Hello everyone / Today I had bad luck with my son’s school / My son is six years old in the first grade / He pressed the alarm button and caused a false alarm and two fire trucks came to school / The school principal told me about the possibility of getting a bill estimated at 3000 dollars / I tried to discuss with her and she told me that the school will not pay this amount if there is a fine that will be paid by the father / What should I do?
Thank you
I doubt the principal's vengeance would run this deep, but (and this is from a teacher) the kid will forever be known as a sh!t at best, or a dumb sh!t if he is on the slow side of learning. It could define his time at the school, and ultimately him. Changing schools is not necessarily a bad idea after a stern talking to about cause and effect.
Any bill arising (if it were to even eventuate) is on the school, as he is under the supervision of the school in place of the parents.
What should I do?
Try using full stops in punctuation instead of "/".
That way we could all read your post a bit easier.
I quite liked reading it in song/rap form in my head
Searched the page for "full stop", was not disappointed
I didn't even notice and had to scroll back up to check. Either time for coffee or my brain is now used to automatically converting junk to readible text.
Fire Rescue Victoria are unlikely to send an invoice in this circumstance.
My question is how did a six year old set off an alarm…was there a lack of supervision on the schools part?
Absolutely. Legally the school is in loco parentis - "in place of the parent" - while they are there. That is, the school, not you, is legally reponsible for their students' actions.
There will probably not be a bill, but if there is it is very much the schools' problem, not OPs.
Legally the school is in loco parentis - "in place of the parent" - while they are there. That is, the school, not you, is legally reponsible for their students' actions.
Yes & no. It's not as clear cut as that. Whilst teachers/school leaders are in loco parentis, the expectation and responsibilities mean they are expected to act in the child's interest in the same manner as a reasonable parent. But this is qualified by the fact that a parent is not usually in charge of 25 to 30 children at a time, or far more in the case of yard duty. Just as it is not expected that a reasonable parent can foresee every action of a child, the legal responsibility of staff is more like; were they performing their duty as expected? If they were negligent, i.e. standing by and ignoring dangerous or inappropriate behaviour, then they assume a liability.
If little Billy has ducked out of view or entered a building when he should have been elsewhere, then activated the alarm, this is not necessarily a dereliction of the teachers' duty of care.
I thought "loco parentis" means crazy parents in Spanish
I immediately get stuck on what circumstance a 6 year old incurs a $3k bill without it being an obligation of the adult supervising that child and the time?
I mean sure, if I’ve left my kid without appropriate supervision, or failed to supervise them while in my care - the bill seems like it should be on me. But The school not providing adequate supervision doesn’t really feel like something where the financial penalties should land on me unless there’s some pretty remarkable circumstances. I’m curious about what circumstances the school feel place the actions of a 6 year old in their care outside of their obligation to supervise.
Don't you usually have to break a glass to access the switch?
It has no glass
makes me wonder how old the facility is and if the fire alarm system there is actually still compliant……all manual breakglass has a plastic glass piece to prevent accidental activation.
The new MCPs Ive seen installed don't have glass. You push the plastic panel and it activates the switch.
Also fire systems don't need to be retrospectively upgraded, so its compliance with current codes doesn't really matter.
@andyfc: buildings do need to be up to code, especially places like schools, if older systems are no longer code compliant, they need to be upgraded
@Qazxswec: In Victoria, there is nothing in the Building Act, Building Regulations or other legislation that requires buildings to be retrospectively upgraded to meeting current building codes. The BCA and the referenced Australian Standards change frequently. It would be incredibly onerous to require constant upgrades.
As far as I am aware this is the same as all other states.
They do need to compliant with the regulations at the time of construction, and if they're not, it's within the powers of a Municipal Building Surveyor to force them to fix it.
There are some instances where there's been a specific retrospective upgrade requirement that states have brought in, such as sprinklers in aged care. Both Victoria and NSW have now done this which applied to all new and existing buildings ( NSW only recently).
Retrospective upgrade to current regulations is often triggered by a renovations or building work which covers more than a certain amount of the building floor area or volume.
Hope that clears it up!
Makes me wonder if their AFSS is up to date
Write a letter to the fire department and let them know what happened. Advise them that your son is apologetic but that a fire alarm with no cover that a 6 year old can touch is something which should be resolved.
American found ^
The break glass switches are no longer being installed. The modern fire alarm switches that I've seen have a hinged plastic cover that flips up to access the switch.
See if they accept afterpay to ease the burden
Cashrewards?
Bulk discounts / cheaper by the dozen
But they are asking for Alipay..
What should I do?
Dock his pocket money and get him a job so you can take the bill out of his wages.
Send him to a workhouse in London to pay off the debt.
Heard the Queen's hiring maids… but minimum wage :\
heard Sco-mo has openings for kids operating forklifts
$3000 of pocket money!?
Looked it up for ya
https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/6283966/dont-burn-the-to…
They charge around $585 per truck being called out. So hopefully it won’t come up to $3000
Also, CFA headquarters entertains general enquires from the public. Try them as a last resort.
Best of luck
I do recall it was around $500, that was 25 years ago when I was in uni. Good to see something having not gone up much.
$585 per truck per 15 min.
Standard response is always 2 trucks. Add a little bit of faffing about on scene, talking to the principal, 30-45 minutes out of station all up for 2 trucks => 3 x 2 x $585 = $3510. Ka-ching!
(source: TFA you linked)
Gofundme
it'll get cancelled and funds sent to HAMAS or something lol
I'm sorry my writing is not good, I use a translator. My son has a strong fear of the alarm, and if it works, it causes him to get nervous and cry sometimes. Last night, the alarm rang in the building in which I live at 11 at night, and he was very frightened and terrified. Today he is the one who pressed the alarm in the school and I asked him why and he told me it was a light touch
he told me it was a light touch
Of course he's going to say that, he's 6 years old and scared of the consequences of his actions now that it has become a big deal.
I think the $3000 bill is being used as a threat so that you will take action to ensure your son doesn't do this again, although if a bill is actually issued you'll have to pay it.
It may be a threat, but if so it is pure bluff, and a dumb one at that. There is simply no way at all that a six year old's parent is legally responsible for their action while they are at school - the SCHOOL is. Google "in loco parentis".
The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent" refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent.
It is primarily for duty of care, not to bear complete legal responsibilities for their actions.
If the child was to steal something from the canteen, then is that OK because it is the schools fault and they are responsible? I think not. There would be no repercussions to the action. What if he goes off and damages someone's car? Gets into a fight and seriously injures someone? The kid is the one going to be fronting the Children's Court. The school isn't responsible for those actions, nor would they have to make financial reparations. That would be the actual parents. The school might be sued as a named co-defendant in a civil matter if it can be shown they weren't providing adequate supervision, failed to intervene, or provided a duty of care to an injured party.
The kid is the one going to be fronting the Children's Court.
6yos can not be legally charged with anything. So nope.
@[Deactivated]: You should have another look at Australian law. Children can be charged as adults in every state with varying age cutoffs.
@raginggiant: "In all Australian jurisdictions, the age of criminal liability is 10. This means that no child below the age of 10 can be arrested, summonsed or found guilty of a criminal offence"
@[Deactivated]: You can charge anyone, but it would be pointless — the case will be dismissed as the Children's Court only has jurisdiction for 10-17 year-olds in criminal matters. Doesn't make the allegation "illegal". What crime do you propose charging the investigator with? The court does deal with under-10 year-olds in matters of custody, care and protection, intervention orders, medical interventions and guardianship matters.
Clearly in the examples given I was speaking in terms of children in general, not this specific child and this specific case. This child wasn't accused of stealing, vandalizing cars or assault. In loco parentis applies to a wide range of ages and situations, not just children, and doesn't only apply to six year-olds..
It may be a threat, but if so it is pure bluff, and a dumb one at that.
Well, yes, but one could argue that it's had the desired effect because OP was concerned enough to post about it…
I strongly suspect they have mentioned it just to stress the importance of the issue. If they do actually proceed best point of call is going to be a polite email to your state representative, going the legal route is just a recipe for a shit fight and the need to move schools regardless of outcome. I remember back in college days the first callout was free.
Any facility containing a fire alarm system will usually have a fire warden - and this fire warden is the person that leads the fire drills and respond to real evacuation of the occupants. The fire warden also reacts to false alarms and if that occurs, reset the fire alarm system accordingly.
If someone accidentally hit the breakglass and cause a false alarm, or a smoke detector gone off because of malfunction, the fire warden should be the first person to react to this, before the alarm escalates to become a "real" fire situation that requires the fire department to respond.
Seems like your school does not have a fire warden and no proper emergency plans in place?
That dosnt sound right , lots of high capacity buildings alarms go straight to the fire department as any delay in a real event could lead to death or serious injuries.
or you drive the fire department mad in the response of false alarms everywhere - and they actually miss fighting fires where the real emergency is…and people die as a result.
False AFAs happen all the time
Yes.
Blame the school for letting children pull the alarm.
Australia is turning into a Karen country where personal responsibility is blaming other people.
For a six year old I think it's fair enough though.
The legal doctrine of "in loco parentis" - that schools, not parents, are responsible for the actions of a child while they are at any school where attendance is compulsory - is at least 150 years old, having started with compulsory education. So much for "turning into a Karen country".
The kid is SIX ferchrissakes - of course a big red button in easy reach is going to have an irresistible attraction. OF COURSE the school, not the kid and certainly not the kid's parent, is at fault for not kidproofing the classroom or supervising the kids near that button.
Dude at work burnt a piece of toast and had the fire department called in along with several floors of the building evacuated.
He claims it "wasn't that burnt".
did he cop the bill?
100% completely wrong, when a fire alarm is activated it is not the fire warden's duty to discover if a fire is real, their role is to guide the evacuation. In a school system, once the alarm has sounded, class teachers will lead their class to the designated safezone and will then wait there until the professionals have determined that it is safe to return to class.
I don't think you've worked in a school. Schools OHS policies, at least in SA, have action plans covering eventualities from bushfires, dangerous persons on site, dangerous animals, fires, accidents. All require training and many cases, drills for the whole school, involving managing the entire student body to a place or places of safety, notifying fire wardens or admin when everyone is accounted for. The process is timed and goes through a full debrief with staff at the next staff meeting.
School in bush fire areas have even more stringent requirements and drills.
This is not right at all, many many apartment buildings in Victoria, and shopping centres have a direct line to their local fire department. My mate lives in a 20 storey apartment building inner city Melbourne, as soon as a fire alarm goes off it’s goes to the local fire department and there is no way to stop it, a couple of the residents have been complaining because each time they burn toast or over cook a steak and the fire trucks come it cost them a couple grand in call out fees, and before you reply, once the alarm has gone off even calling 000 to stop them coming does not help they will always still attend
I live in a similar situation in Sydney. All the smoke alarms connect to a central panel that connects to the local fire station. I discovered this when I accidentally caused the fire brigade to arrive not long after moving in. However, it’s not as soon as an alarm goes off. The alarm has to sound for 4 minutes before the fire brigade is called. If I’d known this, I could have stopped it sounding. They charge $1600 but waive the callout fee if there hasn’t been an alarm at the same address fro the previous 60 days. There hadn’t.
Anyone can call the Fire Rescue, not limited to fire warden. Most commercial building and public venues have fire monitoring systems that automatically send a request for the fire service when the fire alarm is triggered.
We had this at uni, if you set of the alarm weather by burning something in an oven, or in some cases having really hot showers with steam you'd be up for the call out fee, which from memory was around $800.
$3000 sounds excessive, closer to $1000 would be my guess.
Presumably you attended Uni as an adult though, not as a six year old child.
A six year old child is not liable for literally anything. Even a serious crime like murder.
so if a 6 year old takes a hammer and starts smashing your car in. That's completely fine?
I didn't say it was completely fine. I said he is not liable.
@trapper: I think the insurance company may think otherwise. It'll be on them and indirectly the parent or guardian.
Case and point
@Drakesy: No, an insurance company won't think that because they will be aware of the relevant law.
edit: lol, you realise you linked to a case in China? I don't know much about the law in China but it would not surprise me at all if it is very different from here.
the child is not liable. whoever is monitoring the six year old child is liable. at school that should be a teacher.
@Antikythera: To me that sounds like blaming others and not taking responsibility and trying to weasel a way out.
You are right, for serious crimes we wait until they are 10 to jail them for life.
False alarm call outs happen all the time, just explain it to the fire department and I'm 99.99% it will be fine. I'm surpised he was able to activate the alarm button and suspect perhaps the school hasn't maintaining their equipment as well as possible … I suggest mentioning that point of view to the fire department too :-)
Yes, false alarms do happen all the time, and there is a fee associated with each instance.
In Sydney the fee is only charged if there has been a callout to the same address in the previous 60 days.
now i wonder how they do the fire drills
@capslock janitor: a janitor would know how they do fire drills. I suspect youre not a real janitor and is only claiming to be one for the perks and associated fame
Ok, that may well be the case. My only experience comes from a retirement village, where they had several false alarm callouts every week, and received a very hefty bill as a result!
I'm the chief fire warden on our site and have probably had 5-6 false alarm call-outs over 2 premises in 9 years.
They've always claimed there may be a charge, but we have never received one. The MFS are pretty understanding if you're upfront and not an (profanity) to them.
Bikies
Bickies
Double coat Tim Tam®
I would put it back on the school. Bit much to blame a 6 year old kid, it's on them for not providing proper supervision.
And legally OP would be on very solid ground.
Send your kid to the Fire Station to wash the trucks.
Lol, not today Pam. So you'd rather the kid be told that doing the wrong thing doesn't have consequences?
so you think they should pay the fine? For a 6 year old? lol
How else is the kid going to learn not to do the wrong thing.
lol
@screensaver: Parents do ;)
If you kid goes and scratches up a car with a rock do you really think the owners going to go
Oh that's fair enough he's only 6, i'll cop this one.
@screensaver: Ahhh
Deflect your child's poor behaviour and discipline onto the staff.
"It's not my poor parenting and discipline that led to this it's because your teachers are useless"
And this is why kids will grow up entitled. If every time the act up their parents are there to blame someone else for their poor choices.
@screensaver: So if my kid doesn't know you can end up in jail for killing someone it's not his or my fault as i never told him he could end up in jail?
@screensaver: The consequence of an action matters more than the intent as it has caused certain results that effected others. 'Lack of malicious intent' is a rather weak excuse.
the thing needs to be moved out of chidrens reach,
No. It should be installed in accordance with fire safety regulations. These things are inspected every year before a compliance report is issued.
The school has nothing to worry about.
ues they do, they need to provide a safe environment for young children
and what's dangerous about a fire alarm?
Over reaction