Stuck in a dilemma

iammumtoone

Person_one wrote: »

What if it were an adult with a learning disability that meant they were equally lacking in understanding as a child might be? Would you be fine with having your stuff destroyed or would you expect the parent/carer of the person to offer to pay to replace it?

Valid point. Yes I would expect the carer who was in charge of the person at the time to be held responsible. As I have mentioned before in the case of the OP the carer who had responsibility of the child at the time was the school not the OP. The OP could not have prevented the situation as they were not there, hence why I don't think they should be held 100% liable.

pphillips

iammumtoone wrote: »

Valid point. Yes I would expect the carer who was in charge of the person at the time to be held responsible. As I have mentioned before in the case of the OP the carer who had responsibility of the child at the time was the school not the OP. The OP could not have prevented the situation as they were not there, hence why I don't think they should be held 100% liable.

The OP has no liability as they could not have prevented the damage from happening, the only person who could be liable in part or in whole is the school or the child who caused the damage.

FBaby

If my son took a ds into school and it got broken I would blame myself for letting him take it in the first place, more so if it was against the school rules.

I think the issue is you are confusing the two circumstances. The first one is that the child brought a game he wasn't allowed to and that should be punished. I personally think that if the game was in a bag that was on a peg that was not to be touched, the rules were not really broken, but even if we consider that it was, surely the person who broke the rule is his mum not him, and it is his mum who should be punished, not him (unless mum said no and he sneaked it in the bag anyway).

However, the punishment that should come from this is in no way related to the punishment the child deserves for breaking it. The fact that he broke something that shouldn't be there doesn't make him 1/2 less responsible for breaking it in the first place. As said, if it was very expensive glasses that he broke, glasses that were allowed, would that make him more responsible? It's his actions that need punishing regardless of the circumstances.

I really have an issue with people who try to find faults in others to excuse their own actions. It reminds me of a local recent accident where a young lad bumped into an old couple crossing a road (thankfully not harmed seriously) and his statement was that it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't taken so long to cross the road! Really??

Marvel1

LKRDN_Morgan wrote: »

Can only assume those encouraging you to go down the route of 'well it shouldn't have been there in the first place' are obviously the type who take no responsibility for their actions.

No doubt if for example they parked where it shouldn't and got hit by another driver they would be demanding the other driver pays or that drivers insurance.

FBaby

cjdavies wrote: »

No doubt if for example they parked where it shouldn't and got hit by another driver they would be demanding the other driver pays or that drivers insurance.

Depends. The highway code is clear that it is every driver responsibility to be aware of anything on the road.

If the car is parked illegally, but doing so doesn't make it more difficult for drivers to navigate, yet someone hits it because they were being careless, then yes, the driver should pay fully.

If the car was parked in such a way that an accident was inevitable, the owner of the car park should be fully responsible.

The situation the OP describes falls under the former analogy.

kingfisherblue

People are talking about consequences for the OP's child. Whilst I agree that there should be consequences, it should depend on the nature of the child's ability to understand and should be as soon after the incident as possible. If it were my son, and he was punished three weeks later (I'm using three weeks as some people have mentioned Christmas), then he simply would not understand why he was being punished as the incident would have gone from his mind by then.

Perhaps an important point for the OP is to query why her child is allowed out of the classroom unsupervised when he needs to calm down. I'm not saying he shouldn't leave the classroom, but if he is in a temper, then he needs supervision to ensure that his rage is not directed at someone or something (as it was in this case - the bag). My own child is allowed to leave the classroom to go tot he toilet unsupervised, but there are children in his SEN school that are escorted to the toilets because of behavioural issues (the TAs do not go into the toilet, but they wait for the child to finish and then escort them back to the classroom).

Moving forward, the OP needs to speak to the school about what happens when her son needs to calm down. Evidently, he cannot be allowed to roam the corridor outside the classroom without supervision. Next time, he could harm himself or another child. It seems that the school are fully aware that there is a need for time out of the classroom, so they should address this. The OP can quite clearly point out the problem that has been created as a result of lack of supervision.

Additionally, if there is an ongoing concern over bullying, the OP needs to speak to the school. There are plenty of staff in special schools, and there should be sufficient supervision to ensure that any bullying is nipped in the bud. The lowest concentration of staff that I have seen in a special school is one teacher and one TA in a class of ten children, but usually there would be either an extra TA or fewer pupils.

Someone mentioned the age of criminal responsibility being ten years. Whilst legally this is correct, the children concerned are unlikely to have a level of understanding reflecting that of a 'normal' or average ten year old - after all, they are in a special school for a reason. However, it is never too early to teach children that they should respect the belongings of another person. A bad temper and an inability to control that temper is not a good reason to kick someone's bag, whether they know the contents or not. I know several children who have meltdowns, but generally they do not touch the possessions of another person.

There has been an agreement for a second hand console to be purchased by the OP, and for it to be after Christmas, so I think that she should honour that and replace as soon as possible. Perhaps she could use a credit card or borrow from family to pay for one as soon as possible. Personally, I would rather it was replaced before Christmas, so that it wasn't hanging over me.

Acquinas

The police can't do a thing. And there is a reason why schools ask parents not be bring valuables into school. Don't sweat it. Kids do this all the time.