Stuck in a dilemma

pphillips

Person_one wrote: »

The bag could have had spare glasses in, or an allowed phone, or an electronic aid for learning as this is a special school.

The point I was making was that none of the things that you mention here were broken, the only thing broken was the banned item and if you bring a banned item into school and it gets broken and that item is expensive, then you have contributed to the damage because you ought to have known better and not brought that item into school in the first place.

Person_one

pphillips wrote: »

The point I was making was that none of the things that you mention here were broken, the only thing broken was the banned item and if you bring a banned item into school and it gets broken and that item is expensive, then you have contributed to the damage because you ought to have known better and not brought that item into school in the first place.

No sorry, I can't agree with that. It wasn't the act of bringing it in that caused it to be destroyed, it was destroyed by another child's deliberate action that would still have been wrong and potentially damaging whether the DS was in there or not. Not knowing there was a DS in the bag does not make it OK to throw it around in a way that anything inside could be damaged.

pphillips

Person_one wrote: »

No sorry, I can't agree with that. It wasn't the act of bringing it in that caused it to be destroyed, it was destroyed by another child's deliberate action that would still have been wrong and potentially damaging whether the DS was in there or not. Not knowing there was a DS in the bag does not make it OK to throw it around in a way that anything inside could be damaged.

So it is your view that its okay to break school rules and you shouldn't have any repercussions because there not important and so you can bring into school whatever you like and expect other parents to pay out in full if it gets damaged by their child.

jackyann

pphilips mentions 'a reasonable child'. It seems to me that one of the huge issues here is that this is a child with special needs.
We don't know the exact condition / diagnosis, but as he attends a special school, a 'reasonable person' would expect that he might not understand about potential damage, be able to control his temper or many other things. This really is very different to a mainstream school or a normal child.

I think that the ban on such items is reasonable, I also think that proper supervision for a distressed child is reasonable. Indeed, I have considerable experience of special schools, and it is unusual for the children not to be supervised at all times.

That does not mean that OP's son should not accept some consequences for his actions - but they must be suitable for his understanding. If I can again draw the comparison with a 2 year old - you wouldn't dock the pocket money of a 2 year old because it wouldn't mean anything to them, you choose a 'consequence' that enables learning.

theoretica

Person_one wrote: »

Not knowing there was a DS in the bag does not make it OK to throw it around in a way that anything inside could be damaged.

Indeed, but I would imagine that most expensive, fragile things are banned so that the learning from when they do get lost or damaged is at a lower financial level.

pphillips

jackyann wrote: »

pphilips mentions 'a reasonable child'. It seems to me that one of the huge issues here is that this is a child with special needs.
We don't know the exact condition / diagnosis, but as he attends a special school, a 'reasonable person' would expect that he might not understand about potential damage, be able to control his temper or many other things. This really is very different to a mainstream school or a normal child.

I think that the ban on such items is reasonable, I also think that proper supervision for a distressed child is reasonable. Indeed, I have considerable experience of special schools, and it is unusual for the children not to be supervised at all times.

That does not mean that OP's son should not accept some consequences for his actions - but they must be suitable for his understanding. If I can again draw the comparison with a 2 year old - you wouldn't dock the pocket money of a 2 year old because it wouldn't mean anything to them, you choose a 'consequence' that enables learning.

It seems that the legal test of 'a reasonable child' is that a child defendant is expected to show the standard of care as can reasonably be expected of an ordinary child of the same age. Very young children are rarely ever liable in negligence as they are not expected to foresee harm or damage so it is usually more suitable for the person who has control over the child to be liable instead.

iammumtoone

pphillips wrote: »

more suitable for the person who has control over the child to be liable instead.

which in this case would be the school.

I think the OP has been fair and reasonable offering half, if they wanted to they could make a stand and refuse to pay anything as they were not responsible for their child at the time of the incident, that would be the school.

If in the unlikely event that the police came knocking or small claims court, they could just stick to the facts, they could not be expected to control/manage their child as they were not there and at the time were not responsible for him.

In the analogy of the two year old breaking something valuable if the parent(s) were with their child at the time it could be said they are responsible at least morally, if the instance happened when the two year old was at nursery there is no way the parents(s) could be held responsible as they were not there to at least have the opportunity to try to prevent it.

FBaby

So does this mean that if the item had been allowed in the school, then it should be paid back. So if the child had come with a £100 coat (silly but allowed) and to annoy the boy, OP's son hid it in a bin and before he could retrieve it, the bin men had taken it, then she should pay?

But because the game is not allowed, then she shouldn't?

Surely the issue here is that her son acted badly and should take responsibility for his actions. Because he is a minor, his parents take the responsibility on his behalf?

I wouldn't think twice debating such a situation if it was my kids who had acted badly. Things like this happen, but I would certainly want them to learn their lesson about responsibility for one own actions by showing them a good example.

It's no surprise kids are growing with the attitude of always trying to defend their actions by putting the responsibility on others if that's what their parents are doing themselves.

iammumtoone

Person_one wrote: »

A better analogy would be that you had put your bag in one of the luggage racks at the end of each carriage, then somebody had picked it up and thrown it around because you'd annoyed them somehow.

not really as you are talking about an adult in that situation (if we were referring to adults I would agree with you) this instance refers to a child who has known learning difficulties so should not have been allowed to be put in a situation where this could occur in the first place. To be fair to the school it seems they did try to prevent instances like this by banning expensive items on school premises.

uberalles

Whether the item was allowed in school or not, it was none of the OP's son business until he chose and made it so, by grabbing the bag that hid it, swinging it around thus breaking the item.

He broke it, his parents pay for it.

Should the school choose to make a fuss about the item that was not allowed then so be it. The child that owned it should be accountable for bringing it to school.