In Kansas, who pays the bill when a minor vandalizes?

Thanks to a loophole in Kansas law, if a minor vandalizes your property, you might be left footing the bill.

Ron Paschal, deputy district attorney in Sedgwick County, said in some cases, judges do not order restitution for the crime and even if payment is court-ordered, minors aren’t legally required to pay it in full, or at all.

“The way the law’s written now, they can get by without paying it,” Paschal said.

Children under the age of 10 can’t be charged or tried in court, but if someone between the ages of 10 and 17 breaks the window of a local business or keys a vehicle, the victim can be left picking up the tab, Paschal said.

“I’d say often times, victims are left in a situation where they are not compensated for loss of property or property damage,” Paschal said.

The loophole arose out of legislation passed by the Kansas legislature in 2016 reforming Kansas’ juvenile justice system. The bill was sponsored by the Kansas Senate Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight under advisement of a working group created during the Sam Brownback administration.

The bill focused on decreasing populations of incarcerated juveniles and minors in group-homes overtime, with early projections anticipating as much as a 60 percent decrease in minors living in group homes, juvenile detention or other similar systems by 2022. The measure is expected to save an estimated $72 million as well.

“Our goal was to give the youth another opportunity, to not lock them up, but to reintegrate them with their families,” said Rep. Gail Finney, a Wichita Democrat who was on the Juvenile Justice Working Group.

Rep. Sydney Carlin, a Manhattan Democrat, said it was a “major overhaul” that had bipartisan support in the legislature.

“This is something we all thought would make a difference in our juvenile justice system,” Finney said.

In emergency final action, it passed the Kansas Senate with 38 yes votes and 2 no votes. It later passed the Kansas House of Representatives with 117 yes votes and six no votes.

When the bill went into effect in 2017, it did more than just address these problems, Paschal said - it made new ones.

“It appears that the legislature has created a situation where it’s more difficult to collect restitution,” Paschal said. “It’s kind of tied the courts’ hands.”

Before the law was passed, Paschal said victims of vandalism didn’t always get their money back, but it varied on a case-to-case basis. Judges aren’t required to order restitution, particularly where “restitution is not workable,” Paschal said. For example, if a minor broke $25,000 worth of windows, a judge could rule against restitution on the grounds that minors don’t typically have the means to pay back that amount.

Previously, in cases where restitution was court ordered and the minor was expected to pay for the damaged property, it was at the judge’s discretion to hold them to that expectation. Failure to pay was seen as a failure to “complete the requirements of their probation,” Paschal said. Then, the court might have decided to extend their probation or increase the punishment.

In vandalism cases, any property damage that costs less than $1,000 is considered a misdemeanor. Damage over $1,000 is considered a felony. Under the new law, juveniles who commit misdemeanors are only under the jurisdiction of the court for a maximum of 12 months. Minors that commit felonies are typically under the jurisdiction of the court for a maximum of 18 months. If the money hasn’t been paid off by then, there’s nothing the courts can do, Paschal said.

This loophole doesn’t just apply to vandalism cases.

Paschal said the loophole can mean minors get out of paying restitution for any case “where the victim receives some kind of monetary loss.” Similar cases could involve theft or payment of hospital bills after a minor purposefully injures someone.

The court can still order restitution, but there’s virtually no deterrent to prevent minors from ignoring this court order, Paschal said.

Since the minor committed the crime, the parents aren’t legally required to pay for it either.

There are civil court options. Paschal said he thinks that might have been the route the legislature was hoping victims of juvenile vandalism would take.

“They felt like it was more of a situation for civil lawsuits,” Paschal said. “My problem with that is that they are victims of a crime and I think we have a duty to seek restitution on their behalf, and the court should impose restitution.”

Filing a lawsuit isn’t necessarily a viable option, Paschal said.

For instance, a teenager might do $800 worth of damage to some windows, but “getting a lawyer to handle that case isn’t cost effective,” Paschal said. At some point, the property owner will end up spending more money on a lawyer than the repairs would have cost.

“It leaves the victim in a hole,” Paschal said.

Ramon Gonzalez, former-representative and Republican from Perry, said loopholes in legislation aren’t all that uncommon.

“There’s always something that needs to be tweaked,” Gonzalez said. “Inevitably, a lot of stuff has loopholes down the line.”

Finney said the bill was the first step of many in reforming the juvenile justice system in Kansas.

“I hope people still have confidence in the work we are doing and ... we are still trying to improve it,” Finney said. “I still think it’s a good deal. Is it perfect? No ... but it’s an ongoing, work in progress.”

This story was originally published July 31, 2019 at 5:00 AM.