Four “troublemaking kids” plus a dog climbed onto a Jaguar, and these five good friends loved to play so much that they scratched the car’s paint. The estimated repair cost came to $21,000, and the kids’ parents were required to compensate for the damage.

The parents argued that their kids didn’t do it on purpose, so does “not on purpose” mean they should bear less responsibility?

Can the fact that the kids are young and naive be a reason for the parents to refuse compensation?

Recently, a heated discussion arose from a minor incident where a few kids scratched a car. It wasn’t a big deal, and compensation was all that was needed. However, the parents’ responses revealed the logic of “troublemaking kids” and their “troublemaking parents.”

Here’s what happened: a man discovered fine scratches on his car’s hood and roof when he went to retrieve his vehicle. The once shiny paint had now turned into “patterns,” resembling claw marks.

Naturally, the car owner was distressed to see his car defaced. To identify the responsible party, he checked the surveillance footage and found four kids climbing onto the car’s hood and playing recklessly, with two of them even climbing onto the roof. Not only did the kids climb on the car, but they also brought a dog along with them.

The surveillance footage revealed the truth. The car owner contacted the kids’ parents to discuss compensation. Following an assessment by the car dealership, the repair cost amounted to $21,000.

Despite clear evidence, the parents did not agree to cover this part of the loss. They argued that some of the damage was not caused by the kids, so they shouldn’t have to pay that much.

One parent shared their perspective: “We can take responsibility for what our kids did, but it’s unrealistic to extort money from us. The kids are innocent; after all, they didn’t scratch the car on purpose.”

As no agreement could be reached on the price, the car owner felt helpless. Pursuing legal action would be time-consuming and costly, with the possibility of not being worth the effort. Since everyone lived nearby and might meet again in the future, making a big fuss about this matter seemed unnecessary.

In an effort to gain the parents’ acceptance, the car owner reduced the total cost to $9,000, to be shared among the kids’ parents. The car owner made a significant concession, considering that his car was insured.

It was expected that an agreement could be reached, but in the end, two parents still disagreed, feeling that the price was too high, and no consensus was reached.

One of the parents who emphasized the kids’ innocence stated, “The damage to your car can be fixed for less than $1,000. We’ll give you a maximum of $1,000; not a penny more. If you don’t agree, then sue us. There’s no point in further discussion.”

Given this stance, the car owner had no choice but to give up. He planned to pursue legal action as the next step. Despite the time and effort it would require, and the unpleasantness it might bring, the car owner was determined to see this through to the end.

This incident sparked a heated debate, and the parents’ “playing dumb” mentality was quite unsettling. It was clear that they were just stalling, waiting to see who would back down first.

It’s true that the kids didn’t do it on purpose, but the damage caused by the kids is undeniable. Can parents really ignore the losses their kids have caused?

As the kids’ first teachers, parents’ values play an irreplaceable role in their children’s upbringing. Their words and actions can influence their children’s lives, and unreasonable parents cannot set a good example and are unlikely to raise good kids.

Claiming “not on purpose” as an excuse to evade responsibility, even after the repair costs have been determined, is this attitude reasonable? Can they really shirk responsibility?

Imagine if one day this parent’s child is hit by a car, can the other driver also use “I didn’t do it on purpose” as an excuse? After all, the driver really didn’t do it on purpose, so can the responsible party just brush it off and only pay one-twenty-first of the cost?

How deep does this logic go? These parents have lived for half a lifetime, so how can they not understand it?

As grown adults, don’t they understand the principles of social conduct? Don’t they understand that evil begets evil?

As parents, failing to educate their children properly and only knowing how to shift blame without providing proper guidance. When their children enter society, there will always be someone to educate them. When that time comes, “not on purpose” might not be so simple anymore.

In recent years, there have been numerous cases of financial losses caused by “troublemaking kids” and the “troublemaking parents” behind them. Just take a casual look online, and you’ll find countless similar cases.

I remember reading a piece of news the other day about a child in a certain area playing around in an elevator, jumping and hitting the elevator buttons with his fists and feet. This ultimately led to the emergency brake being activated, trapping the child inside. The child was frightened and sustained minor injuries.

To free the child, the property management had to urgently dismantle the elevator, disrupting the normal use for many people.

The parents not only refused to compensate for the elevator, but also threatened to sue the property management, claiming that their elevator quality was subpar and had scared their child. Could they afford the compensation?

Some say that the increasing number of “troublemaking kids” today is due to the prevalence of “troublemaking parents.” They have raised their children to be just like them, to the point where the kids have no regard for rules.

This is an ironic statement, but at the end of the day, there’s probably a connection between the type of parents and the type of children they have raised. Many people overly spoil and pamper their children, fearing that they might suffer the slightest grievance. In reality, this hinders the children’s future.

In recent years, there have been many similar incidents. Often, when a child makes a mistake, the parents not only fail to recognize the child’s mistake and the potential consequences, but also boldly believe that their child has been wronged and demand justice.

Little do they know, this is not protecting their children; it might actually hinder their children’s future.

Nowadays, when kids make mistakes, the phrase “he’s just a child” has gradually become a convenient excuse for many parents to evade responsibility.

Indeed, children are young and naive, and they may not understand the consequences, so they shouldn’t bear the responsibility. But are the parents also young and naive? Are they too young?

The word “child” is not an excuse to shift responsibility. In the eyes of others, everyone is just a “child”! The critical issue is that while other people’s children didn’t make mistakes, why did yours? Shouldn’t parents reflect on how they have raised their children?

The elders say, “What’s learned in the cradle is carried to the grave.”

During a child’s upbringing, parental guidance is crucial. Every action and every word influences the child. Playing dumb and being unreasonable might yield short-term benefits, but if the child is led astray, it could result in a lifetime of loss.