Main Topic Parents should be responsible for their childrens actions

Side affirmative
1st Affirmative Speaker 1
Introduction
Mrs. Teacher Name, fellow debaters, ladies and gentlemen, good evening, my name is
XXXXXXXX. Before I put forward my case, I would like to present todays motion, welcome to
this side of the house. We the proposition strongly believe that Parents should be responsible for
the actions of their children.
Before we come to our actual augmentation let us first present some interesting facts that identify
the result of inappropriate parenting practices. An article published by the International Parenting
Association revealed that at least 130,000 juveniles were arrested for major violent crimes for the
period 1992 - 2012. Investigation associated the behaviors of these juveniles with missing
fathers, single mothers, and inappropriate parenting practices.
Teenagers are now more likely to be offenders of violent crime as opposed to adults over the age
of twenty-five. According to the World Statistical Institute, since the past fifteen years, use of
guns by youthful offenders has increased by nearly 20 percent. Juvenile offenders are responsible
for one-third of all reported crimes in Europe alone. Studies performed by the University of
Illinois suggests that there is a strong correlation between child behavior and parenting practices.
As such, it has been found that at least 80 percent of youthful crime offenders have experienced
inappropriate parenting. My team and I believe that the increase in criminal acts amongst
children and teenagers needs to be reduced, therefore, we stand resolved: Parents should be held
responsible for the actions of their children.
Ladies and gentlemen before I present the first contention, I will define elements of the motion
by segregating it into two major phrase, firstly the responsibility of parents and secondly the
actions of children. Parental responsibility (PR) in family law is a legal status derived from the
Children Act 1989 and can be defined as all rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority
which by law, a parent of a child has in relation to that child and his/her property. This definition
highlights the theme of our discussion, A parent is responsible for a child and by extension that
childs actions. According to lawyers.com, the action of children in relation to parental
responsibility include all activities performed by the child in respect of behavior, attitudes,
perceptions, beliefs and actions. Therefore, if we use just basic definitions of both phrases in the
topic, we find that my teams theme is fully supported Parents are responsible for the actions of
their children.
Our pronouncement is split into two main categories; firstly we will discuss the fundamental
legal issues and then the Psycho-social issues.
In support of the position taken that Parents are responsible for the actions of their children, I as
the first affirmative speaker propose my key contention relating to fundamental legal issues. Our
second speaker will speak to psycho-social related issues and other general findings and our 3rd
speaker will give the major rebuttal to the 1st and 2nd negative.

Contention #1
My first argument relates to the law and its relationship to parenting responsibilities. As provided
by the law, parents have several rights to their children. Parents have the right to select their
childs name, to spend time with the child, make decisions about the childs residence, education,
religious training, legal matters and association with others. Until a child reaches the age of
majority, the child is considered a minor. As such parents have the right to consent to medical
bills, dental care, potential earnings and any other inheritance. Given the listed rights of a parent,
the Family Act 1989 mandates that parents are legally liable for actions of their children.
Considering this legal liability, parents have the duty to care for, protect and reasonably
discipline their child. Every jurisdiction imposes a legal responsibility on parents and legal
guardians for the delinquent and criminal acts of minors in their charge. Parental responsibility
statutes have been in effect in the U.S. for at least 100 years. Many arose out of or supplemented
laws that prohibit contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Such laws rest on the assumption
that minors commit crimes because their parents have failed to exercise proper control and
oversight, and that the way to inspire parents to exert the necessary control is to punish them if
they dont.
Public demand for parental responsibility laws has fluctuated over time. The Columbine High
School shootings and other similar incidents have inspired state and local lawmakers to enact
parental responsibility laws. According to the Federal Judicial Center, in the late 1980s,
California and other states passed laws aimed at reducing what the states saw as an epidemic of
gang-related crime by youths.
Ladies and gentlemen please note that it is a misdemeanor in California for a parent to fail to
fulfill his or her duty to exercise reasonable care, supervision, protection, and control over their
minor child. A group of taxpayers filed a lawsuit to strike down the law as unconstitutionally
vague and an invasion of privacy. The California Supreme Court rejected the taxpayers
arguments and upheld the law, noting that it included a reasonableness standard that parents
must meet, which was sufficiently definite. The court also found that the law promoted the
states legitimate interest in addressing adolescent delinquency and particularly gang activity.
Studies conducted in Oregon, California, New York, and elsewhere suggest that parental
responsibility laws are both infrequently enforced and of dubious effect when enforced. The laws
are viewed by parents rights groups and others as largely symbolic. Some convicted parents
have challenged the constitutionality of these laws, but courts have ruled in most cases that the
states compelling interest in child and public welfare justifies the laws. A common argument by
parents is that they are being prosecuted for conduct they did not condone or even know about.
These arguments are generally unsuccessful, as long as the statute punishes parents for conduct
by their children that a reasonably attentive parent should have known about and prevented. The
question I pose to my opposition is if you have a dog who attacks people due to your inability to

keep the dog secured, who is responsible to pay the medical expenses as a result of the dogs
actions. With this said I rest my case.
2nd Affirmative Contention #2
My opponent, the first negative made mention of the inability of parents to monitor the every
action of their children. Wouldnt you ladies and gentlemen disagree with the timeliness of this
view? Is this point applicable? This statement or view ladies and gentlemen looks at the situation
after the fact. A point to note, the lack of parental involvement for example has regularly been
cited as being partially to blame for the riots in the UK during August 2011. Lets take a psychosocial perspective and assess the responsibility of parents as it regards the development of
children. In most cases, in which the child is not subject to some sort of constitutional problem
(genetic condition or otherwise), the disruptive behaviour of a child is a reflection of inadequate
parental intervention over time. A normal child under normal circumstances should be expected
to conform to behavioural expectations, and the failure to do so represents a partial inadequate
job by the parents.
Several studies in developmental psychology have found that children are, essentially, a blank
slate. Granted, there are several traits that are inborn or inherited, but mostly children learn right
and wrong through observation of others. Until they are of schooling age, their parents are the
predominate role models in a child's life. Whether or not the child is taught integrity and morals
is the responsibility of the parent. It is hoped that the parents can instill a strong enough sense of
right and wrong so that by the time the child is exposed to other sources, their moral compass is
secure.
The result of misbehaviours have associated costs that are transferred to society. According to
the Department of Justice, since 2003, children that are disruptive in school or in society via the
criminal justice system attract societal costs either in additional school resources, time, judicialpolice resources, fixing vandalism and graffiti. The situation is heightened when a student drops
out as a result of disciplinary problems. The annual cost to the western society has been
estimated at US$232,000-388,000. Given that parents in part are to be blamed for failing to
control the childs behaviour, in the time during which the parent is the primary custodian of the
child, it is fair to pass on a measure of this cost to the parent. If parents are more cognizant of the
costs associated with inadequate parenting, there would be a reduction in juvenile related crimes.
Therefore, I believe that parents are responsible for their children's actions, as they are the root of
their character.

3rd Affirmative Rebuttal to 2nd negative

Ladies and gentlemen my name is XXXXXX, my opponent, the second negative has implied that
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. This argument in itself is faulty logic and if we assess psychological
theories we can see the significant importance of parents in the development of children.

According to the Social Learning theory of Albert Bandura, learning is a cognitive process that
takes place in the social context and can occur purely through observation or direct instruction,
observation of rewards and punishment. This makes the point clear that if parents apply
appropriate parenting techniques such as leading by example or appropriate application of
positive and negative reinforcement, children will develop the correct attitudes and personalities.
If the behaviors of children should reflect the parenting skills or techniques applied, we can
safely state that parents should be responsible for their childs actions.
One major factor that impacts the behavior of children and is a distraction to proper parenting is
the situation of bad relationships especially in marital homes. How parents handle everyday
marital conflicts has a significant effect on how secure their children feel, which, in turn,
significantly affects their future emotional adjustment. This finding, from researchers at the
universities of Notre Dame, Rochester (NY) and Catholic University of America in Washington,
D.C. denotes the point that if we should think about emotional security as a bridge between the
child and the world, when the marital relationship is functioning well, it serves as a secure base,
a structurally sound bridge to support the child's exploration and relationships with others. When
destructive marital conflict erodes the bridge, children may lack confidence and become hesitant
to move forward, or may move forward in a troubled way, unable to find appropriate footing
within themselves or in interaction with others." The researchers based their report on two
separate long-term studies of marital conflict and children.
The first study involved 226 parents and their 9- to-18-year-old children. The researchers
examined the effect of marital conflict over three years, finding that forms of destructive marital
conflict, such as personal insults, defensiveness, marital withdrawal, sadness or fear, set in
motion events that led to later emotional insecurity and maladjustment in children, including
depression, anxiety, and behavior problems. This occurred even when the researchers controlled
for any initial adjustment problems. The second study again examined the connection between
marital conflict and emotional problems over a three-year period, this time in a different group of
232 parents and much younger children (kindergarteners). Researchers again found that marital
conflict sets in motion events that led to later emotional insecurity and maladjustment. Again,
researchers controlled for any initial adjustment problems, further supporting the conclusion that
marital conflict was related with children's emotional insecurity and adjustment problems.
Wouldnt you agree that if parents do not display the required behaviors as it relates to
relationships and communication, it will result in inappropriate and acceptable behaviors in their
children? The result of such attitudes will lead to legal issues as suggested by the 1st affirmative
speaker. We can easily associate the theory of social learning to this research and as such where
parents fail to teach children and children fail to perform to expectations, the parent should be
held liable for the childs actions.
Conclusive statement
We the affirmative stand resolved that Parents should be held responsible for the actions of their
children. This is from the view that; parents are legally liable for any malicious acts or any
behaviors that may lead to a civil dispute. Where a parent fails in any attempt to nurture or grow
a child with a capacity to meet the expected societal behaviors, that parent will incur significant
residual costs. Parents are charged with a duty to ensure children are disciplined and behave in a

manner acceptable to the environment external to the home, as such, parents should take every
step necessary to instill the behavioral practices during the different development stages of the
childs life. If parents are quick to celebrate in the success of their children with statements such
as thats my boy/girl, then they should be quick to accept responsibility for their failures.