Same here, I didn’t hide my keys, nor did my husband, we raised 3 sons and we had slumber parties regularly throughout our sons teenage years, we never had problems with any of the boys, and I hate to say this, but I am not a single mother,so maybe it’s because I have no nonsense husband, none of the boys had to be disciplined & none ever thought of taking our cars for joyriding.
@@jimrebrsame. Raised two boys and had many a sleepovers with the friends and my car keys were left by the front door. It’s all in how you raise your children.
Exactly. My kids had kids sleeping over almost every weekend - that would have been hundreds of times and never hid keys. We did lock up the liquor when they got older - no reason to tempt fate!
But LEGALLY the plaintiff is responsible. The defendant has no legal responsibility nor financial responsibility. Judge Judy was a lawyer and judge, she’s the legal expert, she has said it clearly and these people in the comments think their “feelings” have a bearing over the law.
Well ditch that "20 years" friendship. The 12 yr old should incur some form of discipline but mama won't enact it bc she thinks he's not at fault. Sad.
How do you know the kid wasn't punished? The defendant barely said a word. She could have punished him at home, still doesn't mean she is financially responsible .
Neither my kids nor their friends, when sleeping over, would ever have stolen car keys and crashed my car. There's something seriously wrong with these children.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Most likely putting her kid in a facility is code for not working out your own issues before having 5 kids and then causing your kids issues.
I feel bad for the plaintiff because the entire financial burden is on her and the boys are old enough to know better. However, her son must’ve done this before because she hid her keys.
'old enough to know better" 🙄 its developmentally normal for children to thrill seek. their hormones are biologically wired to chase dopamine highs also both preteens are on the spectrum. clearly, there are some issues...
It should be 50/50 split, both were at fault. Regarding Judge Judy, she sounds crazy to insinuate that a person can never go to sleep because you are babysitting.
The defendant HAS watched the kids before, NO such thing occurred under her watch… Had this happened under the defendants watch, she’d be responsible- but it didn’t. The Plaintiffs son knew where to find his mommas keys to get the defendants son to drive the car. Sucks but the Plaintiff is responsible if it occurred under her care. This is soo simple folks!!
The Defendant's son is getting away with murder. I still don't understand why JJ expected the Plaintiff to watch over the children when they were supposed to be sleeping. I've seen cases where JJ said, "She didn't hand him the keys, he took them. He drove the car and damaged the door, he needs to be accountable for that". It was the one where the kid took the keys off the table(to listen to music) and backed the car up. Another kid jumped out, leaving the door open, and the door hit a tree. Why would her ruling be different in this case?
I think its hard to prove that the defendant's kids did it because how did they know the keys were in the dresser? I think only the plaintiff's son could've known that or the keys were truly in the bathroom
I agree. Legally, there's no other way this case could have been ruled. JJ went by the law. Morally, if the defendant was truly a friend, she should have tried to help the plaintiff with all the expenses that the defendant's son caused. I'm betting they were no longer friends after this.
Hmmm, so never ever allow other people’s children to stay over. Unless you sit up in a chair and stay awake all night watching them sleep? JJ’s reasoning almost always makes sense, but I’m not sure I quite get this one. Somehow I think both mothers should share the cost of the wrecked car
I agree. I usually think her logic is pretty sound, but babysitters aren’t supposed to sit up all night and hover over the children in case they decide to take a car for a joyride. That can’t be expected. Both of the boys are trouble and the defendant should’ve been responsible for half.
JJ never said that she should’ve stayed up all night. She said the keys were accesible (the kids found them). And that she knew those 2 kids were challenged. She should’ve given it a lot more thought than just putting them in the drawer and leaving the door open. Why didn’t she make it a lot more difficult for them if she already knew they were difficult 12-year-olds. They were not 6-7 year old girls playing with Barbies. She admitted she had trouble with her son before. Yet she didn’t take the necessary precautions to avoid this. Maybe hide them under the pillow. That is a safe place…. If she is sleeping.
It's the single weirdest ruling I have ever seen on this show. She even talks about common sense. She is treating the kids like they are dogs who escaped the lawn. Color me flabbergasted.
I think JJ is speaking more from a legal stand point. Unlike some comments, I don't think the plaintiff acted outrageously irresponsibly, but she just isn't in a position to sue the other person. Like, if you accept the responsibility of watching someone's underage child, you in a sense become a temporary guardian of this child. It's not about staying awake all night and watching them, it's about understanding that you are fully responsible for their safety and actions, much like you would be for your own children. If a child that is under her care damages a piece of property, it sadly just falls back on her - she can't sue the mother because the mother entrusted her with watching the boy in the first place, which she accepted. That being said, morally, I 100% agree. This is a sad case, both of those ladies look like they are trying their best and need every penny.
This is one of those cases where I don’t agree with JJ. They both should have been responsible and I think the defendant should have paid for at least half. The defendant’s son DID crash the car HE is at fault.
Yes, we all get responsibility for watching the kids; when is the child held responsible. the kids did something really criminal, he or they are at that point between being a child and young adult who knows better. JJ is wrong on this one
Effectively, this case means you can never watch someone else's kids. You are responsible for their actions 24/7, but you cannot discipline them. Don't watch other people's kids.
They should both be held responsible, and the kid needs to have some kind of repercussions for his actions so he won’t end up doing something like this again and thinking he’ll get away with it.
The defendant wasn't there. Why would this fall on her? If you're 18+ and you take on the responsibility of watching a minor, then you're responsible for that minor and the harm that they cause.
Thank you Judge🙌🏼 I’ve seen so many comments of people defending the plaintiff which is wild. If the kid was seriously hurt or died, guess who is liable??😆
"I feel like his mother should be responsible for her son's actions" lady when you babysit you ARE, in all legal definition, his 'mother' for that night. How does she not get it?
The plaintiff went through the process of hiding her keys. That tells me, She suspected something might happen. P.S. I love tattoos. But, The Plaintiff's neck tattoo looks horrible 🤢
The deviate 13 y.o. just learned he can STEAL someone’s car, crash it, cause hardship and 100% get away with it with ZERO accountability or responsibility. That kid would be doing her chores until he was 30 if that was my kid.
So basically Judge Judy is saying that when you watch someone's kids you must be present with them 24/7, even staying awake to monitor them during sleep, and even if you do that, no matter what happens you are still responsible. Sounds like legally you should never ever help a friend out according to Judge Judy
No she is saying if you assume the risk you take responsibility for whatever happens. Plaintiff obviously knew the risk because the entire testimony was about hiding keys 😂 a better defense would be "i never hid the keys because my children don't steal them" but that would be perjury 😂😂😂😂
I don't even take care of my nephews. I am physically disabled as well as Deaf and not very good at caring for children. I have never had or will have children of my own either. This is a good reminder why it is good to say "no" if you don't think you can watch them... it's not rude, it's the right thing to do.
I understand the legality of this case, it’s a tough one. Had I been put in this situation with a “friend”, nobody would have had to take me to court. I would have paid the 500, maybe not the down payment but I would have made an effort. Losing a friend isn’t worth it.
I always notice people's necks as I have thyroid cancer. If she hasn't had it checked she probably should. It could be hypothyroidism which could also explain her weight gain.
I wonder what is the age of criminal responsibility where they live? Where I live it’s 10. A lot of places it’s 12. I’m surprised the 12 year old was not charged with theft of a motor vehicle.
@@lisaapp839 That's a weird way of saying it, though. Sorry, former English teacher here :) "There should be an assignment of equally shared responsibility between both parties." Or better yet: "they should be equally liable" Have a great day! 🤟
@@namnack BA in English here and I write all day. All about style. Assignment is what the order dictates. It does not have to be equal at all at 50-50. Shared responsibility is implied between plaintiff and defendant. Grammatically correct.
"I am a single mother with 5 kids, no husband or other adult to help out. Hey, I know, let's invite EVEN MORE children to my house for fun & games, especially one's known to be difficult." Later on...."There we go, lots of kids in my house. As the sole caretaker, I think I will now laze about"
While JJ is 100% right that the plantiff is responsible, I feel like the bigger issue lies with the older boys. It doesn't feel natural to have to monitor 12 y/o boys like toddlers and baby-proof the house for them. I think that the plaintiff bit off more than she could chew; if she knew her own kid was troubled, she shouldn't have let the other lady's boys over. And honestly, if I know my 12 y/o child took someone's car keys from the most obvious spot ever, drove the car and crashed it, I would 100% blame him, not that person.
Note to self: draw a contract up to say if shenanigans happen the kids involved will be held accountable! lol 😆 thankfully our kiddo doesn’t like sleep overs anymore.
If the challenged kid got ahold of the keys, even if they were ‘secured’ in her underwear drawer, then she is at fault. Clearly, her son is the instigator and the one at fault here which means that points to her, as she is responsible for the little misfit. What gall and unmitigated nerve to think the other mother is responsible for her kid’s actions.
Agreed. Least we forget what peer pressure is, especially for young children. My opinion is that the D’s son was influenced, but do understand that his past behavior was not mentioned.
Although Judge Judy basically ruled against the Plaintiff by dismissing the case, the defendant should have taken some responsibility. Her son stole the key and wrecked the car. Personally speaking, I would have given her something or as much as I could to help with the lost my son caused as a friend. That's the end of that long-term friendship because of this.
I believe, as a mother, defendant bears responsibility for her child's actions, and that should have been a precedent, however I see JJ's point that the plaintiff is babysitting 2 children with behavioural issues and therefore should have been prepared for something bad to happen...
@@musix2009I think the point they are making is not that the crush happened coz the fathers were absent but that they wouldn’t have had to “help” each other as “single mothers”
Legally, the plaintiff is wrong, as stated by JJ, but knowing that now, good luck in getting friends to watch over their kids. The social factor is lost by the law, with its good and bad.
How messed up is it that these unruly kids can go into someone's home, take property, destroy it and the plaintiff get penalised for not hearing noise whilst she slept??
If plaintiff son didn't take the keys, then the defendant's son wouldn't be driving her car. Ultimately it started with her own son. If she is not a heavy sleeper then why didn't she hear them start the car?
The defendant should have just gone in half on the payments given her sin was at fault as well. Was the plaintiff supposed to sit up all night in a chair and stare at the kids ??? It is definitely difficult legally because what happens under a person on their property is their responsibility even if it’s the fault of another individual. But given this years long friendship, it’s kind of ridiculous that it couldn’t be resolved without court and a common gesture of remorse to work together financially.
According to JJ's logic, the next time my kids have a sleepover, I need to make sure to not go to sleep and watch them all as they sleep to make sure that no one does anything they shouldn't be doing.
Judge Judy is ABSOUTELY CORRECT! If you’re watching another persons child whether it’s DAY OR NIGHT, YOU are responsible for whatever happens to that child, whether your house was fire or someone broke in, YOU are responsible. PERIOD
i understand that legally the plantiff doesnt have a case but morally the defendant should assume partial responsibility for her son's actions and pay 1/2 of what the plaintiff is out. i'm surprised that so many ppl in the comments of part 1 & 2 missed JJ's point. she's not expecting the parents to stay up 24/7 literally watching the children, but she could have locked her keys in a safe box, hung them above her headboard or put them somewhere inaccessible to preteens on the spectrum. also if she's that heavy of a sleeper she needs some kind of alarms on her doors and windows to keep her kiddos safe and inside.
Neither mother will accept blame and both should pay. It is equally wrong the mother had thought it necessary to hide her keys AND that the other kids wanted to drive and ride in a car wrecking it. Children are at fault and mothers are both responsible for their children.
I get the plaintiff is responsible for any kids in her care I’ve been on both sides of sleepovers in my life I’m 50 now but I think both sides should be responsible for any damages it’s a moral responsibility than a legal responsibility.. To hide things from kids means there’s a history of bad behaviour it’s not rocket science..
This is stupid! Is she supposed to sit on the couch and watch them all night! It doesn't make sense! JJ is completely Wrong! This kid will think he can get away with Anything!
@@sandrasimmons3571are you both trolling or serious? you have 2 kids that are obviously mentally handicapped and a 5 year old and she let them get the keys to her car. Lmao.
It's the single weirdest ruling I have ever seen on this show. She even talks about common sense. She is treating the kids like they are dogs who escaped the lawn. Color me flabbergasted.
I totally get where Judge Judy is coming from; this is indeed a tough situation! I fully support her viewpoint since the mother needed someone to supervise the kids, who are unable to care for themselves. It was certainly not safe for her son to be left alone, prompting her to seek adult assistance. However, there is a bit of negligence here; perhaps she should have installed an alarm system, especially considering the children's mental challenges and their potential for mischief while she sleeps. While it may feel emotionally unjust, this is about accountability, and she must take responsibility for her choices.
As a FRIEND I would of course pay the deductible if my child crashed someone's car, even if I was not legally responsible to do that. The other part of her claim she already got paid for from the insurance.
Did the defendant really commentate at the end about how when somebody watches their kids, they have a duty to ensure their safety, even whilst fast asleep? Because its such a high risk factor that someone underage would rummage through your drawers and steal your car keys...right?
Breaking a tv from rough housing, etc is a way different situation than stealing someones keys and taking their car! 12 yrs old is old enough for community service as part of punishment.
What if you are watching a kid and that kid gets a knife from the kitchen and kills someone in the house. Are you still responsible for the murder and the kid walks free?
That's what JJs logic suggests. But more like the kid gets a knife and rips up your furniture while you are asleep. There is no way JJ would say that would be okay. Her logic is flawed. The child committed a crime and damaged property.
They’ve been friends for 20 years! She’s known the boy all his life so she should have locked the keys up! And does she not know what GAP insurance is?! Her car would have been totally covered!
It doesn’t work that way if she had a loan on the car, they will not give it to you. They send it directly to whoever is holding the loan and then you are responsible if there’s a deficit. Been there done that - had someone run a red light and totaled my van. Insurance check went straight to the loan company, but I will still upside down 2500 which I had to pay
@ yeah it happened to me and i had both coverages, from my insurance and the gap, so i didnt pay anything for my vehicle and on top of it i got money to purchase new vehicle
She should have put the keys in a locked safe so they can't reach them. Nothing would have happened if she didn't neglect her responsibility to make sure the children were safe.
Note to self never watch anyone’s kid(s).
Especially at night
@@krystalk8105that’s where gaffa tape comes into its own… 😉
😂🤣😅
NEVER!!!! 😂😅
And if you do, they make cages for that exact purpose. And before you say that's child abuse, obviously there will be food and water dishes.
Her son’s done some bs before because why hide the keys?
Absolutely 💯
JJ always blames the adult for leaving keys anywhere, but hidden, when it involves cases like this.
Or her child is…. “Challenged” like the young man in court
If she had problems then the place to hide the keys is under the mattress. I bet she didn't think of that.
In a situation like this she needs a safe but hey Darwinism is Darwinism
I feel like the defendant's son is going to be a lot of trouble in the future 😑
Or he was easily persuaded by the plaintiff's troubled son
@JM-sd5dt definitely could be the case, but it seems like he's got his own set of problems to me
Tbh I’m more worried about the plaintiff’s son since he has to live in a special facility (as mentioned in I think part 2 of this case)
The defendant should offer to pay 50% if she had any morals.
I have had many sleep overs with kids. Not once did I hide my keys. If she did, she did it because of HER child.
Great point
Same here, I didn’t hide my keys, nor did my husband, we raised 3 sons and we had slumber parties regularly throughout our sons teenage years, we never had problems with any of the boys, and I hate to say this, but I am not a single mother,so maybe it’s because I have no nonsense husband, none of the boys had to be disciplined & none ever thought of taking our cars for joyriding.
@@jimrebrsame. Raised two boys and had many a sleepovers with the friends and my car keys were left by the front door. It’s all in how you raise your children.
Maybe, the defendants child looks like he has issues as well.
Exactly. My kids had kids sleeping over almost every weekend - that would have been hundreds of times and never hid keys. We did lock up the liquor when they got older - no reason to tempt fate!
As friends they should both pay. Both kids were involved!!
Yes
Bingo 🎯
I agree especially since the defendants son was driving.
But LEGALLY the plaintiff is responsible. The defendant has no legal responsibility nor financial responsibility. Judge Judy was a lawyer and judge, she’s the legal expert, she has said it clearly and these people in the comments think their “feelings” have a bearing over the law.
@@jobuck879 JJ is also bias on many cases
This friendship is the blind leading the blind.
“What do you want and were you there?” 😂😂😂
that little girl had so much attitude in saying so few words. i felt like she was a reflection of plaintiff's parenting
@@GratitudeGriotexactly!!!!!!!
"We was ooawl sleeping..."
Oh good grief, this teenager cannot even speak in plain English.🙄
Well ditch that "20 years" friendship. The 12 yr old should incur some form of discipline but mama won't enact it bc she thinks he's not at fault. Sad.
How do you know the kid wasn't punished? The defendant barely said a word. She could have punished him at home, still doesn't mean she is financially responsible .
Neither my kids nor their friends, when sleeping over, would ever have stolen car keys and crashed my car. There's something seriously wrong with these children.
THIS.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Most likely putting her kid in a facility is code for not working out your own issues before having 5 kids and then causing your kids issues.
I feel bad for the plaintiff because the entire financial burden is on her and the boys are old enough to know better. However, her son must’ve done this before because she hid her keys.
Yes
Right and he knew where they were apparently. I feel bad for her
'old enough to know better" 🙄 its developmentally normal for children to thrill seek. their hormones are biologically wired to chase dopamine highs also both preteens are on the spectrum. clearly, there are some issues...
Thats my biggest thing!!!!! The son HAD to know where the keys were if they were wiryr and he mother said they were
1000 %
It should be 50/50 split, both were at fault. Regarding Judge Judy, she sounds crazy to insinuate that a person can never go to sleep because you are babysitting.
Exactly!!
At the ages they are the parent should be somewhat responsible. We aren’t talking a 3 year old.
her approach is from a pure legal standpoint, not a moral one. 😊
@@JerryMeyer-q6h i agree, but which still is a stupid law, if that law was not in place she would not assume that answer,
The defendant HAS watched the kids before, NO such thing occurred under her watch…
Had this happened under the defendants watch, she’d be responsible- but it didn’t.
The Plaintiffs son knew where to find his mommas keys to get the defendants son to drive the car. Sucks but the Plaintiff is responsible if it occurred under her care.
This is soo simple folks!!
Plaintiff learned absolutely nothing
So did the defendant's kid. Except he did learn "I can get away with what I want".
That kid is gonna end up in Juvie😢
Defendant learned absolutely nothing
The Defendant's son is getting away with murder. I still don't understand why JJ expected the Plaintiff to watch over the children when they were supposed to be sleeping. I've seen cases where JJ said, "She didn't hand him the keys, he took them. He drove the car and damaged the door, he needs to be accountable for that". It was the one where the kid took the keys off the table(to listen to music) and backed the car up. Another kid jumped out, leaving the door open, and the door hit a tree. Why would her ruling be different in this case?
I think its hard to prove that the defendant's kids did it because how did they know the keys were in the dresser? I think only the plaintiff's son could've known that or the keys were truly in the bathroom
The kid and her son definitely have some developmental issues. Maybe she considered that but didn’t want to call him out on National television.
It's not about what JJ expects. It's the law.
@@kiraakashiya7986 this whole case is a 50/50 case
@@citytrees1752 which a stupid law
I think the responsibility should be shared
What you think is irrelevant. JJ followed the law.
I agree. Legally, there's no other way this case could have been ruled. JJ went by the law.
Morally, if the defendant was truly a friend, she should have tried to help the plaintiff with all the expenses that the defendant's son caused.
I'm betting they were no longer friends after this.
JJ ruled according to the law. It's not the defendant's responsibility when the plaintiff assumed responsibility of the child.
Hmmm, so never ever allow other people’s children to stay over. Unless you sit up in a chair and stay awake all night watching them sleep? JJ’s reasoning almost always makes sense, but I’m not sure I quite get this one. Somehow I think both mothers should share the cost of the wrecked car
I agree. I usually think her logic is pretty sound, but babysitters aren’t supposed to sit up all night and hover over the children in case they decide to take a car for a joyride. That can’t be expected. Both of the boys are trouble and the defendant should’ve been responsible for half.
JJ never said that she should’ve stayed up all night. She said the keys were accesible (the kids found them). And that she knew those 2 kids were challenged. She should’ve given it a lot more thought than just putting them in the drawer and leaving the door open. Why didn’t she make it a lot more difficult for them if she already knew they were difficult 12-year-olds. They were not 6-7 year old girls playing with Barbies. She admitted she had trouble with her son before. Yet she didn’t take the necessary precautions to avoid this. Maybe hide them under the pillow. That is a safe place…. If she is sleeping.
It's the single weirdest ruling I have ever seen on this show. She even talks about common sense. She is treating the kids like they are dogs who escaped the lawn. Color me flabbergasted.
I think JJ is speaking more from a legal stand point. Unlike some comments, I don't think the plaintiff acted outrageously irresponsibly, but she just isn't in a position to sue the other person. Like, if you accept the responsibility of watching someone's underage child, you in a sense become a temporary guardian of this child. It's not about staying awake all night and watching them, it's about understanding that you are fully responsible for their safety and actions, much like you would be for your own children. If a child that is under her care damages a piece of property, it sadly just falls back on her - she can't sue the mother because the mother entrusted her with watching the boy in the first place, which she accepted.
That being said, morally, I 100% agree. This is a sad case, both of those ladies look like they are trying their best and need every penny.
@@meredithbowles5721 If a joyride can't be expected, why did she feel the need to allegedly hide the keys to begin with?
This is one of those cases where I don’t agree with JJ. They both should have been responsible and I think the defendant should have paid for at least half. The defendant’s son DID crash the car HE is at fault.
Yes, we all get responsibility for watching the kids; when is the child held responsible. the kids did something really criminal, he or they are at that point between being a child and young adult who knows better. JJ is wrong on this one
@@bradleyr4451bless your heart but it is the law 🤣
@@leshawnjefferson6150 its the law because you say so?
Effectively, this case means you can never watch someone else's kids.
You are responsible for their actions 24/7, but you cannot discipline them.
Don't watch other people's kids.
They should both be held responsible, and the kid needs to have some kind of repercussions for his actions so he won’t end up doing something like this again and thinking he’ll get away with it.
Yes
Exactly
It's both the kids fault. And it should have been ruled as such.
The defendant wasn't there. Why would this fall on her? If you're 18+ and you take on the responsibility of watching a minor, then you're responsible for that minor and the harm that they cause.
@katesweeney9101 exactly I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand.
Mother taught her daughter to blame everyone but themselves. Sad. Says, "I take responsibility for my son... (but) the other mother is to blame."
Thank you Judge🙌🏼 I’ve seen so many comments of people defending the plaintiff which is wild. If the kid was seriously hurt or died, guess who is liable??😆
"I feel like his mother should be responsible for her son's actions"
lady when you babysit you ARE, in all legal definition, his 'mother' for that night.
How does she not get it?
Without handcuffs.
She’s too self-important. Her demeanor says it all; money > child safety
Feelings isn’t the law
The same way 80% of the people in these comments don’t get it.
Apparently most of the people commenting don't get it. 😢
Ooo i cant believe she still thinks she isnt responsible
I was getting tired lol at this point she ‘s choosing to not understand
She said she "always takes responsibility for her kids"......except the one she sent to a facility for 3 years.
@@tubester4567 That could very well have been a responsible act. If that kid needs (needed) special care, then it was a good decision.
The plaintiff went through the process of hiding her keys. That tells me, She suspected something might happen. P.S. I love tattoos. But, The Plaintiff's neck tattoo looks horrible 🤢
I think she has a goiter too.
The deviate 13 y.o. just learned he can STEAL someone’s car, crash it, cause hardship and 100% get away with it with ZERO accountability or responsibility. That kid would be doing her chores until he was 30 if that was my kid.
When did anyone say that. The ruling is if you assume responsibility you ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY 😅
Judge Judy doesn't give a rats behind how the plaintiff feels.😂
🐀 😂
Feelings are for Dr Phil, it’s a different show.
So basically Judge Judy is saying that when you watch someone's kids you must be present with them 24/7, even staying awake to monitor them during sleep, and even if you do that, no matter what happens you are still responsible. Sounds like legally you should never ever help a friend out according to Judge Judy
No she is saying if you assume the risk you take responsibility for whatever happens. Plaintiff obviously knew the risk because the entire testimony was about hiding keys 😂 a better defense would be "i never hid the keys because my children don't steal them" but that would be perjury 😂😂😂😂
I disagree with JJ with this one
I don't even take care of my nephews. I am physically disabled as well as Deaf and not very good at caring for children. I have never had or will have children of my own either. This is a good reminder why it is good to say "no" if you don't think you can watch them... it's not rude, it's the right thing to do.
We got the same name and God's bless ❤❤❤
@ same spelling too!! 😍
@@iSheree this has made my day
@@shereed4107 me too! Thank you for replying to my comment. ❤
I understand the legality of this case, it’s a tough one.
Had I been put in this situation with a “friend”, nobody would have had to take me to court. I would have paid the 500, maybe not the down payment but I would have made an effort. Losing a friend isn’t worth it.
Anyone else notice the swollen thyroid in the plaintiff?
It's not that. Her double chin simply seems to have fallen prey to gravity.
Hard not to. I hope she got it checked.
I always notice people's necks as I have thyroid cancer. If she hasn't had it checked she probably should. It could be hypothyroidism which could also explain her weight gain.
I wonder what is the age of criminal responsibility where they live? Where I live it’s 10. A lot of places it’s 12. I’m surprised the 12 year old was not charged with theft of a motor vehicle.
Defendants son has a menacing look on his face, like Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket .
100%
Omg I see it now
😂
Plaintiff has a bad attitude!
So does her daughter
Wonder where she got it from 🤔
Well she lost her whole car bc of this punk ass kid!!
plaintiff: No ma'a, that's not how it happened.
jj: how do you know you were sleeping?????
The defendant's child will end up in prison. Sometimes you just know.
The smug look on her face is a clue to how well she has done in life and problems that have occurred.
There should be an assignment of shared responsibility.
An assignment... hmm
@@namnack as in a percentage.
@@lisaapp839 That's a weird way of saying it, though. Sorry, former English teacher here :)
"There should be an assignment of equally shared responsibility between both parties."
Or better yet: "they should be equally liable"
Have a great day! 🤟
@@namnack BA in English here and I write all day. All about style. Assignment is what the order dictates. It does not have to be equal at all at 50-50. Shared responsibility is implied between plaintiff and defendant. Grammatically correct.
@@lisaapp839 After rereading your comment, I sit corrected. You are absolutely right; it's about style preference, not grammar. My bad.
"I am a single mother with 5 kids, no husband or other adult to help out. Hey, I know, let's invite EVEN MORE children to my house for fun & games, especially one's known to be difficult."
Later on...."There we go, lots of kids in my house. As the sole caretaker, I think I will now laze about"
While JJ is 100% right that the plantiff is responsible, I feel like the bigger issue lies with the older boys. It doesn't feel natural to have to monitor 12 y/o boys like toddlers and baby-proof the house for them. I think that the plaintiff bit off more than she could chew; if she knew her own kid was troubled, she shouldn't have let the other lady's boys over.
And honestly, if I know my 12 y/o child took someone's car keys from the most obvious spot ever, drove the car and crashed it, I would 100% blame him, not that person.
Note to self: draw a contract up to say if shenanigans happen the kids involved will be held accountable! lol 😆 thankfully our kiddo doesn’t like sleep overs anymore.
we was all sleeping???? English is my 3rd language and I know that that is incorrect use of the language. So damn basic knowledge
Someone else wrote ‘Where are the father’s’ !! No need for an apostrophe s in that sentence at all ! English is my 3rd language but hey ho 😢
I think JJ missed that. She would ordinarily come down hard on these errors, except when it involves black people of corpse.
@namnack of course*
Just awful. But that is the state of American education
Here comes the Grammar Nazi!!
If the challenged kid got ahold of the keys, even if they were ‘secured’ in her underwear drawer, then she is at fault. Clearly, her son is the instigator and the one at fault here which means that points to her, as she is responsible for the little misfit. What gall and unmitigated nerve to think the other mother is responsible for her kid’s actions.
Agreed. Least we forget what peer pressure is, especially for young children. My opinion is that the D’s son was influenced, but do understand that his past behavior was not mentioned.
This is WHY I DON'T BABYSIT!! NOPE NOPE NOPE!!
Really touching when she repeated “thank you God nothing happened to my children”
Never locked any keys away! No child or friend has ever tried to take my keys to drive under age
You can’t hot wire a car anymore. 🙄
I think we're in trouble JJ crew! We only getting 1 case per day 😩😩🤦🏾♀️
I don't believe that she hid the car keys.
Exactly! I think Judy Judy knew that it was more to the story.
LESSON LEARNED HERE!!
Although Judge Judy basically ruled against the Plaintiff by dismissing the case, the defendant should have taken some responsibility. Her son stole the key and wrecked the car. Personally speaking, I would have given her something or as much as I could to help with the lost my son caused as a friend. That's the end of that long-term friendship because of this.
IMO the plaintiff's son was instigator in this.
Legally it’s the right decision-outside of court they both should split the blame.
5 kids and single? Totally makes sense.
But no comment about the fathers/sperm donors?
I have one daughter
Yeah and she probably didn’t stop when one of them was found to have learning disabilities/mental health issues 🤦♂️
JJ was VERY clear. Maybe now we all understand.
I believe, as a mother, defendant bears responsibility for her child's actions, and that should have been a precedent, however I see JJ's point that the plaintiff is babysitting 2 children with behavioural issues and therefore should have been prepared for something bad to happen...
Neither of these parents are particularly responsible parents
I guess you know them then. 🤡🤡🤡🤡
Agreed
@@ashlynn2704 You know them too? 🤡🤡🤡🤡
The Mother should at least pay 1/3
2:07 Here we go again: "None of us SEEN it"! I seen, he seen, she seen, we seen. Lol. I'm convinced 80% of US, English speakers say this!
Thank you! The grammar on this show is maddening.
I am so glad my boys are all grown up.
Plaintiff got screwed..
She assumed the risk
I agree with the verdict
WHERE ARE THE FATHER’s?!?!?!
They sobered up and ran!
What does this have to do with anything???..how many 2 parent homes that children did this????..Don’t blame that on absent fathers
Fathers !!
@@musix2009I think the point they are making is not that the crush happened coz the fathers were absent but that they wouldn’t have had to “help” each other as “single mothers”
@@EdwardKamaunbrows878 that’s not what that meant..stop..and again fathers can be in the picture/the very same thing can happen 🙄🙄
Thieves can come into your house, take whatever they want and you wake up to an “empty” house, walking into a room and taking keys isnt tht difficult
Legally, the plaintiff is wrong, as stated by JJ, but knowing that now, good luck in getting friends to watch over their kids. The social factor is lost by the law, with its good and bad.
How messed up is it that these unruly kids can go into someone's home, take property, destroy it and the plaintiff get penalised for not hearing noise whilst she slept??
Feel bad for these ladies. I'm sure this friendship was important and beneficial for both of them. Hopefully they have been able to reconcile.
If plaintiff son didn't take the keys, then the defendant's son wouldn't be driving her car. Ultimately it started with her own son. If she is not a heavy sleeper then why didn't she hear them start the car?
The defendant should have just gone in half on the payments given her sin was at fault as well.
Was the plaintiff supposed to sit up all night in a chair and stare at the kids ???
It is definitely difficult legally because what happens under a person on their property is their responsibility even if it’s the fault of another individual.
But given this years long friendship, it’s kind of ridiculous that it couldn’t be resolved without court and a common gesture of remorse to work together financially.
Why does the daughter talk like that?
According to JJ's logic, the next time my kids have a sleepover, I need to make sure to not go to sleep and watch them all as they sleep to make sure that no one does anything they shouldn't be doing.
Plaintiff seems to think that everything is ALWAYS someone else's fault when bad things happen.
Judge Judy is ABSOUTELY CORRECT! If you’re watching another persons child whether it’s DAY OR NIGHT, YOU are responsible for whatever happens to that child, whether your house was fire or someone broke in, YOU are responsible. PERIOD
i understand that legally the plantiff doesnt have a case but morally the defendant should assume partial responsibility for her son's actions and pay 1/2 of what the plaintiff is out. i'm surprised that so many ppl in the comments of part 1 & 2 missed JJ's point. she's not expecting the parents to stay up 24/7 literally watching the children, but she could have locked her keys in a safe box, hung them above her headboard or put them somewhere inaccessible to preteens on the spectrum. also if she's that heavy of a sleeper she needs some kind of alarms on her doors and windows to keep her kiddos safe and inside.
Neither mother will accept blame and both should pay. It is equally wrong the mother had thought it necessary to hide her keys AND that the other kids wanted to drive and ride in a car wrecking it. Children are at fault and mothers are both responsible for their children.
I get the plaintiff is responsible for any kids in her care I’ve been on both sides of sleepovers in my life I’m 50 now but I think both sides should be responsible for any damages it’s a moral responsibility than a legal responsibility..
To hide things from kids means there’s a history of bad behaviour it’s not rocket science..
Love some Judge Judy
This is stupid! Is she supposed to sit on the couch and watch them all night! It doesn't make sense! JJ is completely Wrong! This kid will think he can get away with Anything!
She is definitely wrong in this case. I feel like the defendant should have had to pay half because both their children were at fault.
@@sandrasimmons3571are you both trolling or serious? you have 2 kids that are obviously mentally handicapped and a 5 year old and she let them get the keys to her car. Lmao.
It's the single weirdest ruling I have ever seen on this show. She even talks about common sense. She is treating the kids like they are dogs who escaped the lawn. Color me flabbergasted.
I disagree. She knew those boys are trouble, so she'd have to watch extra hard. And she didn't, obviously. Legally and morally totally on her.
I totally get where Judge Judy is coming from; this is indeed a tough situation! I fully support her viewpoint since the mother needed someone to supervise the kids, who are unable to care for themselves. It was certainly not safe for her son to be left alone, prompting her to seek adult assistance. However, there is a bit of negligence here; perhaps she should have installed an alarm system, especially considering the children's mental challenges and their potential for mischief while she sleeps. While it may feel emotionally unjust, this is about accountability, and she must take responsibility for her choices.
Both the plaintiff’s kids seem like a problem lol.
So if you watch someone’s kid and they vandalize your home, they’re not responsible? That’s ridiculous
As a FRIEND I would of course pay the deductible if my child crashed someone's car, even if I was not legally responsible to do that. The other part of her claim she already got paid for from the insurance.
Okay let’s back up, what was the repercussions from the defendant to her son? Okay he’s alive, thank God. Now he knew better but I digress
Whenever I here "Single Mom" I know Judge Judy isn't going to have much sympathy
I will never understand why some women makes so many children..
I'm a light sleeper.i can't imagine sleeping through that.
Did the defendant really commentate at the end about how when somebody watches their kids, they have a duty to ensure their safety, even whilst fast asleep? Because its such a high risk factor that someone underage would rummage through your drawers and steal your car keys...right?
wow, being a single parent of a kid with special needs does suck the big one
But she went on to have 5 kids
This case is a prime example of the axiom, "You can't fix stupid."
Breaking a tv from rough housing, etc is a way different situation than stealing someones keys and taking their car! 12 yrs old is old enough for community service as part of punishment.
What does this mom know about these children, to have to hide car keys ? And, how did kids know where they were hidden?
Ikr? I have never hidden my car keys ever!
Because their kids, they know where everything is hidden,🤫😂
They weren't hidden she forgot them in the bathroom after she rushed home to use the restroom
What if you are watching a kid and that kid gets a knife from the kitchen and kills someone in the house. Are you still responsible for the murder and the kid walks free?
That's what JJs logic suggests. But more like the kid gets a knife and rips up your furniture while you are asleep. There is no way JJ would say that would be okay. Her logic is flawed. The child committed a crime and damaged property.
TBH why would a 12 yr old kid would need a babysitter, when I was that age I was already staying at home by myself ??? 🤔 Lol 😭💀
Agreed. Normally, he's old enough. But, this mother didn't trust him.
Theres something wrong with that big kid. He dont look normal.
Duh, she still doesn’t get it.
Judge Judy has just made parents job of finding child care much, much more difficult to obtain.
You are right, she singlehandedly established this law. What a powerful woman 😂😂
Her son will be in jail. She already has him in a facility. Crazy.
They’ve been friends for 20 years! She’s known the boy all his life so she should have locked the keys up! And does she not know what GAP insurance is?! Her car would have been totally covered!
She spent the money the insurance sent her to pay off the car 😂
It doesn’t work that way if she had a loan on the car, they will not give it to you. They send it directly to whoever is holding the loan and then you are responsible if there’s a deficit. Been there done that - had someone run a red light and totaled my van. Insurance check went straight to the loan company, but I will still upside down 2500 which I had to pay
@ yeah it happened to me and i had both coverages, from my insurance and the gap, so i didnt pay anything for my vehicle and on top of it i got money to purchase new vehicle
She should have put the keys in a locked safe so they can't reach them. Nothing would have happened if she didn't neglect her responsibility to make sure the children were safe.
The kid knew where the keys were