Mother goes to jail after son misses too much school

lew · 10-04-2006, 09:58 AM

BreakingNews

Where the fuck do we live again? Is this Communist Russia or Nazi Germany?

Stylerod · 10-04-2006, 10:08 AM

That story lacked a lot of details. She went before a judge that ordered her to make her kid to go school. But she said he dropped out of school. Are they making it illegal to drop out?

Anyway, it's a law that your kid has to go to school. I don't know up to what age though. But yeah, if you suck as a parent, and don't make your kid go to school, you can get thrown in jail.

Phantom · 10-04-2006, 10:11 AM

It seems like she was thrown in jail for contempt, not her son's truancy.

lew · 10-04-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

It seems like she was thrown in jail for contempt, not her son's truancy.

"Combating truancy in Marion County is a team approach, involving the school district, law enforcement and the state attorney's office," Jurkowski said. "And state officials said Niedzielski is only the second parent they can remember who has been thrown in jail because of it."

Phantom · 10-04-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by lew

"Combating truancy in Marion County is a team approach, involving the school district, law enforcement and the state attorney's office," Jurkowski said. "And state officials said Niedzielski is only the second parent they can remember who has been thrown in jail because of it."

The press is notoriously bad at reporting on legal proceedings. Here's the clue though:

The missed school days landed Niedzielski in front of a judge. As part of the truancy case, she was ordered to attend parenting and anger management classes and submit to a drug test.

Niedzielski refused and a judge sentenced her to 30 days behind bars.

To me, that suggests she was sentenced to jail not for her son's truancy, but for refusal to obey the court ordered anger management and drug test.

lew · 10-04-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

The press is notoriously bad at reporting on legal proceedings. Here's the clue though:

To me, that suggests she was sentenced to jail not for her son's truancy, but for refusal to obey the court ordered anger management and drug test.

But she wouldn't have even appeared before the court if it wasn't for her son's truancy.

Stylerod · 10-04-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by lew

But she wouldn't have even appeared before the court if it wasn't for her son's truancy.

Right. Social Services would have contacted her first to let her know her son has to be as school. If he still doesn't show up then they get the courts involved.

Scrum · 10-04-2006, 11:05 AM

They threatened to do that to my mom when I tried to drop out at 15. Legal age here is 16 to drop out.

They were never able to do anything to her though. Just a lot of threats.

lew · 10-04-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

They threatened to do that to my mom when I tried to drop out at 15. Legal age here is 16 to drop out.

They were never able to do anything to her though. Just a lot of threats.

But here in that county, they passed a law so that they can arrest you.

Scrum · 10-04-2006, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by lew

But here in that county, they passed a law so that they can arrest you.

I think they could here too at the time, it just wasn't worth it to the cops and the school district.

Scrum · 10-04-2006, 11:12 AM

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

The kid should be in school and the parent is responsible for their kid. I'm not sure I would go so far as putting them in jail over it. There has to be some middle ground here.

In my case I actually ended up with a court order when I was 16, on something not related to skipping school, that said I had to either go back to school or get a job. I got a job.

motivez · 10-04-2006, 03:43 PM

Shouldn't states be able to enforce a policy of sending children to school?

I see a lot of stuff about a government / state "compelling interest" in a lot of Scalia's writings that I've read. Surely a state has such an interest in ensuring its next generation is educated and able to help further the state.

Surely at least as much as "promoting morality"..

lew · 10-04-2006, 03:44 PM

This thread makes me

I can't believe all of you are fine with this. A woman was fucking jailed because her son didn't go to school! If that's not totalitarian, I don't know what is.

motivez · 10-04-2006, 03:45 PM

This thread has been cleaned up and 7960 removed for provoking other members after being asked to stop repeatedly. There has been too much of this shit going on lately, and we're cracking down on it.

The rules aren't hard to follow, please make an effort.

JaJae · 10-04-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Shouldn't states be able to enforce a policy of sending children to school?

I see a lot of stuff about a government / state "compelling interest" in a lot of Scalia's writings that I've read. Surely a state has such an interest in ensuring its next generation is educated and able to help further the state.

Surely at least as much as "promoting morality"..

Shouldnt' states enforce abortion? (don't answer this, it's figurative)

While I agree with you, we live in a nation where the federal government has too much power. And I believe it was the state attorney general who gave the soundbites to the reporter and the county prosecutor who arrested her.

And it doesn't seem to be because her son wasn't in school, but rather she had already appeared in court and was directed to fulfill some requirements such as anger management that was no carried out.

motivez · 10-04-2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by lew

This thread makes me

I can't believe all of you are fine with this. A woman was fucking jailed because her son didn't go to school! If that's not totalitarian, I don't know what is.

I'm not really 'fine' with it, I'm just curious why you think it's somehow wrong according to the way our system works with states being able to justify things through having a compelling interest, etc..?

JaJae · 10-04-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by lew

This thread makes me

I can't believe all of you are fine with this. A woman was fucking jailed because her son didn't go to school! If that's not totalitarian, I don't know what is.

The article doesn't say she was jailed because her son wasn't going to school. She was jailed because she didn't follow up on a court order that had to do with her son not being in school. They don't randomly tell people to receive anger management as far as I'm aware. And something must be up with the parents/home if the kid is looking to drop out of school.

lew · 10-04-2006, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The article doesn't say she was jailed because her son wasn't going to school. She was jailed because she didn't follow up on a court order that had to do with her son not being in school.

The point is she was jailed because her son didn't go to school. If her son had went to school, she would have never gone to court to begin with.

Kytro · 10-04-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by lew

The point is she was jailed because her son didn't go to school. If her son had went to school, she would have never gone to court to begin with.

You could argue that logic about many crimes, that they only occured because of some other sitution.

lew · 10-04-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

You could argue that logic about many crimes, that they only occured because of some other sitution.

If a person kills someone, then uh yeah obviously that person should be tried.

This case is about a woman's child not going to school. If you can't see then difference, then