Parental responsibility for young offenders is a social construct which is ambiguous and taken for granted. The responsibilisation of parents and carers not only makes them culpable for their child's criminal conduct but generalises the parenting role, giving insufficient attention to differentiating factors; for example, generalisations in relation to ethnic minority groups and gender-specific issues. Therefore, the concept needs further examination than is provided by the current literature in order to clarify its inferences aimed at parents, whose personal circumstances differ. The current literature in this area focuses on the concept of parental responsibility, either being a cause of youth offending or as a rationale for unnecessary state intervention into family lives. However, based on the rights of the child as an offender, this thesis argues for a clearer understanding of the phrase 'a lack of parental responsibility' when attributed to parents of young offenders. This thesis gives greater clarity to the social construct of parental responsibility for young offenders by drawing on the disciplines of law, criminology, psychology and economics. The developmental approach proposed by Professor Rutherford is highlighted as an alternative form of intervention aimed at young offenders in contrast to formal state intervention. The approach proposes use of the family, school and community as means of diverting young offenders away from reoffending. This thesis expands on the approach by identifying specific methods of implementation into these institutions in order to ensure the child's rights are met. Therefore, this thesis brings to the fore the recognition of parental autonomy in relation to young offenders rather than the traditional view of parental accountability for their child's conduct. It analyses the elements that make up a lack of parental responsibility, which contributes to the existing literature in this area, and the implications the phrase has for legal and social policy.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Duke University, 2008.

The purpose of the study is to examine what effects the law has on principals’ approaches to mandatory reporting of child maltreatment (Social Services Act 14:1§). Moreover, the aim is to study if the regulation gets the impact intended. To respond to the purpose, legal science methods in the form of sociology of law were employed aided by qualitative semi-structured research interviews. The interviews comprised six principals in six different schools in the Stockholm area. The interviews were analyzed based on sociology of law theory, earlier research and relevant regulations in social law. The outcome indicates that principals’ understanding of the intentions behind mandatory reporting of child maltreatment is limited in some aspects. There is a difference between the interviewed principals’ official approaches and how they answer that they apply mandatory reporting in practice. When deciding how to apply the mandatory reporting, the child’s best interest is weighed against the parents’ right not to be reported to the authorities unless there is a real concern in the child. The principals suggest that in situations when a report does not lead to action, the reporting creates a bad relationship between the parents and the school. According to the principals, these situations affect the children and their wellbeing