Man Jailed After Adult Daughter Fails To Get GED - What?

This story (via fark) seems to beggar the imagination. How does this guy not have a huge lawsuit opportunity against the state?

Man Jailed After Daughter Fails To Get GED

Specifically re the question I am asking in GQ - How, logically, can a father be deemed responsible for the academic performance of an adult child?

I can understand making sure a minor child attends school, and putting that on the parent as a requirement, but how… legally, logically, or just based on common sense can any Judge or court “order” a person to guarantee that another person (much less an adult) will pass a math exam on pain of imprisonment?

Here’s a post from the dad’s sister. Interesting.

from http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:-MkmZeUIr-MJ:www.cincymoms.com/f/ShowThread.aspx%3Ftid%3D49066%26cid%3D15%26fid%3D94+"Brian+Gegner+"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

Oh, I forgot. This is OHIO. Nevermind. :frowning:

This is family court. These asshole judges are used to mandating outcomes in families. Just because the daughter is 19 means nothing. This judge makes adults do silly and childish things for his living. Why can’t YOU make a 19 year old do something? (According to family court logic)

Hopefully this case leads to some reform in the family court system. BTW, why hasn’t the Governor of Ohio read this story and ordered this man’s release from jail?

From reading the article it seems that this is for something that happened when she was 16. Think of it as basically a suspended sentence. The judge had the option to sentence him several years ago and didn’t as long as certain conditions were met. Those conditions were not met hence the sentence. Of course things are different from state to state but juvenile court usually retains jurisdiction for events that happened when someone is a juvenile even after they become an adult.

This is GQ so don’t take the above as agreeing with what happened in the court. Just trying to answer the question.

It’s still effing stupid - if they girl is running wild (which seems to be much of the problem here) lock HER up until she passes the test.

You just know there’s got to be more to this story than what we have here…

It’s a ridiculous sentence. It’s also surprising that she can’t pass the math section of the GED. It looks to be basic arithmetic in word problem form for the most part.

She might have dyscalculia. For learning disorders like these a one on one therapeutic approach might be better than rote study.

This is absolutely outrageous. We are not living in a free country, and haven’t been for a while now. I’m scared - honestly. Someone - a mayor, a county council person, a state legislator, a congress person, a governor - SOMEONE needs to do something for this man.

You would think the age of the whipping boy would be over, wouldn’t you? Isn’t it about time that people are held liable for their own actions instead of the actions of others? I would imagine there would be a tremendous outcry if they jailed teachers for kids not being educated and they have a greater degree of influence on that as opposed to the parents.

Family courts (and CPS officers, for that matter) make me sick. They are so severely screwed up and they are exempt from prosecution themselves for all the needless pain (and even death) they can inflict on families.

Which part of this is unclear?[ul][li]When she was sixteen, her father was responsible for her.[]The judge threatened to send her father to prison unless he was able to cause a change in his daughter’s behavior - to wit, having her graduate high school or the equivalent (the GED).[]He failed to bring about this change.Now he has to go to prison.[/ul]IOW, he is not being sent to prison because of the actions of his adult daughter. He is being sent to prison because of the actions of his daughter when she was a minor. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Which part of this is unclear?[ul][li]When she was sixteen, her father was responsible for her.[]The judge threatened to send her father to prison unless he was able to cause a change in his daughter’s behavior - to wit, having her graduate high school or the equivalent (the GED).[]He failed to bring about this change.Now he has to go to prison.[/ul]IOW, he is not being sent to prison because of the actions of his adult daughter. He is being sent to prison because of the actions of his daughter when she was a minor.[/li][/QUOTE]

I think you need to take the reading comprehension part of the GED again. Brittany turned 18 on 8/23/2007. The “get a GED or Dad goes do jail” order was given on 8/29/2007, a week after she became a legal adult. You can feel free to argue that young people nowadays in some cases remain de facto children well into their 20’s, but in the eyes of a law, this court has jailed one adult for failing to control another adult.

Surely everyone in that jurisdiction whose child drops out of school has been jailed. Right? Right?

Well…I’m in the county just south of that one, so mayhaps I should consider myself lucky given my own son’s issues.

I find this story ridiculous and disgusting and feel sympathetic towards the father. Stupid judge. :mad:

I don’t think this is right. The charge of contributing to the delinquincy of a minor occurred when the daughter was 16. The court order to get the GED was to avoid the penalty of the charge, so it doesn’t matter that the daughter had turned 18.

Suppose Tracy Lords does some underage porn. It’s against the law to possess underage porn. Can you argue that it’s legal to possess her underage porn because Tracy Lords is no longer underage? I don’t think so.

I swear to god that link in the OP went to a better written story yesterday. I can’t seem to find one with more information. In the longer story it mentioned that the original stay of sentence happened when she was 16. At that time the judge ordered her back to school or her father would go to jail. She dropped out again. The judge did not send the father to jail. The judge imposed other conditions and continued the stay. Those conditions were not met. Juvenile courts have jurisdiction over adults for things that happened when they were juveniles. The sentence was for something that happened when she was a juvenile. We don’t know the original reason for her being in juvenile court to begin with. Dropouts don’t go to court just for dropping out. Something else happened and we don’t know the father’s role in it.

I am not saying this to say I agree. I don’t. It is not possible to make a 16 year do what they don’t want to do let alone an 18 year old. However the OP asked a GQ question I am attempting to give a GQy answer since this is GQ and not RO.

This is a false analogy. Under this analogy, the situation would be jailing someone for helping Traci Lords shoot porn movies on the day she turned 18, because it would have been illegal to shoot the film the day before when she was 17. When the person turns 18, they’re an adult, it’s too late for the court to start forcing the parents to be parents.

However, if Loach’s restated story is correct in saying that he was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor at the time she was 16, and was given a suspended sentence of that crime based on satisfying certain conditions that he failed to meet, then this makes a lot more sense legally.

It was the original order that was dumb (unless it was some kind of plea deal that the father agreed to). How can anyone make sure with 100% certainty that their daughter passes a test? It even puts the daughter in a position where she can tank the test on purpose out of spite to put her father in prison.

If this account (according to Brian Gegner’s sister) is an accurate description of events, then the court did not declare that the girl must pass her GED until she was already an adult. On the other hand, this account is confusing because it does not explain why she was back in court on August 29th.

In general, I agree that even if the man is, legally speaking, being punished for a crime he committed when his daughter was a minor, the court seems to have placed itself in an absurd position. Suspending a man’s sentence on condition that he do such-and-such a thing only makes sense if it’s something that’s actually in his power to do.

The one niggling detail that I can’t find is when exactly the man was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.