Missouri’s Parental Responsibility Statutes

Most states have enacted some kind of parental responsibility legislation. These are civil legislation that may be used to financially punish a parent or guardian if a minor kid performs certain detrimental conduct. Depending on the nature of the state’s legislation, parents may even be held financially liable if their children cause an accident in which someone is hurt.

This article will examine Missouri’s parental responsibility legislation, covering the types of behavior that would subject a parent to liability under the act and the degree of a parent’s financial exposure. Continue reading for more information.

What are the Parental Responsibility Laws in Missouri?

The parental responsibility law in Missouri is contained in Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 537.045. It precisely defines when parents or guardians may be held liable for the behavior of kids in their care, as well as the pecuniary implications.

In Missouri, parental responsibility for a minor’s graffiti and other property damage exists.

If a juvenile in Missouri intentionally marks, defaces, or otherwise destroys property and a judgment is issued against them, the minor’s custodial parent(s) or guardian(s) will be held accountable.

To collect against the child’s parent or guardian, the property owner must file a lawsuit against the minor and identify the parent or guardian as a defendant. However, liability is restricted to $2,000 per incident.

Owners of damaged property may seek reimbursement from a minor’s parents under section 537.045, but this does not exclude them from seeking damages from the child. Only if there is any remaining balance (over $2,000) may the injured party sue the minor for the expense of repairing or replacing the damaged property.

In Missouri, parents have parental responsibility for minors’ personal injuries.

Parents and guardians (excluding foster parents) shall be held accountable if a minor kid in their care is found guilty of intentionally inflicting physical damage to another person. Again, the parent must be identified as a defendant, and liability is limited to $2,000. In addition, as with property damage, the aggrieved person may sue the minor for any amount in excess of the $2,000 parental limit.

Keep in mind that this regulation does not apply to minors who cause automobile accidents or other catastrophes. To some degree, the youngster must have planned to do what he or she did.

In Missouri, minors have the option of working off their debt.

Section 537.045 of the Missouri Revised Statutes has an intriguing surprise. Once a judgment for property damage or personal injury is issued against a juvenile, the court may compel the parent or guardian and the youngster to labor for the property owner or injured person in lieu of payment. This agreement must be agreed upon by all parties.

Missouri Under “Common Law,” parents may still be held liable.

Even if Missouri’s parental responsibility rules do not apply, parents may be held financially liable for their children’s activities. Non-statutory, generic customary fault rules (referred to as “common law”) may impose extra parental obligation in a broader sense.

The Restatement of Torts, a legal treatise frequently consulted by judges, states that “a parent is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so as to control his minor child so as to prevent it from intentionally harming others or from conducting itself in such a way as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if the parent (a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his child, and (b) knows of or should know of the necessity and opportunity of

In other words, parents who are aware of their kid’s proclivity to behave recklessly or negligently may be required to take reasonable precautions to keep the child from causing foreseeable injury to others.

Assume a parent is aware that his or her kid is a distracted driver who routinely chats or texts while driving, and the youngster has earned three penalties for distracted driving. Despite this, the parent allows the youngster to continue driving the family vehicle and makes no attempt to limit the child’s phone usage. In such circumstance, you might argue the father was “aware” of the child’s harmful tendencies. As a result, if the kid causes an accident while chatting or texting, the parent may be held liable for failing to avoid foreseeable injury.