Man jailed when daughter fails to get diploma

Tuesday May 13, 2008

by [url=mailto://]The Baltimore Sun[/url]

A man ordered by a judge to make sure his daughter hit the books has found himself in jail because she failed to earn a high school equivalency diploma.
Brian Gegner, of Fairfield, was sentenced last week to 180 days in jail for contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a minor.
He was ordered months ago to make sure his 18-year-old daughter Brittany Gegner, who has a history of truancy, received her GED -- something that hasn't happened yet.

Brittany Gegner, who said Monday that she plans to take a required GED test this month, said her father shouldn't be blamed for her failure because she has been living with her mother.

"It was my wrongdoing, not his,'' said Brittany Gegner, whose fiance and 18-month-old daughter also live at her mother's home in nearby Hamilton. "He shouldn't have to go to jail for something I did.''
Her mother agrees.

"Brittany is almost 19 years old now and I think it's unfair to put her father in jail,'' said Shana Roach. "She's an adult now, and it's not right to rip an innocent man from his home.''

Butler County Juvenile Court administrator Rob Clevenger Jr. said Monday that the court still has jurisdiction in the case because Brittany Gegner was a juvenile when the truancy problems began and when the charge against Brian Gegner was filed in 2007.

A hearing on a motion filed by Brian Gegner's attorney to reconsider the sentence is scheduled for Friday. Messages seeking comment were not returned Monday at the offices of defense attorney Tamara Sack and the Butler County prosecutor.
Brian Gegner's wife, Stephanie Gegner, said she and her husband are afraid he will lose his job if he remains in jail. She said they tried to keep his daughter in school.
"You'd take her to school and she'd go out the other door,'' Stephanie Gegner said.
http://www.dailymail.com/News/NationandWorld/200805130135

I don't think that can possibly withstand an appeal.

Maryland law (Section 7-301 of the Education Article) requires regular school attendance of children between five and sixteen years of age. Any person who has legal custody or care and control of a child five years old and under 16, who fails to see that the child attends school or receives instruction under this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and:
(i) a first conviction is subject to a fine not to exceed $50.00 per day of unlawful absence or imprisonment not to exceed ten days, or both;
(ii) a second or subsequent conviction is subject to a fine not to exceed $100 per day of unlawful absence or imprisonment not to exceed 30 days, or both.

btw........this is the sort of thing I refer to as "judicial activism".

This is one of those cases that warrant's puntative damages.

And someone should have their ass kicked for being so stupid as the law clearly doesn't allow this man to go to jail.

And someone should have their ass kicked for being so stupid as the law clearly doesn't allow this man to go to jail.

The law allows for it on the first conviction. Ten days on the first conviction, 30 on the second.

How is it judicial activism? The legislators put that law, as it is written, on the books in the first place.

If the judges were to ignore the law, then I might agree with "judicial activism".

TerryRC wrote:And someone should have their ass kicked for being so stupid as the law clearly doesn't allow this man to go to jail.

The law allows for it on the first conviction. Ten days on the first conviction, 30 on the second.

How is it judicial activism? The legislators put that law, as it is written, on the books in the first place.

If the judges were to ignore the law, then I might agree with "judicial activism".

Terry,

Please pay particular attention to text I have in red. This is clearly a case of judicial activism.

A man ordered by a judge to make sure his daughter hit the books has found himself in jail because she failed to earn a high school equivalency diploma.
Brian Gegner, of Fairfield, was sentenced last week to 180 days in jail for contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a minor.
He was ordered months ago to make sure his 18-year-old daughter Brittany Gegner, who has a history of truancy, received her GED -- something that hasn't happened yet.(snip)

(snip)"Brittany is almost 19 years old now and I think it's unfair to put her father in jail,'' said Shana Roach. "She's an adult now, and it's not right to rip an innocent man from his home.''

Butler County Juvenile Court administrator Rob Clevenger Jr. said Monday that the court still has jurisdiction in the case because Brittany Gegner was a juvenile when the truancy problems began and when the charge against Brian Gegner was filed in 2007.

Maryland law (Section 7-301 of the Education Article) requires regular school attendance of children between five and sixteen years of age. Any person who has legal custody or care and control of a child five years old and under 16, who fails to see that the child attends school or receives instruction under this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and:
(i) a first conviction is subject to a fine not to exceed $50.00 per day of unlawful absence or imprisonment not to exceed ten days, or both;
(ii) a second or subsequent conviction is subject to a fine not to exceed $100 per day of unlawful absence or imprisonment not to exceed 30 days, or both.

Yes, but the girl has been skipping since well before the age of sixteen.

This also isn't the first time the dad has appeared for this.

Once you have been found guilty, there is no statute of limitations to have run out.

Terry,

The charge wasn't filed against the father until the girl was 17 y/o. He wasn't found guilty of anything prior to her 16th birthday, he wasn't even charged back then according to this article.

The charge wasn't filed against the father until the girl was 17 y/o. He wasn't found guilty of anything prior to her 16th birthday, he wasn't even charged back then according to this article.

I have a good friend that lives in Anne Arundel Co. and she has been keeping me abreast of this.

The father was given a conditional discharge following charges that were filed while the daughter was still 16, even if he didn't appear until she was 16.

Like I said, the judges are, perhaps, being a little tough on him but are still within the letter of the law.

So according to you TC, since the father was 'before' the judge when she was 16, the father has to answer for HER crimes even though she's an adult. She would answer for murder, theft, selling drugs, robbery or any other crime but her father answers for her skipping school.

Would that continue if she stayed in school for the next 5 years? Would he face jail time if his 23 year old daughter refused to go to schoo?

Suppose she stayed in school for the next 10 years but couldn't manage to graduate. Would he face jail time for his 28 year old daugher not going to school?

According to you, there is no end to when he answers for his ADULT childs actions.

Really???

Aaron,

It isn't even about that....the state cannot compel a child to attend school any more after their 16th birthday. So the judge could punish the father for his daughter not attending school when she was 15 years 11 months and 29 days, but once she turned 16 the law no longer applies.

Judges sometimes make education requirements as a condition of parole or probation. My looney-toon neighbor got probation on an arson charge and one of the conditions was that she get her GED within 2 years.

This is different. If the judge had found her guilty of delinquency and required her to receive her GED as a condition of probation that would be fine. That's not what happened here. He's punishing the father for things his now adult daughter fails to do.

Even if the father appeared before the court when his daughter was 15, the court still has no right to imprison or fine him now for things she is doing 3+ years later. Even if she were still 15, the law says he can only be imprisoned for 30 days. Has he been charged 7 times before the girl turned 16? If that's the case, the judge should have locked him up for 30 day increments each time he went before the court from the second appearance on.

This judge is overstepping his authority. I don't believe this will stand on appeal, unless there are charges other than truancy involved. I think the law is pretty clear.

But he was not sentenced to 180 days in jail for allowing truancy from school.

From the referenced article:

Brian Gegner, of Fairfield, was sentenced last week to 180 days in jail for contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a minor.

Yes, Ziggy.....but from the article you posted the deliquency or unruliness is the truancy. In some states minors are not convicted of robbery or even murder, they are found deliquent. I suspect MD is one such state. If she was delinquent in other ways, wouldn't the article have mentioned it?

It seems this father is being sent to jail because his daughter didn't get her GED. That's beyond stupid.

To me, this is just further dumbing down of both or school system and our legal system. As I said earlier, were I this man, I wouldn't settle for this being overturned on appeal, I would use the liberalization of our schools and courts against the school system for pursuing this. I'd find me a lawyer and sue the school board till the cows came home. As for the judge, he should be removed for failure to use any common sense whatsoever.

You know what really gets me is if the girl didn't want to be in school she was very likely only going to be disruptive, harming all the students around her.

They (especially the student) would have all been so much better off if they had sought an alternative program for her. She may have done much better in a vocational school or something that actually interested her. Instead the state chose to slap a lable on her and harrass her father. Shame on them.

I agree. I'm coming of a mind that the best thing to do is lowering the age for mandatory school attendance, not increasing it. You agree with me Stephanie when you say if a kid doesn't want to be there, all they're going to do is be disruptative.

Aaron,

I see no use in forcing teenagers who aren't interested to attend a traditional high school. I do think it a very good idea to provide other opportunities for those teens, though. Vocational training or apprenticeships are a couple of options.

So according to you TC, since the father was 'before' the judge when she was 16, the father has to answer for HER crimes even though she's an adult. She would answer for murder, theft, selling drugs, robbery or any other crime but her father answers for her skipping school.

No, Aaron, that is what Maryland law says.

If you are given a conditional discharge, which the father was, you can still be hit with the punishment if you don't fulfill the conditions of the discharge.

I agree that the judge is being a boob but is still within the letter of the law.

You guys hate judges - if they enforce the law, they are "activist". If they don't enforce the law, they are "soft on crime".

Blame the schools and the judges, but by no means, blame the parent.