We’ve seen it all over the news lately–parents getting into trouble when their children are truant from school without a valid excuse. While to many it may seem easy to get an excuse letter signed or send in a note the day after the absence, sometimes parents aren’t able to take those steps, or don’t know about their children’s absences from school. In a time of more testing and government regulations in our schools, administrations have elected to pay more attention to when students are staying home, and more importantly, why they are staying home. Read on to learn about truancy laws in the United States and the consequences that may arise for some parents if their children don’t attend school.

What truancy means for each student, school, and state varies. While Strategies for Youth, a non-profit, defines truancy as simply “an unexcused absence from school,” the definition of what an excused absence is, and what being “truant” means depends on the state and sometimes even the school district.

Another organization, Truancy Prevention, breaks down the level of states’ involvement even more:

Any unexcused absence from school is considered a truancy, but states enact their own school attendance laws. State law determines 1) the age at which a child is required to begin attending school, 2) the age at which a child may legally drop out of school, and 3), the number of unexcused absences at which a student is considered legally truant

Each state and school is different, so if you’re curious about specific truancy laws, the best thing to do is look in your individual school handbook to figure out the rules.

Case Study: Eileen DeNino

One extreme case that has gained national attention is that of Eileen DeNino of Reading, Pennsylvania. The 55-year-old mother of eight had to serve a two-day sentence because she owed the court system money due to her sons’ truancy issues. Two of her sons had been absent more than the three days that Pennsylvania allows and were fined repeatedly over several years. She never paid the fines, which landed her in jail; however, the first night of her stay she started complaining that it felt hard to breathe. Jail officials allegedly ignored her pleas for help, thinking she was just trying to get out of serving her time. Her cellmate said that she was moaning in pain the entire time. She died later that night due to complications from a previous medical problem.

Critics have said that her stint in jail is reminiscent of debtor’s prison, which is illegal, while others have said it was wrong because her children were making the decisions on their own. The coroners found that the prison system was not in the wrong.

The law that DeNino broke applies to Pennsylvania, where staying home from school for more than three days is considered truancy. In Berks County alone, “more than 1,600 parents—most of them mothers—have been jailed” for truancy.

A call for reform?

DeNino’s death has led to some calling for change within the education system. While consequences are one thing, parents being fined or put in jail because their children were absent is viewed as something else entirely. Each year, many parents experience problems with a child’s truancy, which commonly leads to fines, loss of custody, and probation for juveniles and/or parents. In some cases these children can be placed in foster care.

For example, in October 2014 the Florida State Attorney’s office issued warrants for the arrest of 44 Jacksonville parents of truant children. One couple, Lucius Corbitt III and Afton Nolan, were both arrested after their daughter missed 40 school days over a three-year period; however, their daughter still made honor roll and was at the top of her class.

“Maybe there are some kids whose parents didn’t want to send them to school,” Corbitt told The Florida Times-Union. “But when my child missed school, my wife and I got make-up work and she passed. … Most days she missed we had doctor’s documentation, but it is so hard to get someone at the school board. It really is crap.”

In other states, such as California, officials have been sent out to do “truancy sweeps” to check up on students who stayed home. In one particular sweep, six parents were arrested, including one parent whose child missed school 21 times. In this situation, most parents were offered parenting classes.

The Arguments For Parent Punishment

There is a reason that we have truancy laws and why students can’t just go to school only when they feel like it. In 1889, the Chicago Board of Education argued, “We should rightfully have the power to arrest all these little beggars, loafers, and vagabonds that infest our city, take them from the streets and place them in schools where they are compelled to receive an education and learn moral principles.”  This was during a time when nearly a quarter of the juveniles jailed in Chicago where there for truancy. By 1918, every state had a law that made school attendance mandatory.

It wasn’t until 2001 and the start of No Child Left Behind that schools had to report this data to the state. Many surmise that the goal was to identify parents who weren’t taking care of their children or were negligent. Since then, more and more government officials have been calling for stricter regulations on truancy, specifically for teenagers.

Recent research has shown that many students are absent at least two days a month, often because the student just didn’t feel like going to school. That is a problem that we need to face, and starting with parents might be the best approach to take.

 Arguments Against Truancy Laws

Most of the cases that we hear about involve teenagers. Some critics of truancy laws feel that teenagers today don’t really feel the effects of the mistakes they make–and this is just another example of that. Parenting website the Stir poses the question:

What’s more, what are we teaching kids about taking responsibility for their own actions, and their own lives, if we’re making parents pay for their misdeeds? Once kids reach their teenage years, it seems to me, it’s time for them to take more responsibility for their own decisions, not less.

Others have claimed that throwing parents in jail isn’t something that will help anyone in the family. According to the Marshall Project, “the criminalization of truancy often pushes students further away from school, and their families deeper into poverty.” Instead of focusing on parents, some hope to focus on the schools and determine why teens are using any excuse not to go.

In some states, the child does face the brunt of the punishment. Some states are even allowed to take away the driving privileges of the teen who is truant.

Conclusion

Students being absent from school is an undeniable problem The rates are typically higher in schools that have more students, which need to have higher scores on state testing in order to get the materials they need. We also know that more than a few absences per year are correlated with lower grades, dropping out of high school, and trouble with the law. It remains unclear whether or not actively threatening, fining, or even jailing these parents is an effective way to treat the “crime.” There may need to be alternate steps taken to make sure that students stay in school as much as possible.

Resources

Jacksonville: Parents Arrested in Truancy Sweep Say There Were Reasons Why Their Kids Missed School

Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Truancy

Stir: Parents Now Thrown in Jail When Kid Misses School

Washington Post: Mother of Seven in Jail Because Her Kids Skipped School Dies in Cell

Truancy Prevention: Truancy Definition, Facts and Laws

Connect With Kids: Arresting Parents For Truancy

Counter Punch: Criminalizing Truancy

Desert Dispatch: Six Arrested, 26 Cited in Truancy Sweep

Johnson Juvenile Lawyers: Juvenile Truancy

Lawrence Journal: Truancy Policies Can Catch Parents by Surprise

Think Progress: The Return Of Debtor’s Prisons: Thousands Of Americans Jailed For Not Paying Their Bills

WFMZ: Coroner Issues Ruling in Death of Woman Jailed in Child Truant Case

WFMZ: Exclusive: Cellmate of Woman Who Died in Jail Speaks Out

U.S. News & World Report: Skipping High School Can Lead to Fines, Jail For Parents

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should Parents Pay the Price if Their Children Skip School? appeared first on Law Street.

Spring is in the air. While the daffodils and tulips are emerging, for some, so are the baby bumps. New parents have many responsibilities and choices to make once their little bundles of joy are out in the world. Working mothers in the United States must make one especially weighty decision: to go on maternity leave, or to go straight back to work? The choice is not as cut-and-dry as some may think—both financial and emotional factors must be considered. A family must also consider whether or not they will pay for the services of a babysitter or nanny, care for the child themselves, or enlist family and friends to help care for the child. But are policies in the U.S. to this effect changing?

In America, the concept of maternity leave is quite common, but what about paternity leave? New mothers are afforded “bonding” time, but what about fathers? As it turns out, new parent–both moms and dads–are allowed up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave after the birth or adoption of a child, according to The Family and Medical Leave Act.

There are many caveats to this act, however, and not all employees may be qualified to receive its benefits. Even if an employee qualifies, he or she may not choose to take off from work if it could cause a financial hardship, given that the leave is unpaid. There may be a solution here–perhaps the United States should adopt the policies of other countries that allow parents to go on paid parental leave. Norway allows parents to take a leave of 36 weeks and receive 100 percent of their wages; Australia allows each parent 12 months of leave, of which 18 weeks are paid.

While the U.S. may need to update its parental leave policies, one major American city has recently revised its childcare options. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has announced the city’s implementation plan for free, full-day, universal pre-kindergarten.

Mayor Bill de Blasio. Image courtesy of Kevin Case via Flickr

Many New Yorkers have speculated as to the need of such a program, but it seems the numbers speak for themselves. In the first three weeks of enrollment, 51,000 New York City families signed up for the mayor’s pre-K program. More families will undoubtedly sign up before the enrollment deadline for the program on April 24, 2015.

The funds needed for the program were raised by tax increases. But what if the funds had been put toward implementing paid parental leave instead of universal pre-K? Going forward, what if people were given a choice between paid parental leave OR universal pre-K? Allowing New Yorkers to reject or accept alternate parental systems may be an innovative way to test out options that could be afforded to the rest of the country.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paid Parental Leave: Are There Alternatives for U.S. Parents? appeared first on Law Street.

Is this real life? HLN viewers were gifted TV comedic gold the other night in the form of a marijuana debate between the always controversial Nancy Grace and “Fed Watching” rapper 2 Chainz. Grace, whose Wikipedia controversy section alone is cause enough for pause, brought 2 Chainz, who was arrested in 2013 for possessing a weed grinder, on her show to discuss the legalization of marijuana. Funnily enough, it was 2 Chainz who upstaged Grace with actual valid points while she rebutted by showing him irrelevant videos of parents forcing toddlers to smoke pot.

Watch a clip from interview below, and here’s the long version if you want to see it.

For those of you who don’t have time to watch the entire interview, it went a little something like this.

Grace: Was clearly surprised that the weed smoking rapper was capable of graduating college with a 4.0 despite presumably being in a constant purple haze.

2 Chainz: Argues you can’t blame the entire “stoners” community for a few irresponsible parents forcing kids to smoke pot. (Sounds fair.)

Grace: Doesn’t want to be thrown into a pot and stewed. (Okaaaay?)

Grace: “While I have you, why the 2 Chainz?” (She’s getting to the really hard hitting questions now.)

2 Chainz: Explains why his breastfed youth gave way to the family nickname and former rap name Tity Boi.

Grace: Awkwardly quotes 2 Chainz lyrics in the whiniest voice possible.

2 Chainz: Argues in defense of keeping weed out of a child’s hands; feels everyone has the ability to govern their own household and have structure.

Grace: “I hear you. I hear you 2 Chainz. I hear you.” (Do you though?) Quickly shows yet another parent-forcing-baby to smoke video to further prove point.

2 Chainz: Thinks said parent is a bone head and may have mental issues deeper than a joint. (You tell her, 2 Chainz.)

Grace: Implies that if pot is legalized, unlimited access for child-abusing pot heads will bring about the end of the world.

2 Chainz: Informs Nancy that everyone already has the ability to get their hands on pot whether it’s legal or not. Argues legalization will minimize overcrowding in prisons and will help users be able to obtain loans, homes, and jobs.

Grace: “If you want to qualify for a home, why don’t you just not smoke pot! Why don’t you just not get arrested!” (I don’t think they wanted to get arrested.)

2 Chainz:  Sees legalization as a means to curb the national deficit and free up taxpayers’ money that can be better spent on potholes than pot smokers. Tells tour bus grinder arrest story, the charges of which were later dropped, and schools Grace on what a waste of taxpayers’ money it was.

Grace: Doesn’t disagree. Shows yet another baby smoking pot video. “Look. Look. Look. Look. Look. Look.” (Really, he’s looking.)

2 Chainz: “This kid may need marijuana when he’s about 16 because he may have some other things going on.” (Grace doesn’t know what he’s talking about.)

Grace: Demands to know why 2 Chainz doesn’t want his kids to sell pot like him. Shows yet another kid smoking pot video.

2 Chainz: Educates Grace on pawn shops and crack. Thinks the parent in video was high on crack. Wants to call the dude up and find out. Questions if it was even him or maybe a babysitter, an uncle, or a brother. (Creates reasonable doubt.)

Grace: Wants him to know she has a problem with his lyrics “Smoking California weed with California whores.”

2 Chainz: Truuuuuuuuuuuu.

 Obviously Twitter found the whole thing hilarious, including Grace’s ridiculous hashtag: #pot2blame.

NANCY GRACE: Why do you breastfeed your children marijuana? 2 CHAINZ: What? GRACE: Hey what is a 2 Chain? 2 CHAINZ: Well– GRACE: No. Wrong.

— Dan Ozzi (@danozzi) January 14, 2015

Nancy Grace: “Smokin California weed with California hoez.” 2 Chainz: “TRUUUUUU” This seriously happened on national television.

— Demetrius (@fergoe) January 14, 2015

This is beautiful. I would watch a 24-hour network of just Nancy Grace/2 Chainz. http://t.co/EEMXtCJJc6 pic.twitter.com/9xuSmIty80 — Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) January 14, 2015

thanks to @NancyGraceHLN ive finally realized that #pot2blame for all my problems. dunno how it took me so long

— Nadeska Alexis (@neweryork) January 14, 2015

Having @NancyGraceHLN on in the home regularly might be more detrimental to a childs brain development than pot legalization. #Pot2Blame?

— Mike Groseclose (@mikrofusion) January 14, 2015

Is another debate in the works? We should only be so lucky. Both 2 Chainz and Grace gave fans hope on Twitter, showing there’s no bad blood between the two.

.@2chainz you’re on. I’m gonna talk u out of this pot thing. Ps. I don’t think that’s a real rolex u have on. #Pot2Blame?

— Nancy Grace (@NancyGraceHLN) January 14, 2015

After the recent legalization of marijuana in Oregon and Alaska, and the vote to legalize it in Washington D.C., the country’s opinion on marijuana has started to turn a corner. It’s the crackpots like Grace, with their ultra-conservative babble and highly irrelevant baby smoking videos, that are only delaying the inevitable. Until people are willing to accept the facts on marijuana, myths and paranoia will remain supreme.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2 Chainz vs. Nancy Grace: Rapper Wins Debate Over Legalizing Pot appeared first on Law Street.

Parents don’t have the luxury of choosing where they are when their babies drop the bomb. When nature calls, mothers and fathers alike run to restrooms to change dirty diapers, soothing both their babies and the ears of the public. But fathers across the nation have long been frustrated by the lack of changing tables in men’s restrooms. Lawmakers across the country are finally starting to right this wrong.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 90 percent of fathers who live with children under the age of five change diapers. When a father goes to change his baby’s diaper at the pizza place in town, he’s forced to either struggle on a dirty bathroom floor or balance the baby on his lap. He has a right to be frustrated, because if he was a she, it probably wouldn’t be such a struggle.

Currently there is no federal or state legislation mandating gender-based accessibility to changing tables. But as equality in parenting increases, we may need to make some changes. California State Senators Lois Wolk and Ricardo Lara support legislation to require adequate baby diaper changing stations in public restrooms, regardless of gender. Bills 1350 and 1358 recently passed out of the California Senate Transportation and Housing Committee with bipartisan support.

Bill Breakdown

If they pass the California Assembly, the bills would go into effect on January 1, 2015. Senate Bill 1350, backed by Lara, mandates that public accommodations that undertake substantial renovations (exceeding $10,000) or install new restrooms assure open access to baby changing stations regardless of restroom gender assignment.

Senator Wolk supports the more stringent bill, 1358. Under this legislation, all public accommodations would require “…mandatory building standards for the installation of baby diaper changing accommodations in restroom facilities…” This bill would create a ripple effect by making more baby changing stations available to modern families.

This isn’t the first time a region has tried to create equality for men on diaper-duty. Pittsburgh City Councilor Natalia Rudiak proposed a bill in July 2013 that would require all city-owned buildings and facilities to offer baby changing stations for both men and women. In response to those opposed to the bill, Rudiak said the stations were fairly low-cost and would not require extensive construction.

Likewise, in July 2013, Miami-Dade County, Florida passed the Baby-Diaper Changing Accommodations Ordinance, which requires all businesses to provide baby changing stations in men’s, women’s, and unisex restrooms. Businesses in violation of the ordinance must pay a Civil Penalty of $500. The efforts of these Pittsburgh and Miami-Dade legislators are just some of the first in an effort to make parenting easier for both moms and dads.

Diaper Dads

Fathers across the nation are pleased by these new efforts. Several daddy bloggers track restrooms with diaper changing stations in restaurants, movie theaters, businesses, and other public buildings. One blogger who calls himself  “daddydoinwork,” called on his fellow fathers to publicize the lack of changing tables in men’s restrooms in order to create change.

The Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2013 and discovered that there are more than 2.6 million single fathers in the United States. The number of fathers who act as primary caregivers is increasing–especially as our modern society becomes more accepting of single parenting and homosexual parenting. Furthermore, the trend of stay-at-home-dads is rising–they comprise a total 3.5 percent of married couples with children in which one parent works full-time.

Our ever-changing society requires complimentary progress in our public facilities. This is no grand task–baby changing tables are easily installed and low-cost. If fathers were given more opportunities to easily change their babies’ diapers, establishments would better fulfill their responsibilities to serve the public’s needs. Businesses should also follow the lead–help out our diaper duty dads, and maybe they’ll leave a nice tip.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Tex Batmart via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Good but Stinky Step for Parenting Equality appeared first on Law Street.