C’mon! They can’t have it both ways. Either the kid is to be treated as an adult for legal purposes (see Florida charging a 13 year old with a felony for changing his teacher’s wallpaper, or the parent is totally responsible for the kid. Make up your mind!
Taking responsibility for your child’s actions doesn’t have to mean being a helicopter parent. This father believed his child was mature enough to go buy some Lego toys without supervision. If the kid had trashed the store or stolen something then the father would be the one responsible whether he was present our not. But that didn’t happen, so what’s the big deal?
Edit: On reflection you may have been making the opposite point of the one I thought you were making. In that case never mind.
Wait. What the actual fuck!?!?
That just makes it worse, though.
If my mum and I see a sign like that when we’re shopping together, she’ll often say something snarky to the cashier on the way out. Sure, she’s a senior and I’m middle-aged, but it just says “child”, and I am her child.
I wish I were more surprised by that.
“Duplon” is, I’ve no doubt, a character in Tintin.
Yup! See:
Let me guess - some busybody shopper saw this kid “loitering” around the store, went to the manager, and said the magic words “legal liability”, and they panicked. That “rule” was not posted because it had not existed until they picked up the kid. Net result - I bet he’s not the only customer this stunt will run off for good. They’d better hope the busybody a) has no more bugaboos to exploit and b) buys a Whole Lot of Stuff.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.