Across social media and in mainstream news, the lack of interest from students in classrooms nationwide, along with a significant disruptive behavior seen amongst educators has developed into an urgent issue. On social media, such as TikTok and even Instagram, there has been a debate on who is accountable for the students actions in the classroom and lack of engagement.
Revised back in 2005, The Parental Responsibility Law (740 ILCS 115/) is an important legal mechanism in Illinois that underscores the link between youth behavior, family supervision, and accountability. It plays a role in protecting victims and signaling parental duties. However, as with any law that allocates responsibility, it must be used thoughtfully, with awareness of family realities, youth development, and community contexts. Many may not be familiar with this law; however, with growing concern over holding parents accountable for their children’s behavior, it has become an increasingly popular topic of discussion. For families, the takeaway is clear: while the law is not a substitute for good parenting or community support, it is a real financial and legal reality. For communities and schools, it is a reminder that prevention and support matters as much as discipline and liability. And for youth themselves, it is a signal that “just messing around” can have serious consequences, not just for them, but for their family..
The Parental Responsibility Law, holds parents liable for damages resulting from their child’s willful or malicious acts, such as property damage or injury. This law holds parents liable for their children’s misconduct, including intentional harm, physical violence, vandalism, or theft. The law applies to unemancipated minors between the ages of 11 and 19 who reside with the parent or guardian. Parents are liable for actual, measurable damages, and can also be responsible for medical bills and pain and suffering. This law does not extend to accidents. Parents may face lawsuits (or claims) by victims, school districts, municipalities, or other entities, seeking restitution for property damage or personal injury caused by the minor’s intentional acts. There are limits to how much can be recovered from parents under this law. As of 2009, recovery cannot exceed $20,000 for a single act and $30,000 if a pattern of malicious acts exists.
In cases of personal injury, damages are limited to specific expenses like medical and hospital bills. For property damage, the law covers the cost of repairs. Schools and districts routinely cite this law in their discipline and policy handbooks when dealing with vandalism, destruction of property or student mis-conduct: for example, parents/guardians may be held responsible under the statute for damage caused by students.
A review of the JTHS student handbook confirms that it includes a “Restitution” section that says, “Restitution may be imposed for such infractions as damage to school property.” The board policy has a section (7:170) under Vandalism/Damage to School Property that states the district will seek restitution from students and parents/guardians for vandalism or other acts that damage school property, and it legally references 740 ILCS 115 (Parental Responsibility Law). According to Detective Price, Joliet West Resource Officer, “I’ve definitely seen deans apply that law in situations where property or personal items were damaged to help with restitution or resolution.”
The law can operate as a deterrent: knowing that a child’s intentional wrongdoing could expose their parents to liability may incentivize parents and guardians to supervise and engage more closely in prevention. It places a signal that youth behavior doesn’t exist in a vacuum, the family context, supervision and guidance matter. On the flipside, some critics argue that the law may place undue burden on families, especially lower-income ones, where supervision may be more challenging because of work, resources, single-parent homes, etc.
Additionally, families who have children with behavioral or developmental challenges may feel the law is unfair or does not adequately take into account the underlying causes of the misconduct. It may inadvertently shift the focus from underlying causes of youth mis-behavior (e.g., school climate, mental health supports, community factors) to a liability/threat posture. So the question remains, is this law Fair or Flawed? Overall, the law fills an important gap by giving victims some recourse when a minor intentionally harms persons or property.
It reinforces the notion that parents/guardians have a role in guiding and supervising their children, this is especially relevant in an era where youth behaviors are increasingly complex (digital misconduct, bullying, vandalism, etc.). It sends a message of accountability, not just to youth, but to adults charged with their care.