What kind of legal culture gives the Govt the power or the right to sue parents for "involuntary manslaughter" because their child got killed trying to cross the road?
What I see here is basically or low income probably poorly educated couple who didn't have the intellectual knowledge/capabability to seek proper legal support and advice to fight the case.
This is nothing more than the abuse of the justice system, otherwise known as lawfare.
This is what youth services does. It holds children themselves responsible for anything that others might do to them. Especially if the people doing it to them are government employees who might expose the government to liability.
All while putting forth the story that they protect children against their parents where necessary. And while that happens, that's single digit percentage of the children in state facilities. That happens so rarely that there's entire facilities where NONE of the children present have any problem with their parents. But every last child has problems with school (going from schools refusing to protect against bullying, refusing to abide by laws like access, or guarding children going to school, or transport, or ...)
Really? What developed world would that be? The fact that youth services protects government against children, rather than the other way around, is something that happens in Europe just like in the US.
A trivial example: pretty much the whole developed world has a law that schools are accountable for anything that happens to children in relation to school, including on the way to school and the way back. This goes as far as ensuring that the way to school actually happens, providing oversight on the way, preventing thefts, bullying, ... in class, in school, on the way to school and back, in after-school activities. No school on the planet actually does this, of course.
Anyone who had children can tell you how well schools, anywhere on the planet, actually do this and how much responsibility they accept when things go wrong, even or perhaps especially when a teacher is actively making things go wrong (e.g. the school is financially responsible when a teacher is involved in selling drugs, but teacher get caught all the time in things ranging from falsifying grades to paedophilic rape)
And for cases where children or parents insist on their legal rights, that's what you have youth services for. Note: another law that the whole world has is that youth services are exempt from legal protections. A youth judge can lock up a child, usually even beyond 18 years old, for no reason at all. A child can be convicted while having provided evidence of their innocence. A minor doesn't even have the right to a trial at all! Investigations can be performed without any of the rules of investigation apply (meaning even that it is perfectly legal for youth services to lie about the situation of a minor AND for a judge to convict based on a lie). So there is no defense against youth services (other than exploiting the fact that a child cannot be held responsible. In other words: the only "defense" is having the child commit sufficient violence against youth services personnel)
And, of course, when this was investigated ... there's a UN report pointing out that over 90% of all child abuse happens at school [1]. And no, despite the picture on the front page, it is not in fact about Africa.
Legend’s parents, Jessica and Sameule Jenkins, did.
Two days after the crash, the district attorney charged both with involuntary manslaughter, set bail at $1.5 million each, and took their remaining children into protective custody. Facing the prospect of months in jail and the loss of their children, the Jenkinses took felony plea deals.""
This part.
Do bad things not happen in developed countries related to children? No. But this part would not happen.
> The “walk” to the store includes crossing a 45-mph, four-lane stroad with no midblock crosswalk, no traffic calming, and a median that hides oncoming traffic.
Yes, this is bad design. But I do think it’s negligent to let a child cross this road unsupervised. If it was a suburban street this would be crazy, but it’s not and I think them being charged is reasonable
I disagree. My parents let me walk around the city when I was 7, and I think that I would have been worse off if they hadn't. As I see it, if a kid is old enough for compulsory education, then they're old enough to walk outside without parental supervision.
At 7? Really? I was allowed to roam dilapidated industrial sites and ride my bike on the streets around at age 7-10 but I wasn't allowed anywhere near a 4-lane boulevard with high speed traffic like that. Heck, the highway I wasn't allowed to cross didn't even have four lanes.
There's a pretty big difference between random streets and a 4-lane arterial road like this one. I would take great care crossing it as an adult and I would only consider letting a kid cross it with explicit instructions to use a marked crossing or wait for traffic to stop for them and practice doing it accompanied.
Readit News
What I see here is basically or low income probably poorly educated couple who didn't have the intellectual knowledge/capabability to seek proper legal support and advice to fight the case.
This is nothing more than the abuse of the justice system, otherwise known as lawfare.
Tall, heavy vehicles that make pedestrians and cyclists invisible:
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-safety/new-suvs-hav...
https://www.theautopian.com/full-size-suvs-are-twice-as-like...
All while putting forth the story that they protect children against their parents where necessary. And while that happens, that's single digit percentage of the children in state facilities. That happens so rarely that there's entire facilities where NONE of the children present have any problem with their parents. But every last child has problems with school (going from schools refusing to protect against bullying, refusing to abide by laws like access, or guarding children going to school, or transport, or ...)
A trivial example: pretty much the whole developed world has a law that schools are accountable for anything that happens to children in relation to school, including on the way to school and the way back. This goes as far as ensuring that the way to school actually happens, providing oversight on the way, preventing thefts, bullying, ... in class, in school, on the way to school and back, in after-school activities. No school on the planet actually does this, of course.
Anyone who had children can tell you how well schools, anywhere on the planet, actually do this and how much responsibility they accept when things go wrong, even or perhaps especially when a teacher is actively making things go wrong (e.g. the school is financially responsible when a teacher is involved in selling drugs, but teacher get caught all the time in things ranging from falsifying grades to paedophilic rape)
And for cases where children or parents insist on their legal rights, that's what you have youth services for. Note: another law that the whole world has is that youth services are exempt from legal protections. A youth judge can lock up a child, usually even beyond 18 years old, for no reason at all. A child can be convicted while having provided evidence of their innocence. A minor doesn't even have the right to a trial at all! Investigations can be performed without any of the rules of investigation apply (meaning even that it is perfectly legal for youth services to lie about the situation of a minor AND for a judge to convict based on a lie). So there is no defense against youth services (other than exploiting the fact that a child cannot be held responsible. In other words: the only "defense" is having the child commit sufficient violence against youth services personnel)
And, of course, when this was investigated ... there's a UN report pointing out that over 90% of all child abuse happens at school [1]. And no, despite the picture on the front page, it is not in fact about Africa.
[1] https://www.un.org/en/peace-and-security/violence-against-ch...
Legend’s parents, Jessica and Sameule Jenkins, did.
Two days after the crash, the district attorney charged both with involuntary manslaughter, set bail at $1.5 million each, and took their remaining children into protective custody. Facing the prospect of months in jail and the loss of their children, the Jenkinses took felony plea deals.""
This part.
Do bad things not happen in developed countries related to children? No. But this part would not happen.
On a related note https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2025/being-hit-suv-i...
Edit: I missed it: they do name the DA later in the article. The judge remains anonymous.
Dead Comment
Yes, this is bad design. But I do think it’s negligent to let a child cross this road unsupervised. If it was a suburban street this would be crazy, but it’s not and I think them being charged is reasonable
There's a pretty big difference between random streets and a 4-lane arterial road like this one. I would take great care crossing it as an adult and I would only consider letting a kid cross it with explicit instructions to use a marked crossing or wait for traffic to stop for them and practice doing it accompanied.