allowed to trash the place and get away with only being children.
The youngest person to be found guilty of a criminal act was four thats a bit OTT but childrenarn't as incapable as understanding concepts as they are made out to be.

morg_monster

chuckles - which totally unrelated, random, innocent outsider has been found that they have been deemed responsible for the actions of this child in this case?

nearlyrich

I am all for parents taking responsibility for the shortcomings of their children as is the OP, indeed that was the thrust of my first post on the thread.;)

anguk

chuckles1066 wrote: »

What if the brick had been a bottle filled with petrol and set alight before being thrown? Negligence or playful high spirits? In such a case, should someone else pay?

Goodness me, we've gone from a 7 year old boy larking about with his friend to a yob lobbing Molatov cocktails around :rotfl:

As far as I can see the OP is taking responsibility for her child, she is going to halve the cost with the other boys mother. If her household insurance covers it then fair enough that's what she's been paying her premiums for. Any damage is going to be repaired at no cost to the car owner and the OP has made sure that her child has learnt his lesson so I don't see what the problem is.

loftus

Broken_hearted wrote: »

Yes chuckle they should, I'm sick to death of teenagers being allowed to trash the place and get away with only being children.
The youngest person to be found guilty of a criminal act was four thats a bit OTT but childrenarn't as incapable as understanding concepts as they are made out to be.

The youth of today blah blah blah.....

Heard the same thing about teddy boys, mods and rockers etc etc

We used to transport or hang people for stealing a loaf of bread - some of those were pretty young as well.

Maybe we should send them back up the chimneys......

snowmaid

chuckles1066 wrote: »

You mean "someone else should pay"?

Yep, that's about right.

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for the actions of your children?

It's a sound concept............it was important in the generation that I was brought up in.

From what I read it seems as if her boy and the neighbors son were playing together with the bricks, therefore each having a part in it, therefore each parent responsible?

misty

I read the OP's question when it was posted yesterday but as I didn't know the answer regarding the insurance, I didn't reply.

However, as soon as I saw the comment about the children playing with bricks, I thought it won't be long to until people start offering their opinions on the OP's parenting skills or the decline of childrens' behaviour - and I was right.

The OP didn't ask about anything other than the insurance question but as usual there are always people ready to stick their oar in with their opinion. Do you think anyone ever alters their behaviour as a result of an unrequested comment from a stranger? I don't think so - it is the person who makes the comment who fulfills some sad need in making a comment they hope will make someone else feel !!!!!!. Overall, the people on this forum are fantastically helpful. Sometimes people ask for opinions and then have to listen to things they may prefer not to but people who jump in with unasked for, judgemental criticisms are only helping themselves.