Punishing Kids for Parent's Wrongs??

[MA-Caver]

Paying for the Sins of the Parent
Should Children Be Held Responsible for What Their Parents Do?
By BILL WEIR and MELLEN O'KEEFE
May 17, 2008

A Massachusetts Little League team suspended a 7-year-old boy because his mother missed her shift at a concession stand, leading some critics to question whether the child should really have to pay for the sins of his parent.
A new program enables parents to get real-time updates on kids' grades.

"It's my fault. I get it. I really do," said Freetown, Mass., mother Jodie Hooper, whose son will not be allowed to compete in the next two games because of her failure to staff the league's refreshment stand. "Being suspended means the child did something wrong. The child didn't do anything wrong. That's where I'm having an issue with it."

video http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=7861107
Story http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4876777

This is totally wrong I feel, and agree with the psychologist in the video that the child has NOTHING to do with what the parent does or doesn't do. That the boy has to sit on the bench because his mother couldn't fulfill her "obligation" to take care of the concession booth during one of the games is wrong.
I'd like this thread to focus on the main story rather the "flip-side" where the parent is punished for the child's actions (or lack of action as in the case discussed in the video as well).
Parents are ultimately responsible for everything that happens to/with their children until they are old enough to assume the responsibility themselves, whatever that responsibility may be. Feeding, clothing, getting to school, studying, and other base needs. As the child gets older the parent gives more and more of the responsibility to the child but with supervision so that they can learn to assume it without supervision.
Playing in ball games (if the child chooses to do so) is part of growing up for many people. The parent's responsibility in that as far as I can see is to make sure the child attends practices/games, has a clean uniform, has the personal equipment necessary to participate and so forth. Of course there are many ways teams help the parents with these needs: group rides, fund-raisers/sponsors for uniforms, etc. But either way that's the extent. Parents do need to get involved with the kids' activity so it creates a better, stronger bond between them and their child and it helps raises the child's self esteem because the one they love cares about their involvement in whatever it may be they're in... baseball, basketball, martial arts, lacrosse... whatever.
But parents have their own lives to live and they do have to attend to their own responsibilities towards the whole of the family unit.
Signing a contract that obligates for a job/career is important and does have weighty consequences if not met.
The parent that agrees to help out on a little league team for their children's sake should be obligated as far as they can go if their primary obligations aren't needing attention.
In this case the woman was "stuck" at work. That is a primary obligation and cannot be shirked for the sake of the little league's fund-raiser. Her family comes first and foremost. If it were a sick child would she be excused? According to the (coach?) she wouldn't have... and her son is still "punished" because of it.
Your thoughts/feelings/ideas on this matter?
For those of you who have children and have children involved in team sports (related to school or not) are you under any "contract obligation" to help out with the team's activities or are expected to help out just because your kid is on the team? Do you volunteer as much as you can?

 

[Kacey]

I think that, in this case, the wrong action was taken. The article doesn't say what the mother did (if anything) to notify the league that she would be unable to leave work to run the concession stand, and I understand that that is a revenue source - but I still think that you have to maintain your primary source of income before you worry about fund raisers for your child's activities. I find the Little League's response to be inappropriate and overly punitive toward the child.

I find the second issue raised in the article to be more problematic.

Judge David Niehaus of Butler County, Ohio, Juvenile Court last week sentenced Hamilton, Ohio, father Brian Gegner to six months in jail after his daughter Brittany Gegner failed to complete her court mandated GED courses.

Niehaus blamed Brian Gegner for his daughter's truancy.

"I'm about to be 19 and I mean my dad's getting punished for something I did when I was 16. I should [be punished] if anybody [is going to] be punished for this. I would way rather me go to jail than my dad," Brittany said.

First, this is the other side of the coin; the parent was being held liable for something the child did (or, in this case, didn't do) - which, in general, I agree with - children are a parent's responsibility to raise properly, and the children's actions ultimately reflect on the parent. However, in this case, the young woman took responsibility for her actions, and is legally old enough to do so - but her father was still punished. That part I have a problem with. Had he been sent to jail or sanctioned in some other fashion immediately - when his daughter was 16 and it was his legal responsibility to have her in school, that would be different. But to punish him 2 years later, when she is legally an adult - that I do have a problem with, given the circumstances listed.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Personal thoughts only but if the kid was there for the game, shows up to practice and games then he/she should be allowed to play. Little league was not made for the parents it was made for the kids. Let the kids play

The parents commitment to the snack bar has little to do with the kid playing unless he was not there because the parent failed to get him there. Even then it was the parents fault not the kids so let him/her play. What happens to the parent is between the parent and those running the snack bar.
Sounds like they want to punish the child because they made less money.

 

[terryl965]

All little league teams are getting to be ridicukous at best punishing a child because mom could not make it to the snack bar, what is next no child can go to school if the parents work. These leagues make it hard on a parent. When my two son's played football I was told to pay this amount for equioment games and practice. Then after signing them up they came back and said every set of parents needed to donate forty hour for fundraising. I said I paid so why do I need to fund raise? and was told because the leagues does not have enough money to be runned. Well after further digging the presidents was recieving a salary of 30,000 to run the league and every board member was making money. So much doing it for the child.

 

[tshadowchaser]

so much for volunteers and doing it for the kids

 

[Andy Moynihan]

NOTHING that happens in Massachusetts surprises me.

 

[MA-Caver]

All little league teams are getting to be ridicukous at best punishing a child because mom could not make it to the snack bar, what is next no child can go to school if the parents work. These leagues make it hard on a parent. When my two son's played football I was told to pay this amount for equipment games and practice. Then after signing them up they came back and said every set of parents needed to donate forty hour for fund raising. I said I paid so why do I need to fund raise? and was told because the leagues does not have enough money to be runned. Well after further digging the presidents was receiving a salary of 30,000 to run the league and every board member was making money. So much doing it for the child.

Now that is just wrong. Board members shouldn't be making money off of little leagues no matter what. Parents need to stand up and fight this. Basically you're paying for the president's salary and putting money in the board's pocket. That is just wrong.
Coaches and staff should perhaps receive a stipend for gas to travel to/from practices/games but that's about it. They do because they WANT to do. They do because they want to believe that what they're doing is helping kids understand team-work and cooperative play and sportsmanship. They do because it's also fun and fun for the kids. Money should be the last priority and incentive involved. What happened to sponsorship? Local community businesses contributing to these teams?

 

[Cryozombie]

How many Martial Arts schools, however, do this to their students as well?

Mom gets little billy there late for class... Little billy has to be diciplined with Pushups for being late, or made to sit out until the teacher calls him in? Its a common practice I have seen for showing a lack of respect by arriving late, even tho its clearly the parents fault in many cases.

 

[Kacey]

How many Martial Arts schools, however, do this to their students as well?

Mom gets little billy there late for class... Little billy has to be diciplined with Pushups for being late, or made to sit out until the teacher calls him in? Its a common practice I have seen for showing a lack of respect by arriving late, even tho its clearly the parents fault in many cases.

In such cases, I offer the parent the opportunity to do the pushups instead... whether they do or not, the point is made that the person who caused the student to be late is the one at fault - and I've had much less in the way of problems that way than any other method I've tried.

 

[MJS]

The article didn't say why the mom blew off the shift. Is it the kids fault? Probably not. Is it the kids fault when they're late for Karate class? Depends. Maybe the kid doesnt feel like going, the parent is telling the kid to go but the kid is taking their time, etc. next thing ya know...the kid walks in late. When that happened at a class that I was teaching, kid or adult, sure, they were still allowed to join in the class...after they warmed up. Was it a punishment? Depends on how you view it. I stated that they had to warm up before they could join in. Why shouldn't they? Afterall, the rest of the class had to warm up. So, I'd give them a set amount of things to do, but I didn't give the impression it was a punishment.

In this case however, I'd say let the kid play, but get rid of the parent. I'm sure there are many others would could fill in. In the end though, its really the kid that suffers, because they're not learning how to be responsible. If they see mom and dad slack off, they're going to learn from that.

 

[punisher73]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here...

Let's say hypothetically, the mother signs her son up to play ball and is a little short what it costs. The coach allows her son to still come to practice and play in some games. The deadline comes for the extension she was given and she still doesn't have the money to pay. The coach has to cut the child from the team. The child is still being punished for the mother's actions, or lack thereof. Is it right or wrong in this situation?

She entered into the contract ahead of time knowing that she works on the same day as games. Did she call the coach and ask to reschedule her volunteer time as soon as she found out she was at work? Did she try to get someone else to fill her spot and then work a different day?

If the league DEPENDS (as opposed to the story of people lining their pockets with the money) on concession money to keep the league running, what if there were no penalty for not fullfilling what you agreed to? Would it be fair then, when parents start to blow off working it because there are no consequenses, and they have to shut the league down for all of the kids because there is no money to keep it going?

It sucks for the kid involved in this, but I can see both sides of the coin in this argument.

 

[CoryKS]

That's a good point, Punisher. If the child's play was contingent upon the mom's participation, then the league has a justification for sitting the kid out. If there is no such agreement, then they were wrong to punish the kid. Sounds to me like someone enjoys the sweet taste of power.

 

[ktaylor75]

My son plays littlte league baseball in Massachusetts and we sign a contract that states clearly what the penalty is if we miss our assigned snack bar shift...your child has to sit on the bench for one game. I might not agree with the punishment, but nonetheless, that is their policy and by signing the agreement, I am responsible for the consequences if I do not show up. Also, at the time of registration, there is a "buy out" option if one does not want to fulfill an obligation to snack bar duty. Anyway, that is just my 2-cents, for whatever it is worth.

 

[terryl965]

My son plays littlte league baseball in Massachusetts and we sign a contract that states clearly what the penalty is if we miss our assigned snack bar shift...your child has to sit on the bench for one game. I might not agree with the punishment, but nonetheless, that is their policy and by signing the agreement, I am responsible for the consequences if I do not show up. Also, at the time of registration, there is a "buy out" option if one does not want to fulfill an obligation to snack bar duty. Anyway, that is just my 2-cents, for whatever it is worth.

My problem is this it is not about the money these organization can make but about teaching our childern a game. Since when does a parent need to do more than pay for the services that are given.