Man jailed because daughter failed GED

[SmokingTarpan]

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story...1-9859f1f6137e

The basics of the story is that the daughter had issues when she was 16, living with her mother (even though dad had legal custody). He was ordered to make sure she passed her GED. Now the daughter is almost 19, has a baby of her own and can't pass the math portion of the GED. So, the judge sentenced the father to 6mo in jail, along with stating the guy could (though not necessarily would) get out early if his daughter passes the test.

Technically he was jailed because he violated a court order. However, it seems pretty damn ridiculous to me to jail a man because his now legally adult daughter can't do math. Sounds more like a judge trying to make himself look important. I'm sure Ohio didn't need those tax dollars anyway.

[CingularDuality]

Seems reasonable to me. The man was ordered, as part of a court order related to custody, to be a damn parent and ensure that his child has basic skills. The man failed to comply with the order. The fact that his daughter is now a stupid adult is irrelevant to the jail sentence and is also a damn shame.

[Razcsak]

The topic is misleading. He wasn't jailed because his daughter failed her GED test, but because he disobeyed the court order to ensure that she got a reasonable education. She is now 19 and, according to the article, has been in in school for four months in the three years since he was ordered to ensure that she attends school. That is absolutely a failure on his part.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

This is very libertarian of you all.

[Razcsak]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

This is very libertarian of you all.

I can't tell whether to be offended or not.

[Ferris Bueller]

The interesting thing of this situation is that the sentence will be commuted when the daughter passes her GED. This is contradictory to the understanding that the father broke the court order compelling him to ensure her education, because as he is serving time in jail for her failure, her passing will have been of her own motivation and effort, having NOTHING to do with the father. Besides, It's legal to drop out of high school at 16. The court cannot compel you to do something against your legal rights, which is the case here. The daughter chose to drop out, had parental consent. She was no longer required to have any further education by law. The court order said otherwise. Which is right?

[SmokingTarpan]

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

The interesting thing of this situation is that the sentence will be commuted when the daughter passes her GED. This is contradictory to the understanding that the father broke the court order compelling him to ensure her education, because as he is serving time in jail for her failure, her passing will have been of her own motivation and effort, having NOTHING to do with the father. Besides, It's legal to drop out of high school at 16. The court cannot compel you to do something against your legal rights, which is the case here. The daughter chose to drop out, had parental consent. She was no longer required to have any further education by law. The court order said otherwise. Which is right?

Aside from those interesting tidbits, I think it's toeing a dangerous line to make parents responsible for their children's actions once the children have reached the age of a legal adult. Suppose a parent had a child that liked to go around and break shop windows, and the court ordered the parent to make sure the child's behavior was properly adjusted. Then when the child was 20 years old, he got drunk and went on a window breaking spree. Could the court jail/fine the parent because of the court order from when the child was a minor? This GED debacle makes it seem feasible.

Another interesting thing: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templa...&Content=48959

In order to take the GED in Ohio, you basically have to be an adult (must be 19 and withdrawn from school). There are three exceptions, only one of which allowing minors to take the GED. By these rules and from what's said in the article, the girl was already a legal adult when she started taking the GED, which means her parents can officially wash their hands of her and any legal responsibility. The order imposed by the judge, however, seems to say the court- not the law- is allowed to determine how long a parent is responsible for their child. Sets a bad precedent in my opinion; how'd you like to be told that you're to watch over your child until he's 40, and you can be jailed if he screws up?

[Razcsak]

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Aside from those interesting tidbits, I think it's toeing a dangerous line to make parents responsible for their children's actions once the children have reached the age of a legal adult.

Actually, he's being held responsible for what he didn't do while she was a minor, its just that the effects of his negligence aren't being seen until after she is technically an adult.

[SmokingTarpan]

Originally Posted by Razcsak

Actually, he's being held responsible for what he didn't do while she was a minor, its just that the effects of his negligence aren't being seen until after she is technically an adult.

The court ordered the man to make sure that his daughter got her GED.

Butler County Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus ordered Gegner to jail for contributing to the delinquency of a minor by not following a court order which required Gegner to be sure his daughter got her GED.

While the specifics of the court order aren't spelled out, there's no law that says you have to have a GED by a certain age. In fact (special exception not withstanding), you can't even take your GED until you're an adult. The court essentially ordered the father to be legally responsible for his daughter past the age where he is no longer required to be responsible for her. That's not even looking at the part where you're legally allowed to no longer attend school at 16 once certain requirements (i.e. paperwork) have been met, thus possibly making the court order on the side of bogus.

[Ferris Bueller]

The bottom line is that the judge is trying to make a name for himself and his agenda. It's clear cut. If the father has a half decent attorney, the decision will be appealed and overturned (a black mark on any judges record), almost certainly followed by a suit against the responsible parties.

[CingularDuality]

There is plenty of precedence allowing judges a great deal of leeway in sentencing. The key to staying legal for a judge is the word "reasonable". Is it reasonable to require that a man wanting custody of his daughter be required to ensure she gets a minimal education? Yes it is. On what grounds could this decision possibly be overturned? It can't. In fact, a new case can't even be opened because there is no longer a custody issue.

Libertarianism doesn't even enter this discussion, unless we're going to start arguing about whether or not we should have judges.

[SmokingTarpan]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

There is plenty of precedence allowing judges a great deal of leeway in sentencing. The key to staying legal for a judge is the word "reasonable". Is it reasonable to require that a man wanting custody of his daughter be required to ensure she gets a minimal education? Yes it is. On what grounds could this decision possibly be overturned? It can't.

But is it reasonable for a county judge to make a ruling that trumps state and/or federal law? Again, you can legally drop out of school at the age of 16. There's also no federal or state law that requires a person to have either a high school degree or GED. The court order implies otherwise and essentially lets the judge make a law concerning education requirements, which is well beyond the responsibilities of his office.

If a judge can rule that a parent is required to be responsible for a child's education past the point of legal responsibility, what else can a judge rule on in that direction? If a judge orders that the parents of a juvenile offender make sure he doesn't get in trouble with the police again, and that offender gets arrested when he's 30, can the parents be jailed for violation of that court order from 15 years ago?

[Kerostasis]

So as I read Cing's post, the defining characteristic that makes this case different from the other examples you suggest is that it was part of a Divorce Custody battle. There was no prior requirement that the daughter should have to get her GED, but as part of the agreement that allowed the father to get custody (since the vast majority of all cases give custody to the mother*) the judge required that he should make sure to take care of her education.

However, it seems odd that the father would go to that much effort to get court custody, and then let his daughter stay with the mother anyway. Anyone know anything more concrete about the original court order? What we have in the current news story is kind of sketchy.


*Sole custody to mother - 73%. Sole custody to father - 10%. Joint custody - 16% Other - 1%.

[SmokingTarpan]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

However, it seems odd that the father would go to that much effort to get court custody, and then let his daughter stay with the mother anyway. Anyone know anything more concrete about the original court order? What we have in the current news story is kind of sketchy.

Yea, the news article is a bit on the vague side. The way it reads, the court order was made only several months ago, which was well after the time the father already had custody (she's almost 19, the father had custody of her at 16 even though she was living with mom). I haven't seen anything in there about getting a GED as a requirement of custody.

[SmokingTarpan]

Okay, this is from Barry Seward's blog. He put the article on his blog, and supposedly Brian's (the father) sister wrote him with more background information about the whole thing:

http://barryseward.com/2008/05/09/si...t-get-ged.aspx

A little more insight into the story, from Brian's sister....

Brian and Brittany's mother were never married. They had children at a young age, and eventually split up. In his early twenties, Brian fought for and won custody of his two daughters, ages 3 and 1. He met and married a wonderful single mom, and from there they raised their blended family under one roof. Of course not without obstacles thrown in their way. Through the years his daughters had to learn to say, "No, I live with my DAD!"

Brittany, the middle child in this blended family, had not only truancy but delinquency problems during her teen years. Brian & his wife tried everything to help Brittany, including involving the police, which is how the courts became involved with this family.

At 16 Brittany got pregnant and had the baby shortly after she turned 17. This also put a wrench in her education. Brittany continually begged her father to let her go live with her mother, and he eventually gave in, hoping Brittany would continue her schooling there. She enrolled in a new school, but that didn't last, either.

Was allowing Brittany to live with her mother a wise choice? Hindsight is 20/20. One thing I can say about my brother is he always wanted what was best for his girls, and he was hoping it was best for a troubled Brittany and her new baby to live with her mother. Many, many people told him to give parental custody of Brittany, at the age of 17, to her mother, but he simply couldn't do it.

Anyway....
Brittany had sporadic court dates about her truancy through all this. It was June 2007 when the judge told Brian he would be go to jail for contributing to the delinquency of a minor if Brittany did not return to school in the Fall. Brittany turned 18 yrs old August 2007 and was enrolled in school, but did not attend because she was "18".

She returned to juvenile court, although she was now 18, on August 29th. The court then ordered her father to take Brittany out of school, and told Brittany to get her GED before the next court date or her father would go to jail.

So, the court was ordering an 18 year old to make a choice, get your GED or your father goes to jail. Now you have to imagine all the possible scenarios. What if she should care less about her father and decided not to get her GED? The judge never said....get your GED or YOU go to jail. I think Brittany did not believe that the judge would seriously throw her father in jail, so she procrastinated. Brittany loves her Dad but she has the thought process of a teenager.

By the next court date, March 2008, Brittany had been taking GED classes, but by the May 7th court hearing, she had no luck passing the math portion of the test, and that's when her Dad was whisked off to jail for six months. No options to pay a fine, probation, house arrest, or community service.

Btw, Brittany's mother owes over $15,000 in back child support. Has she ever spent a night in jail because of it? Of course not.