What typically happens is that the treatment facility in California will periodically report to the PO back in Texas. As long as the kid is following the rules of the facility and meeting his treatment goals, he’s met the terms of probation. If the kid fucks around, doesn’t take treatment seriously, or signs himself out, he’s violated the terms of probation and goes to prison.
Probation doesn’t mean that the PO and the probationer are joined at the hip. All it means is that there are restrictions and terms that the probationer has to adhere to, and the PO makes sure that the probationer is adhering to them.
Would it likely be even possible for him to sign himself out, or would he more likely be in a locked facility that he can’t leave voluntarily? What would stop him from signing himself out and going on the lam?
California law says that a minor can’t sign himself out of an inpatient treatment facility; whoever has custody over him has to. He does have the right to participate in decisions concerning his treatment, but not much more than that and, given his legal status, I doubt he’s in a position to say no to much of anything. That said, I was a little hasty in assuming he’d be allowed to sign himself out, but I’m fairly sure that any attempt to leave before treatment has been completed will not be viewed favorably by anyone, least of all, the court.
Does Texas have ultimate authority over what treatment center is allowed? As I mentioned above, it seems that based on the kid’s entitlement issues there is a real danger that he will be in a country club instead of bonafide treatment center.
If they want to do it legally ( I’m assuming it’s a fairly long-term program, not a week or two) , the probation office in Texas will request that the appropriate probation office in California assume supervision under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. (It’s not contracting because no money flows from Texas to California). He can’t go to the rehab in California until and unless California accepts supervision. Of course, it’s entirely possible that the judge in Texas will ignore the compact, but that’s how it’s supposed to be.
So is the father of this kid liable (in civil court)? It would seem that he faces a major issue-he did allow the kid to drive his truck.
Sorta like the OJ Simpson case-OJ found not guilty (criminal court0, but liable in civil court.
Since it was a company truck, any possibility the company and not the parents are liable?
I suspect you’ll have a hard tim making anyone liable for the actions of someone else, even a minor, unless you can show they tacitly allowed such behaviour or encouraged it. Showing someone premitted drunk driving would require a decent amount of proof.
I doubt (any lawyers know for sure?) that showing someone is a bad parent is sufficient to make them culpable in a crime.
Some states may have “hold the parent rsponsible” laws.
The big problem is the company truck. As owner of the truck, the company shares responsibility to some extent in what that truck does when driven with the permisson of the company. OTOH, if it’s a limited liability company, the only damages are limited to the assets of the company - basically, you sue to put a whole bunch of people out of work and close down the company. Or… the company pays the lawyer fees and judgement out of pre-tax income.
A lawyer I talked to about the mechanics behind court cases once, mentioned that generally the problem is that in most places, the legal community is a very small and closed one. The judges and lawyers see each other all the time, and probably meet socially after hours quite frequently. Lawyers know what some judges respond to and what buttons to press, and judges will treat certain lawyers and their cases in response to circumstances other than just the facts; not to say there is bribery or even explicit back-scratching happening, but everyone is anacquaintance and colleague and gets the consideration that brings.
So a request from a very important prominent (expensive) lawyer will get a lot more respect and consideration from the judge who goes to the same country club, than if it comes from some twerp who only does public defender cases and can’t afford a new car. And said expensive lawyer is likely to hand the judge, on a silver platter, the solution that helps his client without making the judge look too soft.
Which is exactly the point
If Judge Boyd essentially confirmed this as the basis of her ruling then the parents would have culpability.
Been meaning to post to this for several days, haven’t had time.
I’m reading two different questions there - are you asking if probationers can ask to be released from probation early, or are you asking if judges have the discretion to sentence probation violators to less time than they were originally sentenced to? The answer to both questions is yes, but they deal with different outcomes: what happens if they don’t violate, and what happens if they do. If they don’t violate probation and have substantially complied with the terms of their probation, they can ask the judge to relase them after a certain percentage of their probation period has passed. The judge has the discretion to release them, but doesn’t have to. The second question is what happens if they violate and motion to revoke their probation is filed. The probationer can ask for a hearing and try to show that they didn’t violate and should be reinstated, or that they did violate but that it wasn’t serious/they’re really sorry and should be reinstated, or that they did violate but that it wasn’t serious and that they should receive less prison time than they were originally sentenced to. If a probationer has a motion to revoke because they committed a new felony or absconded they’re more likely to get the full sentence than if they were spotty about paying probation fees or lazy about reporting. As far as being sentenced to prison and then being put back on probation, it doesn’t happen like that, at least for adult probationers. A judge can reinstate a probationer on probation with, say, 30 days in the county jail as a condition (i.e. “attention getter,” aka “jail therapy”), but once he’s revoked and sent to prison he’s no longer on probation and no longer answerable to the judge. If he’s released it will be on parole, not on probation.
I actually have doubts that the kid’s “entitlement problem” really had much to do with the decision, and that the sentence had far more to do with being in juvenile court rather than adult criminal court. The judge may very well have found the “affluenza” argument unpersuasive, perhaps even as ludicrous as posters here have found it, and still have given the sentence that she gave.
If he had been certified to stand trial as an adult and transferred to adult criminal court, he’d have been much more likely to be sentenced to prison time (although still not a lock; juries can sometimes be hesitant to sentence criminal defendants to prison for intox manslaughter, especially a sympathetic/pathetic, bawling 16 year old). Juvenile courts are different, though. Juvenile courts are presided over by family law or county court at law judges and don’t focus on retribution and punishment in the same way that adult criminal courts do. In juvenile court the proceeding is civil rather than criminal, and the person in question is a child and treated as such. In deciding a sentence the judge must consider what is in the “best interest of a child.” That’s a far cry from adult criminal court, where the best interest of a criminal defendant is pretty far down the line of considerations. In juvenile court the law explicitly states that rehabilitation of the child is to be considered so far as it is practicable, and juvenile courts will generally avoid maximum sentences for first time offenders unless they’re completely, psychopathically Ted Bundy style unsalvageable. By and large having a juvenile system that tries hard to rehabilitate juvenile offenders before giving up and washing their hands of them is a good thing, even if it’s a particularly hard pill to swallow in this case.
Not necessarily. Just because they warped the poor dear’s little mind so that he did not appreciate right from wrong well enough to control his behaviour - does not mean they specifically allowed or encouraged drunk driving. The former was a reason why the kid should have been given a bit of mercy in his sentencing. The latter is direct resposnibility for the specific crime of drunk driving. For that, you would have to show the parents encouraged drinking, knew and did not reprimand him for drunk driving, and so on… any specific acts which show they specifically should have known he was driving drunk or liable to be driving drunk, and they did nothing about it.
Regardless, the lawsuits will probably name the parents on the theory that you drag everyone and anyone even marginally involved into the lawsuit, especially if they have the pockets. the first arguments will be to determine if there is enough evidence that they should be liable. If they’re going to argue philosophy of child rearing as legal liability, then it boils down to whoever has the most expensive lawyers will win… um… oh yeah.
(I’m sure the victims’ lawyers are poring over driving records, facebook posts, interviewing anyone even remotely connected to the family to see if there are instances of behaviour that would prove the parents knew or heard about previous episodes of DUI.)
TX parental liability laws are as follows;
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/FA/2/B/41/41.001
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/FA/2/B/41/41.002
Would and could it apply to the operation of a MV??
They need look no further than this case. The defense presented testimony that he was allowed to drink at a young age.
“Defense attorneys put a psychologist on the stand who testified Couch was a product of wealth and got whatever he wanted. The psychologist also testified the teen was allowed to drink at a very young age and began driving at 13 years old.”
Yep. Exactly - that’s the sort of stuff that helps drag the parents’ wallets into the mix. Even if they get off without paying anything, they’ll pay their lawyers a hefty bundle.
I’m reading that as their liability capped at $25,000 which is pretty good for the parents - probably chump change. Then there’s the question of what “malicious” means legally. I interpret it as deliberate intent to cause damage or hurt; DUI would be wilful, he meant to do it, but not malicious, as in whether he meant to plow into those people.
And, of course…
http://kfor.com/2013/12/16/victims-families-file-multimillion-dollar-lawsuits-against-affluenza-teen/
The statute only lists PROPERTY damage, so it is unknown what the case law has to say on it harm to persons!
Now in Ohio we have one as follows;
3109.10 Liability of parents for willful and malicious assaults by their children.
This however, would not include MV negligence!
I found one complaint that lists his FATHER as defendant;
- The president and owner of Defendant Company, Fred Couch, was the father of Ethan Couch. He knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that his son was a reckless and incompetent driver.
IX. NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT: FRED COUCH
-
Defendant Fred Couch, the father of Ethan Couch, is the owner of Defendant Company.
-
On June 15, 2013 Fred Couch entrusted his company’s truck on the highways of Texas to Ethan Couch, a drunk, reckless, inexperienced, untrustworthy, and incompetent driver.
They are seeking damages of up to 20 MILLION.
http://www.fortworthinjuryattorneyblog.com/Petition-Molina.pdf
So how would the parents’ previous actions enter into this? If the Daily Mail is right, they created a culture of being above the law.
ETA: Is Judge Boyd racist?
The Daily Mail omitted some information from the original source that reported that. Apparently Boyd sentenced him to TYC after being unable to find a residential facility that would take the boy due to the violent nature of the offense, and the mother of the deceased was still angry at her and still thought she was too lenient.
Sentence given to teen in deadly drunk driving crash spurs backlash