Parents learn about legal responsibilities

Those were among the first words of the then Attorney General Kim Wilson as she walked into the classroom at CedarBridge Academy.

She was giving a free Community Education class on the controversial new legislation and admitted she didn’t think there was that much to say.

But Ms Wilson, who is now Minister of the Economy, Trade and Industry, could not have been more wrong, as parents were eager to learn.

And it was mainly fathers who wanted to know where the new legislation left them. There were several men in the class compared to just two women.

The legislation aims to crack down on young people involved in crime and anti-social behaviour, and to ensure that parents control their children.

Ms Wilson said the Parental Responsibility Act, which was approved by the Legislature in July, was initiated after some children were involved in a serious incident at a party while being unsupervised. The room had been rented out for them by an adult.

Tough times

She said: “We got together and started brainstorming and thought about making the parents liable for their children’s actions. That was the beginning of the end.

“Tough times call for tough measures and I believe the vast majority of parents understand that.”

The new Act brings Bermuda in line with similar legislation in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

Ms Wilson said it was a case of “doing what others are already doing rather than reinventing the wheel”.

Throughout the class Ms Wilson stressed there “was a lot of hype” surrounding the Parental Responsibility Act.

She had to constantly repeat that it was not about pointing the finger at all mothers and fathers, but rather highlighting cases of “poor parenting and poor discipline at home”.

She said: “The law is targeting those parents who think they can do what they like, they just sit off and get on with their life without thinking about their children.”

Everyone got their own copy of the 11-page Parental Responsibility Act 2010 and parents could be seen nodding in agreement as Ms Wilson spoke.

The most talked about topic was whether estranged fathers would be held responsible for their children’s actions if they lived with their mothers.

It was explained that the court has the power to prosecute either parent if they are “active” in the child’s life.

But the courts would first consider whether the parent was responsible for the care and control of the child at the time, or had made reasonable arrangements for the child to be supervised.

Estrangement

Ms Wilson said that if a child’s parents no longer lived together it was unlikely that the estranged parent would be held accountable for the child’s actions.

She said: “If a parent is doing everything he or she reasonably can and the child still does whatever, they will be held liable.

“They just have to prove they have taken all kinds of steps to control them.

“They can tell the court, ‘I have done this and that’. The burden of proof is on the parents.”

Parents will always have the right of reply and can put their case forward in court.

This can include proving that they have enrolled children for government schemes or mentoring programmes.

All actions will be explained “in ordinary language” to parents and an appeals process is available.

Several general concerns were raised about children “acting up all the time”.

Ms Wilson said a fine would be a “last resort” and a court would be less likely to dish it out if they knew the child could not afford it.

Ms Wilson looked comfortable and confident as she sat at the front of the classroom answering questions.

The Community Education class was held in mid-October before the Cabinet reshuffle. Ms Wilson knew the legislation inside and out as she flicked through the Act, encouraging parents to refer to different pages on their copies.

At one point she stopped to say: “Am I boring you all half to sleep?,” but everyone replied in unison: “No, we’re enjoying this.”

Curfews

It was the reassurance she needed as she went on to tell the parents stories about her own two children, aged eight and six.

Curfews and parenting orders were described as “new tools at the court’s disposal”.

Ms Wilson admitted that Anti-Social Behavioural Orders — commonly known as ASBOs — had “generated quite a lot of ­interest in the community”.

She said this was the first time there had been a legal definition of anti-social behaviour.

The definition is “behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household”.

Ms Wilson said: “There are certain hours of the night when children should be at home studying or in bed.”

Father Andrew Carmichael, who has a nine-year-old son, said he had attended Ms Wilson’s class to put his mind at rest.

He said: “Looking at the Act at a glance, I thought there were certain things that went against the Human Rights Act.

“I don’t feel too badly now that everything has been explained, but I would still question certain aspects.”

But 44-year-old Eldon Raynor, who has a 10-year-old daughter, said: “I just feel that children learn things outside the home and holding parents accountable is ludicrous.”