Anonymous wrote:OP, you're really going to have to be more specific. Why was a 12 year old responsible for something so expensive??

I don't think the consequences have to be purely financial. Cancelling a trip or camp seem excessive, unless you really can't afford it because of the mistake. I think it would be enough to make him give you back some part of his allowance for a certain number of weeks and/or do extra chores to earn some money to help pay for the damage.

But adults make stupid mistakes all the time and punishment doesn't help us be more careful. I am usually very responsible but ruined an expensive new skillet by forgetting to turn the stove completely off. I felt bad (it had been a wedding gift) but no amount of punishment or having to buy a new one is going to help me remember not to make that stupid mistake again. Or was it more like he was supposed to lock the puppy in the basement but wanted to get back to playing outside with his friends so he just let it roam the house and figured it would be fine?

I agree with most of this. I wouldn't cancel camp unless cancelling camp is what you need to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I am offbase but to me this is like if you break something at work. Even if it was your fault and the mistake costs thousands they can't expect you to be financially responsible.

There can be consequences, but the idea that you would somehow hold a 12 year liable for $7k seems a little crazy.

OP again. Thanks all. Obviously we're not holding him liable for the amount--I thought that was quite clear from my question--trying to figure out what would in fact be reasonable, since there should be *some* financial consequence in our opinion.

Nothing was quite clear about your question smarty pants

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are annoyed and not helpful OP because the punishment has to fit the crime. So, right, there's no way to mke a 12 year old make up $7K. Not going to happen.

But if he forgot to put the dog in crate and dog chewed up house causing $7K worth of damage, then the punishment has to be something related to the dog or dog care. Heck I might make him volunteer at a shelter.

If he left his instrument someplace and it was stolen, the punishment has to be something about leaving things behind. He can't do (whatever he did that caused him to leave instrument) for a LONG period of time (i.e., not a week, but more like a month).

So the punishment isn't anything like $$, it's about the action. And we can't advise you on the action unless we have some clue.

Alternately, since you seem to have enough money that this ia a hit, but not a catastrophic one, maybe his punishment is learning the value of money in another way, and he has to volunteer at a homeless shelter or with kids who are less well off. Learning the value of things by being around people who can't afford them.

I agree with you in principle, but I don't think it's a good idea to make him help poor people as a punishment. Poor people do not exist for the benefit of teaching OP's child a lesson.

Community service is a pretty standard punishment. Not sure there's anything morally problematic about that.

OP, you're really going to have to be more specific. Why was a 12 year old responsible for something so expensive??

I don't think the consequences have to be purely financial. Cancelling a trip or camp seem excessive, unless you really can't afford it because of the mistake. I think it would be enough to make him give you back some part of his allowance for a certain number of weeks and/or do extra chores to earn some money to help pay for the damage.

But adults make stupid mistakes all the time and punishment doesn't help us be more careful. I am usually very responsible but ruined an expensive new skillet by forgetting to turn the stove completely off. I felt bad (it had been a wedding gift) but no amount of punishment or having to buy a new one is going to help me remember not to make that stupid mistake again. Or was it more like he was supposed to lock the puppy in the basement but wanted to get back to playing outside with his friends so he just let it roam the house and figured it would be fine?

Anonymous wrote:
Perhaps he flooded the basement.

OP has reiterated that she's not making him pay back the full monetary value she lost!

But for something so valuable, in circumstances where he knew he was supposed to be responsible, what consequences could there be?

OP, it depends on how awful he's feeling right now. Does he realize how much money he's lost you, and what that means in real life? Ask him what how he thinks he should be punished to gauge how responsible he is.

For me, the whole thing hinges on whether it was appropriate to make him responsible for something. Even if he did it right 1,000 times, that doesn't mean he won't mess up.

Anonymous wrote:I think people are annoyed and not helpful OP because the punishment has to fit the crime. So, right, there's no way to mke a 12 year old make up $7K. Not going to happen.

But if he forgot to put the dog in crate and dog chewed up house causing $7K worth of damage, then the punishment has to be something related to the dog or dog care. Heck I might make him volunteer at a shelter.

If he left his instrument someplace and it was stolen, the punishment has to be something about leaving things behind. He can't do (whatever he did that caused him to leave instrument) for a LONG period of time (i.e., not a week, but more like a month).

So the punishment isn't anything like $$, it's about the action. And we can't advise you on the action unless we have some clue.

Alternately, since you seem to have enough money that this ia a hit, but not a catastrophic one, maybe his punishment is learning the value of money in another way, and he has to volunteer at a homeless shelter or with kids who are less well off. Learning the value of things by being around people who can't afford them.

I agree with you in principle, but I don't think it's a good idea to make him help poor people as a punishment. Poor people do not exist for the benefit of teaching OP's child a lesson.

I think people are annoyed and not helpful OP because the punishment has to fit the crime. So, right, there's no way to mke a 12 year old make up $7K. Not going to happen.

But if he forgot to put the dog in crate and dog chewed up house causing $7K worth of damage, then the punishment has to be something related to the dog or dog care. Heck I might make him volunteer at a shelter.

If he left his instrument someplace and it was stolen, the punishment has to be something about leaving things behind. He can't do (whatever he did that caused him to leave instrument) for a LONG period of time (i.e., not a week, but more like a month).

So the punishment isn't anything like $$, it's about the action. And we can't advise you on the action unless we have some clue.

Alternately, since you seem to have enough money that this ia a hit, but not a catastrophic one, maybe his punishment is learning the value of money in another way, and he has to volunteer at a homeless shelter or with kids who are less well off. Learning the value of things by being around people who can't afford them.

Perhaps he flooded the basement.

OP has reiterated that she's not making him pay back the full monetary value she lost!

But for something so valuable, in circumstances where he knew he was supposed to be responsible, what consequences could there be?

OP, it depends on how awful he's feeling right now. Does he realize how much money he's lost you, and what that means in real life? Ask him what how he thinks he should be punished to gauge how responsible he is.

The kid is 12, not 16. Driving is a privilege. Easy to take away. We still don't know what the kid did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet OP bought him a $7,000 bicycle (yes, they exist) and she's too embarrassed to admit it.

But assuming that OP has homeowner's insurance, wouldn't a $7,000 bicycle be insured?

It should be. That's why I have a hard time understanding why a 12 year old should get punished because of the monetary value. It doesn't make sense- something that expensive should be insured. If OP failed to do that, she should be pissed at herself. Granted- the kid has some culpability for his irresponsibility, whatever that may be. But OP was far more irresponsible and she's not copping to that at all.

So by this logic, a teenager who causes a car accident shouldn't be punished because the car is insured? Insurance isn't the issue. The issue is that the child was irresponsible and OP's question was what consequence would be appropriate. I think the dollar amount only shows that this was something more serious.

Imagine if he was responsible for walking the dog inthe mornign and putting the dog in the crate before he got picked up from school.

And he forgot to put the dog in the crate b/c he was playing minecraft.

And everyone got home and the dog had destroyed a couch and chewed on the ipad that was left on the chair seat etc etc and ate a box of chocolates so now there are vet bills.

This could easily total 7K.

Here is my stab at it:

OP's DH had an elaborate Valentines's day surprise planned.

There was going to be a surprise party...
There was going to be cake...
There was going to be a $7000 diamond ring hidden in the cake (the piece with the rose).

It was all arranged. The guests, the band, the venue.

But the damn kid lost the friggin ring before we it insured!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet OP bought him a $7,000 bicycle (yes, they exist) and she's too embarrassed to admit it.

But assuming that OP has homeowner's insurance, wouldn't a $7,000 bicycle be insured?

It should be. That's why I have a hard time understanding why a 12 year old should get punished because of the monetary value. It doesn't make sense- something that expensive should be insured. If OP failed to do that, she should be pissed at herself. Granted- the kid has some culpability for his irresponsibility, whatever that may be. But OP was far more irresponsible and she's not copping to that at all.

Anonymous wrote:I bet OP bought him a $7,000 bicycle (yes, they exist) and she's too embarrassed to admit it.

But assuming that OP has homeowner's insurance, wouldn't a $7,000 bicycle be insured?

I bet OP bought him a $7,000 bicycle (yes, they exist) and she's too embarrassed to admit it.