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.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
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?