The allegations were clear: the parents were being sued for half of their estate and half of their retirement income. The parents sat there, perplexed and shocked. Ten years ago, this would not have occurred; no court in the country—or in the world—would have entertained the idea that a child could avoid accountability for their poor decisions by simply claiming, ‘It’s not my fault.’
After hearing the details of the case, the judge entered the courtroom. The children had presented their case: they couldn’t hold jobs, secure stable housing, or keep food in their homes. ‘It’s not our fault,’ they claimed. Their arguments continued: ‘Our parents never taught us how to be adults. They were mean to us, which drove us to drink when we were sad. We took drugs because our parents made us feel bad about ourselves. We got into fights while intoxicated because they made us do chores growing up. They never praised us for turning in homework—they just insisted we keep studying. They wouldn’t let us relax, always pushing us to stay busy with household tasks. They even body-shamed us by claiming we were unhealthy when we gained weight.’ Their conclusion was simple: ‘Your Honor, they have ruined our ability to be productive adults.’
The judge looked at both parties: the accusers—no longer children but angry, functioning adults—and the defendants—aging, tired, confused parents.
‘Do you have anything to say in your defense?’ the judge asked the parents.
The parents took a deep breath. ‘Yes, Your Honor, we do. We believe that everyone has choices. To claim “it’s not my fault” is to deny responsibility for any decision you make. When you order food at a restaurant, you choose whether to eat it or not. While parents are responsible for their children during childhood, those children develop as they grow, and learn through experiences and schooling. As adults, they have choices in how they respond to situations and what jobs they take. We did our best not to enable our adult children by giving in to their manipulative practices and demands. We are not liable for our adult children’s actions.’
This may sound like fiction, but anyone working in criminal justice will recognize the elements of this story. Whether through phone calls, family disputes, or courtroom proceedings, many of these claims ring familiar. While relatively rare, cases of adult children suing their parents for emotional damage do occur. There are thousands of valid claims of poor parenting, but the ‘not my fault’ defense is increasingly common.
Consider the 2009 case where Steven and Kathryn Miner sued their mother, Kimberly Garrit, for emotional distress due to alleged ‘bad parenting.’ Their complaints wouldn’t typically warrant emergency calls: a daughter missing curfew after homecoming, a son not receiving a college care package, and a mother threatening to call the police if children wouldn’t buckle their seat belts. The court dismissed the lawsuit.
In public safety, similar patterns emerge. In a recent case, several public safety employees faced investigation for cocaine use. They blamed their behavior on their sergeant’s strict supervision, claiming they were under duress while working away from home. After heavy drinking at a bar, three employees purchased what they thought was cocaine and used it in front of colleagues, displaying their work IDs to “cut” the product. Their peers reported the incident immediately. Although testing revealed the substance wasn’t cocaine—likely baking soda—their intent to use drugs, combined with their refusal to accept responsibility, cost them their careers.
While public safety professionals regularly witness society’s struggles, there’s no clear evidence that enabled adults are more likely to commit crimes. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) emphasizes family life and parental supervision as essential in preventing juvenile delinquency but doesn’t address outcomes in adulthood. Public safety personnel may inadvertently enable others because they want to help those they care about.
The Foundry Treatment Center offers a clear distinction: helping means doing something for someone who cannot do it themselves while enabling means doing things someone can and should do for themselves. For public safety, continue to do what you got into public safety to do – make that difference and help others! Our challenge lies in recognizing this difference between the two.
Recent Comments