HOA pool ban for prior vandalism of HOA property

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here— I can’t believe this is a news story, and instead of going to the news to complain, maybe the parents should examine their kids behavior. Expecting community service to be the consequence is pretty entitled as it requires supervision and coordination on someone else’s time.

To clarify: according to NBC4 the boys vandalized a little free library on HOA property, not a public library.

Entitled? FFS

What do you want the punishment to be? Banned for 20 years?

DP

Arrested for damage to public property.

Hahaha tough on crime guy!

Everyone in my neighborhood growing up would be locked up if they arrested every kid who did stuff like break a $5 door off of what is basically a bird house LMAO

Yeah, welcome to DCUM, land of sniffy, holier-than-thou shrews who are literally itching to cast judgment and establish their Alpha Karen bona fides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what it private property or HOA property. Special needs kid aside, because the 11 and 14 yr old probably didn’t know who personally made the free library if it was on HOA property. It is the equivalent of a teen knocking over a mailbox. Which is vandalism and wrong, but it isn’t some heinous act deserving to be banned from something for several years. I’m sure a large portion of their HOA fee goes toward pool maintenance and usage. I don’t see how they can legally keep that money and not allow them to utilize services for 7 years.

I had a neighbor who played mailbox baseball with some friends as a teen, turns out it was a federal offense that the government took very seriously. There was a court case, lawyers, and all sorts of fun. I believe it resolved in a plea bargain with a hefty fine and lots of community service. Don’t mess with mailboxes.

So the feds are more reasonable than the HOA? That's pretty amazing.

I would bet that the amount that the family spent on lawyers and community service was far more then the families cost of not having access to the pool and play ground. And that whole having a juvenile record until your 18 thing. Toss in however his parents punished him and I suspect that a ban from the pool would have been fine.

It's not the money. It's the fact that they are shunning and excluding a child from his own community for 7 years (!) We don't even treat adult vandals like that.

OK, mom, the point is that you didn't show up at the HOA meeting to discuss what your son did, never apologized, refused to compensate for the damage, and then aired this all in the news. You are a PITA and you have taught your kids that getting attention is more important than being a good, kind, considerate person. No HOA would want you. Your child is being excluded from the pool because you have shown no remorse for destroying something that a disabled child built. Shame on you. Shame on you.

My son didn’t do anything. I’m not the mother of this kid and I don’t even know them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what it private property or HOA property. Special needs kid aside, because the 11 and 14 yr old probably didn’t know who personally made the free library if it was on HOA property. It is the equivalent of a teen knocking over a mailbox. Which is vandalism and wrong, but it isn’t some heinous act deserving to be banned from something for several years. I’m sure a large portion of their HOA fee goes toward pool maintenance and usage. I don’t see how they can legally keep that money and not allow them to utilize services for 7 years.

I had a neighbor who played mailbox baseball with some friends as a teen, turns out it was a federal offense that the government took very seriously. There was a court case, lawyers, and all sorts of fun. I believe it resolved in a plea bargain with a hefty fine and lots of community service. Don’t mess with mailboxes.

So the feds are more reasonable than the HOA? That's pretty amazing.

I would bet that the amount that the family spent on lawyers and community service was far more then the families cost of not having access to the pool and play ground. And that whole having a juvenile record until your 18 thing. Toss in however his parents punished him and I suspect that a ban from the pool would have been fine.

It's not the money. It's the fact that they are shunning and excluding a child from his own community for 7 years (!) We don't even treat adult vandals like that.

OK, mom, the point is that you didn't show up at the HOA meeting to discuss what your son did, never apologized, refused to compensate for the damage, and then aired this all in the news. You are a PITA and you have taught your kids that getting attention is more important than being a good, kind, considerate person. No HOA would want you. Your child is being excluded from the pool because you have shown no remorse for destroying something that a disabled child built. Shame on you. Shame on you.

It's obvious that the parent is a major PITA. Taking it out on a 6th grader for 7 years doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Shame on YOU!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what it private property or HOA property. Special needs kid aside, because the 11 and 14 yr old probably didn’t know who personally made the free library if it was on HOA property. It is the equivalent of a teen knocking over a mailbox. Which is vandalism and wrong, but it isn’t some heinous act deserving to be banned from something for several years. I’m sure a large portion of their HOA fee goes toward pool maintenance and usage. I don’t see how they can legally keep that money and not allow them to utilize services for 7 years.

I had a neighbor who played mailbox baseball with some friends as a teen, turns out it was a federal offense that the government took very seriously. There was a court case, lawyers, and all sorts of fun. I believe it resolved in a plea bargain with a hefty fine and lots of community service. Don’t mess with mailboxes.

So the feds are more reasonable than the HOA? That's pretty amazing.

I would bet that the amount that the family spent on lawyers and community service was far more then the families cost of not having access to the pool and play ground. And that whole having a juvenile record until your 18 thing. Toss in however his parents punished him and I suspect that a ban from the pool would have been fine.

It's not the money. It's the fact that they are shunning and excluding a child from his own community for 7 years (!) We don't even treat adult vandals like that.

OK, mom, the point is that you didn't show up at the HOA meeting to discuss what your son did, never apologized, refused to compensate for the damage, and then aired this all in the news. You are a PITA and you have taught your kids that getting attention is more important than being a good, kind, considerate person. No HOA would want you. Your child is being excluded from the pool because you have shown no remorse for destroying something that a disabled child built. Shame on you. Shame on you.

It's obvious that the parent is a major PITA. Taking it out on a 6th grader for 7 years doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Shame on YOU!

DP. There's definitely a lot more to the story. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The kid is being punished more harshly than they would've been if the parents were doing their job. Based on the information about the parent, I suspect that 1. Regardless of what the mom says, there have been plenty of prior incidents with the child, mostly related to lack of supervision and 2. The HOA knows that the second something happens with this kid at the pool, they will be blamed and sued. This is exactly the type of situation where parents drop their 11 year olds off at the pool and leave for the day, argue with the life guards about unsafe play in the water, ignore the pool rules about swim tests and running on the pool deck, you name it. They know the family is a problem and they don't want the liability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's obvious that the parent is a major PITA. Taking it out on a 6th grader for 7 years doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Shame on YOU!

DP. There's definitely a lot more to the story. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The kid is being punished more harshly than they would've been if the parents were doing their job. Based on the information about the parent, I suspect that 1. Regardless of what the mom says, there have been plenty of prior incidents with the child, mostly related to lack of supervision and 2. The HOA knows that the second something happens with this kid at the pool, they will be blamed and sued. This is exactly the type of situation where parents drop their 11 year olds off at the pool and leave for the day, argue with the life guards about unsafe play in the water, ignore the pool rules about swim tests and running on the pool deck, you name it. They know the family is a problem and they don't want the liability.

Bingo. And this particular mother has already sued the school system for trying to 'kill' her child over diabetes medication. They all know what she has planned in regards to the pool if he slips and falls unsupervised while she's sitting at home doing whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's obvious that the parent is a major PITA. Taking it out on a 6th grader for 7 years doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Shame on YOU!

DP. There's definitely a lot more to the story. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The kid is being punished more harshly than they would've been if the parents were doing their job. Based on the information about the parent, I suspect that 1. Regardless of what the mom says, there have been plenty of prior incidents with the child, mostly related to lack of supervision and 2. The HOA knows that the second something happens with this kid at the pool, they will be blamed and sued. This is exactly the type of situation where parents drop their 11 year olds off at the pool and leave for the day, argue with the life guards about unsafe play in the water, ignore the pool rules about swim tests and running on the pool deck, you name it. They know the family is a problem and they don't want the liability.

Bingo. And this particular mother has already sued the school system for trying to 'kill' her child over diabetes medication. They all know what she has planned in regards to the pool if he slips and falls unsupervised while she's sitting at home doing whatever.

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

And the local poster who was so happy about the HOA's decision is a horrible example of that community.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like the kid who received a 7 year ban (as opposed to the other kid who receive 1 year) is likely a known menace to the community, and there's a lot more to it than this once incident.

[Anonymous]

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

The HOA is charged with protecting the community. This isn’t about punishment but rather about protecting the community from the unnecessary expense of litigation costs of this family due to the conduct of this child. I do think the punishment aspect of the community protection is unfortunate. But I’m not certain the HOA is wrong in their determination that this ban is necessary for the community. People are acting like the HOA is a criminal court that needs to rehabilitate the child and that’s not it’s role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

The HOA is charged with protecting the community. This isn’t about punishment but rather about protecting the community from the unnecessary expense of litigation costs of this family due to the conduct of this child. I do think the punishment aspect of the community protection is unfortunate. But I’m not certain the HOA is wrong in their determination that this ban is necessary for the community. People are acting like the HOA is a criminal court that needs to rehabilitate the child and that’s not it’s role.

What type of litigation are you referring to? Everything posted about past behavior of this kid is simply speculation. Yeah, the mom is nutz, but how would the HOA be liable by imposing a lesser punishment? Ostracizing a 12 year old for 7 years makes these HOA board members look like total buffoons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

The HOA is charged with protecting the community. This isn’t about punishment but rather about protecting the community from the unnecessary expense of litigation costs of this family due to the conduct of this child. I do think the punishment aspect of the community protection is unfortunate. But I’m not certain the HOA is wrong in their determination that this ban is necessary for the community. People are acting like the HOA is a criminal court that needs to rehabilitate the child and that’s not it’s role.

What type of litigation are you referring to? Everything posted about past behavior of this kid is simply speculation. Yeah, the mom is nutz, but how would the HOA be liable by imposing a lesser punishment? Ostracizing a 12 year old for 7 years makes these HOA board members look like total buffoons.

The PP is referring to future litigation if the kid is allowed back into the community swimming pool and based on prior incidents showing little-to-no parental supervision as well as bad judgement would get into some kind of trouble again. Trouble that the litigious mother, who has quite a history with the law herself, would sue for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

The HOA is charged with protecting the community. This isn’t about punishment but rather about protecting the community from the unnecessary expense of litigation costs of this family due to the conduct of this child. I do think the punishment aspect of the community protection is unfortunate. But I’m not certain the HOA is wrong in their determination that this ban is necessary for the community. People are acting like the HOA is a criminal court that needs to rehabilitate the child and that’s not it’s role.

What type of litigation are you referring to? Everything posted about past behavior of this kid is simply speculation. Yeah, the mom is nutz, but how would the HOA be liable by imposing a lesser punishment? Ostracizing a 12 year old for 7 years makes these HOA board members look like total buffoons.

The PP is referring to future litigation if the kid is allowed back into the community swimming pool and based on prior incidents showing little-to-no parental supervision as well as bad judgement would get into some kind of trouble again. Trouble that the litigious mother, who has quite a history with the law herself, would sue for.

Do you mean the prior incidents made up by a pp?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

The HOA is charged with protecting the community. This isn’t about punishment but rather about protecting the community from the unnecessary expense of litigation costs of this family due to the conduct of this child. I do think the punishment aspect of the community protection is unfortunate. But I’m not certain the HOA is wrong in their determination that this ban is necessary for the community. People are acting like the HOA is a criminal court that needs to rehabilitate the child and that’s not it’s role.

What type of litigation are you referring to? Everything posted about past behavior of this kid is simply speculation. Yeah, the mom is nutz, but how would the HOA be liable by imposing a lesser punishment? Ostracizing a 12 year old for 7 years makes these HOA board members look like total buffoons.

The PP is referring to future litigation if the kid is allowed back into the community swimming pool and based on prior incidents showing little-to-no parental supervision as well as bad judgement would get into some kind of trouble again. Trouble that the litigious mother, who has quite a history with the law herself, would sue for.

Do you mean the prior incidents made up by a pp?

The analysis previously provided is legally sound and made by a person that understands the law, and more importantly, liability avoidance. The HOA now has direct knowledge that these children would deliberately cause damage to HOA property. If the HOA were to allow these boys back onto community property without having some sort of comfort that this was an isolated incident, and one of these boys caused further damage to HOA property, or if they were to act irresponsible and hurt someone, then the HOA would have legal exposure for not doing everything possible to avoid future destruction or property or harm to persons. This is similar to a slip and fall claim. Example: Lets say a bottle of soap had dropped of the shelve and splatter soap all over the floor in a store. An employee walks by and sees the soap on the floor, therefore has knowledge of a situation that could be dangerous or harmful, and does nothing to protect the patrons from slipping on this soap. After this, a patron does slip and fall on this soapy floor, the store would be libel since they had knowledge of the soap that caused the injury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that they punched in the library door and tossed books in the woods but the parents are only paying $125 in fines collectively.

They should be paying $1,000 for the cost to replace the door and the library materials. The fact that they also weren't arrested for destruction of public property?

The hoa prob backed away from anything that would go on permanent record and negatively affect college applications.

A bunch of sidwell friends kids stole from a ruined a house when some frenemies showed up to a house one girl was house sitting for. When the homeowners returned they had cameras and a list of who came and went and didn’t press charges but did what their stolen stuff back. They made it clear they wouldn’t press charges but wanted an apology. Half the kids did. The other half their parents insisted that was not their kid or phone records at the house. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

The HOA is charged with protecting the community. This isn’t about punishment but rather about protecting the community from the unnecessary expense of litigation costs of this family due to the conduct of this child. I do think the punishment aspect of the community protection is unfortunate. But I’m not certain the HOA is wrong in their determination that this ban is necessary for the community. People are acting like the HOA is a criminal court that needs to rehabilitate the child and that’s not it’s role.

What type of litigation are you referring to? Everything posted about past behavior of this kid is simply speculation. Yeah, the mom is nutz, but how would the HOA be liable by imposing a lesser punishment? Ostracizing a 12 year old for 7 years makes these HOA board members look like total buffoons.

The PP is referring to future litigation if the kid is allowed back into the community swimming pool and based on prior incidents showing little-to-no parental supervision as well as bad judgement would get into some kind of trouble again. Trouble that the litigious mother, who has quite a history with the law herself, would sue for.

Do you mean the prior incidents made up by a pp?

The analysis previously provided is legally sound and made by a person that understands the law, and more importantly, liability avoidance. The HOA now has direct knowledge that these children would deliberately cause damage to HOA property. If the HOA were to allow these boys back onto community property without having some sort of comfort that this was an isolated incident, and one of these boys caused further damage to HOA property, or if they were to act irresponsible and hurt someone, then the HOA would have legal exposure for not doing everything possible to avoid future destruction or property or harm to persons. This is similar to a slip and fall claim. Example: Lets say a bottle of soap had dropped of the shelve and splatter soap all over the floor in a store. An employee walks by and sees the soap on the floor, therefore has knowledge of a situation that could be dangerous or harmful, and does nothing to protect the patrons from slipping on this soap. After this, a patron does slip and fall on this soapy floor, the store would be libel since they had knowledge of the soap that caused the injury.

Sound more like an interpretation of the law by someone who watches Judge Judy. If you're a lawyer and you think that allowing some kid who threw a book into the woods on your property is a liability issue, then you need to get a refund from the law school you attended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

The HOA is charged with protecting the community. This isn’t about punishment but rather about protecting the community from the unnecessary expense of litigation costs of this family due to the conduct of this child. I do think the punishment aspect of the community protection is unfortunate. But I’m not certain the HOA is wrong in their determination that this ban is necessary for the community. People are acting like the HOA is a criminal court that needs to rehabilitate the child and that’s not it’s role.

What type of litigation are you referring to? Everything posted about past behavior of this kid is simply speculation. Yeah, the mom is nutz, but how would the HOA be liable by imposing a lesser punishment? Ostracizing a 12 year old for 7 years makes these HOA board members look like total buffoons.

The PP is referring to future litigation if the kid is allowed back into the community swimming pool and based on prior incidents showing little-to-no parental supervision as well as bad judgement would get into some kind of trouble again. Trouble that the litigious mother, who has quite a history with the law herself, would sue for.

Do you mean the prior incidents made up by a pp?

The analysis previously provided is legally sound and made by a person that understands the law, and more importantly, liability avoidance. The HOA now has direct knowledge that these children would deliberately cause damage to HOA property. If the HOA were to allow these boys back onto community property without having some sort of comfort that this was an isolated incident, and one of these boys caused further damage to HOA property, or if they were to act irresponsible and hurt someone, then the HOA would have legal exposure for not doing everything possible to avoid future destruction or property or harm to persons. This is similar to a slip and fall claim. Example: Lets say a bottle of soap had dropped of the shelve and splatter soap all over the floor in a store. An employee walks by and sees the soap on the floor, therefore has knowledge of a situation that could be dangerous or harmful, and does nothing to protect the patrons from slipping on this soap. After this, a patron does slip and fall on this soapy floor, the store would be libel since they had knowledge of the soap that caused the injury.

Sound more like an interpretation of the law by someone who watches Judge Judy. If you're a lawyer and you think that allowing some kid who threw a book into the woods on your property is a liability issue, then you need to get a refund from the law school you attended.

If you think you know exactly how a judge would rule, then you clearly know nothing about the legal process. And, you if knew the facts as they are presented, this was much more than throwing some books in the woods, this was destruction of a little library built by a special need child for the benefit of the HOA.