Could parents of ALL criminal kids now face prison? As Ethan Crumbley’s mom and dad are jailed for Michigan massacre, lawyers warn case sets powerful precedent

The manslaughter conviction of school shooter Ethan Crumbley’s mom and dad has created a legal precedent which could leave the parents of killer kids open to prosecution, experts say.

And, some warn, the landmark case also creates an environment where the parents of all criminal children can be held liable for the crimes – no matter how serious.

Jennifer and James Crumbley were jailed on Tuesday for at least ten years each after a jury found them criminally responsible for the massacre carried out by their son.

Ethan, then 15, murdered four children at Oxford High School in Michigan in November 2021. He was sentenced in December 2023 to life in prison without parole.

Prosecutors charged Crumbley’s parents with manslaughter and claimed they missed glaring red flags about his murderous urges, ignored his pleas for help and also supplied the gun. In finding the pair guilty, jurors essentially agreed the massacre would have been avoided if they were better parents.

Jennifer and James Crumbley were, without doubt, terrible parents. But experts say the legal precedent could now influence cases where a mom or dad’s inability to parent is far less clear.

‘One might think that with such a painful and unlikely event — and the way prosecution treated [the Crumbleys] as such remarkably negligent parents — that we just wouldn’t see a case like this again,’ said University of Michigan law professor Ekow Yankah.

‘But I do think the thing that worries legal experts is: We know that law lives in precedent, and once you have a precedent, it’s the most natural instinct for a prosecutor to use that precedent,’ Yankah told Al Jazeera.

The case against Ethan Crumbley’s parents has created a set of challenging questions for prosecutors, attorneys and scholars.

What is the threshold for holding parents directly responsible for their children’s crimes? Should this case be used to look again at the parents of other school shooters? Does it minimize the Ethan Crumbley’s culpability for his own horrific actions? 

It also gives a new angle to the debate about gun control. Prosecutors say it serves as a warning to other parents who own firearms. Critics say it is a distraction from the fundamental issue that children in America can access guns far too easily.

Parents have been charged previously for failing to secure weapons which were then accessed by their children. In December, a mother was jailed on child neglect charges after her six-year-old son took a gun from home and shot his teacher.

But the Crumbley case marks the first time that a school shooter’s parents have been held responsible for what followed. 

Craig Scott, a survivor of the Columbine High School shooting, said the sentencing of Crumbley’s parents ‘removes responsibility out of the hands of’ the killer.

‘I think this is a bad and dangerous precedent to take the blame of a teenager who knew what he was doing was wrong,’ said Scott, whose sister was killed at Columbine.

‘He had a dark motivation for wanting to be infamous. And now they’re giving 10 to 15 years to the parents… and I think it’s wrong.’

The case against Ethan Crumbley’s mom and dad, who were each convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter, was undeniably strong. 

They bought the gun their son used to kill his schoolmates just weeks before the massacre and ignored his repeated pleas for mental health help. His father used cannabis daily and drank heavily. His mother was having an affair and prosecutors said she was too concerned with her own life to care about her deeply troubled son.

Crucially, the gun was also not securely stored, which allowed Ethan to take it and smuggle it into school. 

And on the day of the shooting, Crumbley’s parents were called to the school after a teacher found disturbing drawings on a piece of his math work, including a pistol, a dead body and the words: ‘The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.’ It added to a long list of occasions where teachers noticed concerning behavior from Ethan.

In court, parents of the victims also said they believed Jennifer and James Crumbley were to blame for the killings.

Judge Cheryl Matthews said the sentences for his parents, who will serve a maximum of 15 years each, were to ‘act as a deterrent’.

‘[The parents] are not expected to be psychic. But these convictions are not about poor parenting, they concern acts that could have halted a runaway train,’ she said.

Judge Matthews’ message echoed remarks by Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald, who led the case and said afterward: ‘I hope it leads to more prevention of gun violence. I hope it leads to people taking more responsibility.’

In a nod to the precedent it sets, she added: ‘I don’t want a situation where a lot of prosecutors are charging people or parents for things that their children did, or are doing.’   

But that is exactly what might happen, according to Evan Bernick, a professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law.

‘I don’t have a lot of confidence in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to pick and choose only cases like this,’ Bernick said.

‘Once you’ve got a hammer — and this is definitely a hammer — everything can look like a nail, and people aren’t necessarily focused on how you’re wielding it.’

Yankah added: ‘I don’t know to what extent it will open the floodgates to similar kinds of prosecutions, but precedent has its own power and law.’ 

Lisa Baratta, an attorney in Michigan, added: ‘Going forward, when a juvenile commits a crime, the prosecutor must consider if the negligence of the parents was a contributing factor.’

‘Parents will need to keep tabs on their child’s mental health, friend group, social media presence, etc.,’ she told NBC.

‘Responsible parents already do these things. The concern is that the definition of ‘responsible’ will get blurred and innocent parents will be charged.’