1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Study All parents have a responsibility when it comes to raising their children. Beyond the obvious, such as providing them food, water and clothing along with a nurturing environment, they should be expected to teach their children the right and wrong behaviors that are expected or shunned by society. Responsible parenting involves far more then taking care of a child's basic needs: it requires a mature, adult mind with a genuine desire to raise a child from birth into adulthood by means of teaching responsible, acceptable behavior. This of course takes time, common sense, and a genuine love for the safety and future of ones child. In today's society, parents are consistently using other means, such as childcare centers, schools, video games or the Internet as the sole guiding factors in occupying children's idle time. Parents that tell us they are not responsible for the negative actions of their children are indirectly telling us that they haven't done a vital part of the parenting role: positive teaching. Children do have brains but what influences their brains are their parents. Children spend their child hood with their parents and this inevitably results in the parents influencing their child's thoughts. Children act accordingly to how they think be it a positive way or a negative way The parents have a duty of care towards the child. If you cant look after a child then you should not legally be able to have them. If you have chosen to have a child then it is your responsibility to ensure that they are provided with satisfactory education,

clothing and shelter. If any of these factors are not provided satisfactorily then the childs welfare may be at risk. Also it is your responsibility to speak properly and act reasonably around your child as they tend to mimic parental traits. Even though the parents are good but still they cannot always supervise their own children. Parents must do all, to give their children the tools to keep them out of trouble and on the right path in society. Beside families are the building blocks of the society and generations perpetuate a circle of similar family traits and behavior. There are many environmental influences which continue to arise as the world is getting civilized. However, parents intervention towards their childrens sake was inevitable. No matter how unexpected an action of a child, parents should be the first to recognize it and initiate preventive measures. From that, we can conclude that juvenile are able to break laws because of lack of guidance and assistance of their parents. Generally, adolescents emotions are intense and unstable which gradually contributing to a more complicated and unrestricted deviant behavior. Their inner conflicts and frustrations are the springboard for maladjustments yet there are ways to deal with them constructively. Teenagers must have a person to confide with, here comes the duties of parents or family at large. The precipitating causes of these children breaking the laws are psychological and sociological forces. Prevention of these forces, however, rooted from inadequate home conditions and unsatisfactory parental disciplinary measures. Sibling rivalries may also be one of these home conditions which, in the first part, must have fixed already by parents before it aggravates. It is the responsibility of the parents to enforce rigid control on all forms of adjustments of their children. Delinquency is presently a serious social problem in the Philippines and of other foreign countries. Acts

perpetuated to these children are from minor to grave offenses to society. Minor offenses which had been visible at its very first sprout shall be attended of parents. Therefore, absence of conversation and communication between parent and the child can be regarded as a predisposing factor of law- breaking acts. When different patterns of delinquent behavior are met with parental indifference or neglect and gets away from legal punishment, he/ she is likely to commit more serious crimes. At this point, lawbreaking children has lost track of what is right and what is wrong, and had formed a generalized view that society is a factor that hinders satisfaction and freedom. In attempt to express self- worth, these delinquents indulge in many forms of law- breaking acts. Hostility and non-cooperation among these children are drove from emotional instability which usually preoccupied of attempt to break free and be independent from parental standards. During those times, parents might be attributed as both the cause and to be affected of their deficient. Since children become very critical of anything that displeases them, feelings of persecution and misunderstood typically provoke internal struggles that results to withdraw from social living. The feelings of love, acceptance, security, protection, independence, faith, guidance, and control shall be adequately provided by the parents for childrens emotional needs. Restriction of activities and imposition of punishments may be held as threat to their sense of autonomy and feeling of self- importance that can end to the obliteration of a healthy emotional status. Parents responsibility includes teaching their children to channel impulses into beneficial activities. Family bonding such as weekend-get-together and attending a mass stimulate parental supervision and connection to their children. In some cases, broken homes results in a broken child pertaining to broken family or separation/ death of parent/s has

its point to defend. Child rearing practices of parents are greatly influenced by the manner in which they themselves were reared. This instances has another effort to probe. In such circumstances, it only proved how responsible parent/s are to their childrens behavior either it is good or bad. Statement of the Purpose This study aims to prove on why parents should be held responsible when their child break laws. It also seeks to answer these following questions: 1. Why should parents be held responsible when their child break laws? 2. What are the possible cause/s of inadequate parent- child relationship? 3. What corrective measures should parents and community do for a lawbreaking child? 4. How to deal with these law- breaking children? Significance of the Study This study will give further information on why should parents be held responsible when their child breaks law. It will also be a source of information for parents about the importance of guiding their own child, and also the consequences that may be facing if their child break the law. What are the reasons why some children break the law? It would be an established basis for law professionals and practitioners on how to deal with societal delinquency and to propose potential yet equitable judicial charges. For the society, it would expose necessary explanations behind juvenile delinquents behavior thus, making a harmonious dealing with the situation. Government and private organizations/ agencies may seek extra-judicial process on proper management of delinquents and on imposing counseling to them and to their parents/ families.

Scope and Limitations This research paper was conducted mainly to answer a specific topic which is why should parents be held responsible when their children break laws. This study mainly focus about the subject Parents, Children, and Law. It covers college students, to portray as delinquents as pertain on how they perceived on delinquents behavior, and parents within the college to portray as delinquents parents as pertain on how they experienced to have stubborn children, as the major respondents. It is limited to said respondents, the perceptions regarding parents responsibility towards their children unlawful acts, the status and level of awareness of these social problem in covered area of study, possible cause/s of inadequate parent- child relationship, the possible reason/s of law- breaking acts of children, the most significant factor for its existence in the society, corrective measures should parents and community should do for these law- breaking children, and how to deal with these law- breaking children.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES This chapter deals with the review of literature which includes the conceptual literature, conceptual framework, hypothesis or assumption, and definition of terms. Conceptual Literature Chapter I - Art. 221. of Title IX- Parental Authority under the Family Code of the Philippines states that parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their emancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. Civilly liable includes restitution, reparation, and indemnification for consequential damages. In addition, Republic Act No. 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 - SEC.4 (e) defines "Child in Conflict with the Law" refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws and by which SEC. 12. Clearly refers that the family shall be responsible for the primary nurturing and rearing of children which is critical in delinquency prevention. As far as practicable and in accordance with the procedures of this Act, a child in conflict with the law shall be maintained in his/her family. In accordance therewith, SEC.52 states that the family, particularly the parent(s) of the child in conflict with the law shall endeavor to actively participate in the community-based rehabilitation. Senate Bill 3102, known as an Act penalizing the parents or guardians for torts or crimes committed by their minor children or wards, was filed by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Because they have the primary right to rear their children in the

manner they see fit, parents should also be held responsible for malicious acts committed by their children, Santiago said in her explanatory note in the bill. This bill seeks to penalize the parents or guardians for the tortuous or criminal acts committed by their minor children or wards who are exempt from criminal liability, under Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, she added. Under the bill, the parents or guardians would be held liable in the amount of not less than P50,000 but not more than P100,000 for the damages that are the proximate result of anyone or a combination of the following acts of the minor child or ward: The malicious and willful injury to the person of another; The malicious and willful injury or damage to the property of another, whether the property be real, personal or mixed; The willful taking, stealing and carrying away of the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession; The exploitation of another minor child by using him, directly or indirectly, such as for purposes of begging and other acts which are inimical to his interest and welfare; and The possession, handling, or carrying of a deadly weapon, regardless of its ownership. Santiago pointed out that in the states of Idaho, Maryland, Missouri and Oklahoma in the US, parents are already required to undertake restitution payments. A number of states, she said, have enacted or proposed laws that will automatically hold parents financially responsible for all expenses associated with a second false bomb threat or 911 call made by a child; impose a prison term of up to 18 months and order payment of restitution to any victims if the child commits a serious crime; impose a fine and/or a prison term if a child uses a gun owned by the parent to commit a crime and a fine and/or imprisonment if a child fails to attend school or skips school more than 10

times in a year. In the Philippines minor offenders aged 15 years old and below have no criminal liability. Offenders aged 16 to 17 years old, acting without discernment, are also exempt from criminal liability. Consequently, the offenders are not placed in detention cells but instead referred to rehabilitation centers. The younger ones are returned to their parents or guardians, or in their absence, to the nearest relative, Santiago said. Thus, since the offenders are not arrested or charged in courts, it is believed that the element of accountability is sorely lacking to the detriment of victims of such crimes, she added. Santiago believes that once her proposed bill is passed, parents would spend more time and effort in monitoring the activities of their children when they are fully aware that they will be held personally accountable for their childrens actions, through the payment for damages caused by any minor child, (Maila Ager, Manila Bulletin; Feb.6.2012). One recent study of Ancheta- Templa et.al (2004) concluded that a child in conflict with the law (CICL) should not be deprived of liberty and should not be separated from his/ her family while awaiting mediation, settlement or filing of case, during trials and in jail or custodial centers. Parents primary responsibility is to post bail and integrate judicial process; otherwise, imposition of penalty might occur. James Shaw (Gale Cengage, 2000) affirmed that parents are responsible for all malicious or willful property damage done by their children. Parental liability usually ends when the child reaches the AGE OF MAJORITY and does not begin until the child reaches an age of between eight and ten. Laws vary from state to state regarding the monetary thresholds on damages collected, the age limit of the child, and the inclusion of PERSONAL INJURY in the tort claim. Hawaii was the first state to enact such legislation in 1846, and its law remains one of the most broadly applied in that it does not

limit the financial bounds of recovery and imposes liability for both negligent and intentional torts by underage persons. Laws making parents criminally responsible for the delinquent acts of their children followed civil liability statutes. In 1903, Colorado became the first state to establish the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Today, most states have these types of laws. Children's offenses can be civil and/or criminal in nature. Civil cases are lawsuits for money damages. The government brings criminal cases for violations of criminal law. Many acts can trigger both civil and criminal legal repercussions. According to Oertle (2011), criminal behavior is a specific kind of behavior and has legal ramifications. The word responsible has a precise meaning as well and has both legal connotations and parental fitness implications. In making a judgment about these two specific issues and other parental accountability questions, the determination of relevant factors that make up the answer must be identified and addressed. The parental side of the equation includes: parental control options, child accessibility, time, mental and physical well-being of the child, siblings, family financial conditions, parental health capabilities, child peer interaction, family discipline protocols and perhaps one of the most crucial issues impacting a childs behavior, parental cohesion. A childs side of the equation involves similar issues including: self-control, access to parental input, mental and physical issues, peer resistance and submission capabilities, acceptance of and submission to parental discipline and finally a childs innate determination to either be a positive functioning member of his or her family group or not. Unfortunately, what some childrens defense organizations seem to want to actively ignore is the fact that some children are much more aggressive than others or put in perhaps a more positive light, act

10

out with excessive inquisitively.

But, parents of more than one child know from

experience that each child brings its own set of qualities into a family. Some can be positive and some negative. The parents responsibility is to modify those personality aspects to conform to societal obligations. Perhaps legal ramifications are the easier part of the responsibility issue to answer. The law prescribes certain restitution requirements if the criminal activity is property damage related to and caused by a child below the age of eighteen. A child usually does not have the financial capacity to provide restitution; the parents usually have homeowners insurance that can provide the financial coverage to pay for child-inflicted property damage. Crimes against persons are a whole different criminal issue. The question of whether there is a health or mental issue involving the child and their chemical or DNA make up comes into play. Frequently, mental health care professionals are relied upon to determine if one of these types of issue are affecting the childs behavior. There is a tendency in society today to attempt to alleviate parental blame and put it on some mental issues such as Attention Deficit Disorder. While that type of issue may be a triggering factor, parental responsibility is still the primary element in determining accountability. In any topic like parental responsibility there are exceptions, so the answers have to be addressed in a general, broad-brush way. Crimes against persons by a child generally require a much more intense examination of responsibility. If a parent can be held financially liable, and damages recouped then the responsibility is on them, but the child may still face probation and incarceration if the crimes are severe enough. Thus to answer the legal questions directly, it is a yes and no answer. Parents simply cannot control all actions by an independently acting child, when parents are not available for controlling

11

the childs behavior. But that does not preclude potential parental financial liability, while the child may face court judgment and sentencing. This is the ultimate illustration of the fact that it includes a yes and no response, making both child and parent responsible even if society specifically and legally assigns blame on the parent. It seems unfair to lay all the blame on a parent in most child behavior issues, because every parent and child development professional knows, a child begins to express its independent personal rights and demands from the moment of birth. For some children with

aggressive tendencies, no amount of parental input can necessarily overcome those tendencies, but it can help modify them. There are some assumptions that have to be considered in this treatise. Single parent families have a more difficult time frequently because control of strong-willed children can be particularly difficult and boils down to a two against one confrontation and it helps if a parent has someone to stand with under those circumstances. So, most of the conclusions in this article are based on a two-parent home and is the basic benefit of parental cohesion, or in other words parents acting closely together in prudent unison. Time and parental control options are intertwined. If a parent is not in the home to maintain control of a child it can obviously present problems. A parent cannot maintain control when theyre not home to give directions. But under the proposition that the Captain of the ship is responsible for what the crew does, is laid directly at the feet of the person in charge. Such is the case in child responsibility situations. A sometimes

forgotten factor is the parents health. Most everyone has seen amazingly young children take responsibility for siblings who are frequently only a few years younger than themselves. In catastrophic situations we often see television pictures of very young

12

children taking over care of even younger siblings. It is both heart wrenching and a demonstration of human tenacity and resilience. A parents health can preclude sufficient disciplining. If that is the case, a kind of parental clemency might be considered to mitigate parental responsibility for a childs criminal activity. Peer pressure has never been more important in industrialized societies. Children take advantage of technology, including social networking sites, to keep prying parental eyes off what they are doing. Its another issue that makes it more difficult to determine parental responsibility. Its also why we see constant reminders from religious and child welfare organizations to keep parental eyes on whats being texted or even possibility sexted on a childs Iphone. Even with all the problems inherent in determining responsibility in the criminal behavior of a child, the legal recourse usually falls upon the parent by default. In worst case scenarios, a parent may teach criminal behavior to a child less than eighteen years of age, but generally it remains a legal question under current law. This type of worst case is a parental fitness problem. That does not suspend a parents responsibility in other more general applications, which in some cases may seem unfair, but todays society is a society inclined to assign blame and parents are considered captains of their homes. Like it or not, they are, by law, required to shoulder the responsibility for their children. Greenwood (Helium Journal, 2007) further stated that parents should not be held any more responsible for the crimes of their children, than children should be held responsible for the crimes of their parents. It simply makes no sense to punish one for the crimes of the other. Parenting is not an exact science. Children are not made of electronic parts. Therefore, there is no precise formula or pattern for raising one's children which will guarantee that the child will grow up to be a well-rounded citizen that is a benefit to

13

society. This is for one simple reason: people (this includes children), have free will. A parent can do everything right - give them plenty of attention (but not too much), set strict guidelines (but not too strict), help them with their studies, encourage them to be decent people, provide a good role model, limit what they watch and listen to, and despite all of these things, the children might just end up rebelling and turning to a life of crime. Do you not think that a parent who has a child that grows up to be a criminal is not punished enough? Do you think the parent should have to pay fines or serve jail time on top of that? Parents are not the only people that affect how a child turns out. Other family members, teachers, friends, neighbors, and sadly, even celebrities play a large role in the formation of ideas and thoughts in children. Should all of these people be held to account as well. Should we put 50 cent and Emminem in prison because the people that listen to that music have a higher probability of going to prison? Putting standards to parenting is a difficult process because while we realize that all children should have a right to decent parenting, we also realize that parents should have a right to raise their children. Where do we draw that line, taking away the rights of the parents, in favor of the child? In the most extreme example, we could take all children away from poor parents, whenever there is a wealthy childless couple wanting to adopt. Clearly, the best interests of the child are not the only factor. If we want to add more responsibility to parenting, the answer is not punishing the parents for children's poor behavior - the answer is punishing the parents for their own poor parenting - such as leaving children unattended, not attending parent-teacher conferences - not being involved in their child's lives. But these are not easy to enforce. But the solution does not stop there. The fact of the matter is that there will always be some children with negligent

14

parents. Rather than punish everyone involved, let's make sure that we have a society and an environment able to compensate for those that do not have the upbringing that every child deserves. Let's have the teachers recognize those students and give them special attention. Let's get more involved in our communities and set up programs where all children can feel accepted and cared for. These are the steps a progressive society takes. Putting the parents of ill-behaved children in prison isn't going to help anyone. Even the self-righteous taxpayer wanting such a policy in place, will eventually end up paying more taxes as a result of the enforcement of such policies. Being a good parent doesn't come at the end of a gun, nor with the threat of prison or fines. Being a good parent, comes from having a lot of time, patience, love and understanding - qualities that cannot be forced into someone. Conceptual Framework To have a strong groundwork of this study, relevant and related literatures were reviewed. From the literature above, concepts of agreement and disagreement to the anticipated topic were verified. It is evident that there are numerous studies and theories which support this endeavor. However, most of these are foreign yet modernized, therefore, further researches are crucial to help local viewpoint towards parents responsibility to his/ her child/rens delinquency and/ or deviant behavior. From the researchers viewpoint, parent is held responsible towards their children who broke the law/s since they knew the possibilities of their actions. Also, the literatures discussed more on the concepts of making the parents responsible when their children break laws. Each has an underlying principle to upkeep their rationales embedded from extensive investigations, others rooted from experiences. It mainly results to the creation of laws

15

concerning the need of imposing punishment to offenders and of taking protective measures to delinquents. The major variables of the study are college students who will portray being delinquents and parents who will also portray being delinquents parent. Both variables are of same distribution. Hypothesis or Assumption There is no significant relationship between parents responsibility and their children breaking the law/s. Definition of Terms Restitution. state programs under which an offender is required, as a condition of his or her sentence, to repay money or donate services to the victim or society; with respect to maritime law, the restoration of articles lost by jettison, done when the remainder of the cargo has been saved, at the general charge of the owners of the cargo; in the law of torts, or civil wrongs, a measure of damages; in regard to contract law, the restoration of a party injured by a breach of contract to the position that party occupied before she or he entered the contract. Reparation. is replenishment of a previously inflicted loss by the criminal to the victim. Monetary restitution is a common form of reparation. Indemnification. refers either to the protection given to a party from suffering any losses through forms of compensation for losses or damages, often in relation to a legal contract or to both the pre-loss guarantee of compensation and the compensation itself. The most common type of indemnity is insurance.

16

Parental liability. term used to refer to a parent's obligation to pay for damage done by negligent, intentional, or criminal acts of that parent's child.

17

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter deals with research and procedures. Consist of research design, research local, samples and sampling techniques used, and instrumentation. Research Design The study used descriptive- analytic as the research method for data-gathering procedure because it is the most accessible and has thorough system of explaining the issue by defining contexts and variables in order to construct a detailed instrument to be used enough to discriminate the environment of delinquents. Research Local The respondents of the study are obtained from the college itself both the child and parents. The College has a lively and educable environment. The research local has an available variety of information provider such as electronic and reference libraries, activities for latest issues in local and foreign concerns, and presently but minimally occurring incidents of delinquent behaviors in nearby areas. The environment has an atmosphere of real delinquency. Samples and Sampling Techniques Used The study choose College Engineering Students to portray as juvenile delinquents and eligible parents within the campus, such as professors, parents-in-waiting, store owners, office personnels, and maintenance staff, to portray as parents of delinquents, both as the respondents of same questionnaire. Sampling technique includes statistical formula of Slovens to obtain the representative sample of all eligible respondents.

18

Bibliography A. Books Siruno, Rufino S. Siruno, Edgar V. (1978), Child Growth and Development. Rex Book Store. 856 Nicanor Reyes. Sr, St. 1977 C.M. Recto Avenue Manila, Philippines. Siegel, Larry J. Welsh, Brandon C. Senna, Joseph J. Juvenile Deliquency B. Internet http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/publications/violence/davao.pdf http://www.enotes.com/family-law-reference/parent-liability-child-s-act http://www.helium.com/debates/69697-should-parents-be-held-responsiblefor-their-minor-childrens-criminal-behavior/side_by_side http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2006/ra_9344_2006.html http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/140625/senate-bill-seeks-to-penalize-parents-forcrimes-of-minor-children

19

CURRICULUM VITAE Christian Eric Adan De Torres Pinagbayanan San Juan, Batangas 0919- 994-4486 PERSONAL DATA Birthdate: September 10, 1996 Birthplace: San Juan, Batangas Citizenship: Filipino Religion: Roman Catholic Height: 55 FAMILY BACKGROUND Father: Domingo G. De Torres Mother: Irma A. De Torres SCHOLASTIC RECORDS Tertiary: Batangas State University (2011- present) Secondary: Joseph Marello Institute (2007- 2011) Elementary: Pinagbayanan Elementary School (2000- 2007) Occupation: BATELEC employee Occupation: Elementary teacher Weight: 55 kgs. Age: 17 Sex: Male Civil status: Single