Bill would require parents to pay for property damaged by children

Wednesday, Feb. 5, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

Under terms of AB39, introduced by first-term Assemblyman Dario Herrera, parents or guardians who couldn't pay could be ordered to perform community service along with the errant children.

"This is a bill to ensure parental involvement and accountability for the actions of their children," Herrera , D-Las Vegas, told Assembly Judiciary members.

Herrera stressed that the bill is not meant to punish parents but to encourage them to watch their children more closely. He also pointed out provisions to let judges use their discretion on individual cases.

"We realize there can be extenuating circumstances," Herrera said. "Judges can use their discretion in cases where you might have a runaway child or a child that the parents just can't control."

Lt. Phil Galeoto of the Reno Police Department and Stan Olsen of Las Vegas Metro both endorsed the bill. Also favoring the plan was Ken Patterson, head of the state Child and Family Services division.

"This bill is very consistent with notions we have about expanding the issue of accountability as a way for courts to deal with youth," Patterson said.

Attorney Joe Guild, who testified on behalf of State Farm Insurance Co., asked for an amendment to the bill that would prohibit parents from paying for damages through their insurance companies.

"If the goal of this legislation is to force parents to more closely supervise their children and to prevent some of these destructive acts, I think the parents ought to be the ones who have to pay for it," Guild said.

Guild said that without an amendment, parents won't feel any sting because insurers will be the ones who pay for damages.

But Guild's suggestion held little weight with some committee members.

"The fundamental thing about insurance is that we buy it so we can spread the risk," said Assemblyman John Carpenter, R-Elko. "That's what I pay insurance for, to take that risk away from me so I don't have to pay out of my own pocket."

Herrera said he hadn't had much time to consider Guild's amendment but doubted it would be included in the bill.

"After hearing the arguments of my colleagues today, I'm inclined not to support it," he said.