A couple in Michigan faced a 10-15 year sentence due to their child's involvement in a school shooting. Should parents bear legal responsibility for their children's actions? What obligation do we have to recognize and address behavioral warning signs in our children? If our child is struggling with mental health issues, are we liable if we fail to intervene? Moreover, should parents be held accountable when their seemingly well-behaved child turns into a school shooter using a firearm provided by them?
The unequivocal answer to these questions is now yes. In a landmark ruling recently, a Michigan court established that parents can be legally held accountable for the criminal actions of their children. Is this a precedent fraught with danger, oversimplifying a complex issue? Or could it serve as a deterrent to parents who may negligently provide access to firearms to their children, prompting families to prioritize mental health, especially when signs of distress are evident in their behavior?
Facts
On November 30, 2021, Ethan, the son of Jennifer and James Crumbley, initiated a shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan, resulting in the deaths of four students and injuries to seven others. Ethan faced adult charges for murder and terrorism on December 1, 2021. Three days later, Jennifer and James Crumbley were charged with involuntary manslaughter for their son's actions. On December 9, 2023, Ethan was sentenced to life in prison. Subsequently, his parents were separately tried and found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, each receiving sentences of 10 to 15 years. They are the first U.S. parents ever convicted for manslaughter in connection with a mass shooting perpetrated by their child.
Warnings Ignored by Ethan's Parents
On March 9, 2021, Ethan sent messages to his mother expressing anxiety about a perceived intruder in their home, pleading for her to return home.
On the same day, Ethan exhibited signs of delusion, claiming "The house is haunted" and "a demon is throwing bowls."
On April 5, 2021, Ethan confided in a friend about considering calling 911 on himself but feared his parents' reaction.
Ethan maintained a journal where he documented "struggling with my dark side" and feeling ignored by his parents regarding getting help or seeing a therapist.
During the summer of 2021, Ethan engaged in cruelty towards animals, including torturing and killing birds, and displayed disturbing behavior.
On November 26, 2021, James Crumbley purchased a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun for Ethan.
The following Monday, Ethan was caught by his teacher browsing ammunition on his phone, with his mother cautioning him not to get caught next time.
On November 30, 2021, the day of the shooting, both parents prematurely ended a school meeting regarding a disturbing drawing made by Ethan, despite the school's request to take him home, leading to the shooting shortly after.
The Mental and Legal Ramifications of Precedent
While Michigan prosecutors acknowledged that establishing guilt against the Crumbleys might set a controversial and potentially far-reaching precedent, they argued that Ethan's exhibited signs of mental distress, which his parents ignored, compounded by their gross negligence in providing him with a firearm, warranted a shift in accountability. Judge Cheryl Matthews emphasized that the convictions were not about parental shortcomings but rather about repeatedly disregarding clear warning signs that a "reasonable person" would have recognized. The reasonable person standard is a legal concept used to assess liability. In the months preceding his rampage, Ethan pleaded for help from his parents, who consistently dismissed his distress. Moreover, they chose to arm him despite his obvious mental health issues. Providing a firearm to a child displaying such evident mental health concerns is not only "unreasonable" but also constitutes gross negligence.
Many legal scholars remain unconvinced that holding parents liable for their children's acts of violence will deter mass violence. Furthermore, attributing blame to parents for such acts of violence perpetrated by their children could oversimplify a complex issue. Bushman and Newman argue that acts of mass violence are multifaceted, with no single cause. They contend that youth violence is typically associated with interpersonal dynamics, neurobiological factors, academic achievement, personality traits, exposure to media violence, substance abuse, social rejection, mental health, and access to firearms. For Bushman and Newman, assessing accountability solely based on parenting and firearm access overlooks the many other factors contributing to school shooters' actions.
Critics of this ruling fear that it could empower prosecutors to use their discretion to convict parents who, unlike the Crumbleys, may meet the reasonable standard of care in addressing their child's mental needs and restricting firearm access. This precedent could open the floodgates for parents to unfairly bear blame for a societal issue requiring greater attention. Victims' families and affected communities seek accountability for the deaths of innocent students. Prosecutors aim to do the same. We all do. The Crumbleys provided a scapegoat for those grieving. However, preventing school massacres will likely require more research and resources than simply scapegoating parents. The dangers of overextending precedent cannot be overstated.