• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Honor student placed in jail for tardiness and truancy at school

I think you have to take these things on a case by case basis. This girl shouldn't be punished.

On a separate note, I’m not sure how comfortable I am with a judge sitting there explaining himself to a reporter. That was odd.
 
This student needs the assistance of social services or a counselor in school. The judge warned her previously and the Student Handbook is explicit. The judge is reviewing his decision and hopefully will reverse his decision.

Do You Have Questions About Attendance, Truancy and the Law?

Texas law is clear that children must attend school. Willis ISD always works closely with parents and students to make every effort to help students and their families follow the law regarding school attendance. Should a student have multiple unexcused absences and a pattern of failing to attend school regularly, the law is clear that the matter becomes the jurisdiction of the court system. In such cases, resolution of the issue is entirely in the hands of the court.
Texas Education Code 25.0951 states that:
If a student fails to attend school without excuse on ten or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year, the District shall within ten school days of the student’s tenth absence:

File a complaint against the student or the student’s parent or both in a county, justice, or municipal court for an offense under Education Code 25.093 or 25.094, as appropriate, or refer the student to a juvenile court in a county with a population of less than 100,000; or
Refer the student to a juvenile court for conduct indicating a need for supervision under Family Code 51.03(b)(2).

Willis Independent School District
 
I just always thought it was if you missed x amount of days you could not move on to the next grade.
 
I don't agree with the whole missing school thing being a good enough reason to keep students from graduating or moving to the next grade. If the student is able to keep up with the work, then it should be allowed for them to miss whatever days they need to. Another thing is they need to work on what they consider "unexcused absences".

This judge is absolutely wrong. His decision should have been based on the facts of this girl's case, not what others might do.
 
I wanted to say "Well the judge himself may be constrained by the law", but he had to go make the dumbass statement equating her with real truants. Nevertheless, perhaps we don't have all the facts. Maybe she pled guilty, and didn't tell her story to the judge. His comments certainly sound like he doesn't know what the story is. Remember, news companies make money when they get you all riled up... and many of them do this by withholding information that completely changes the character of a situation.
 
The Judge is an idiot. The girl obviously has a problem she's missing too much school, however instead of making it easier for her to attend class while taking care of her family, he makes it harder to do both. What is accomplished by his actions? Absolutely nothing, the point of justice should be to solve problems not punish people for having problems thrust upon them by life and thus making their problem worse. I hope this isn't some kind of vicious cycle where that night in jail means she missed a day in school or a day at work and therefore is another missed day closer to being back in front of the judge, or has to skip another day she wouldn't have otherwise skipped to go to work to support her family, again another missed day before being back in front of the judge.
 
This judge is absolutely wrong. His decision should have been based on the facts of this girl's case, not what others might do.
Maybe they were. It's just possible that the judge is better informed about all the facts of the case than we are.
 
Maybe they were. It's just possible that the judge is better informed about all the facts of the case than we are.

From what the judge himself said, his decision was based on "what about other students who would see this as setting a precedent", which ignores the fact that she had certain circumstances that were specific to her case. That is why it is best to base the decision on the information available.

From the information we have, the judge was wrong.
 
At 17 Years old is it a law to be in school? 3 states I know of you can quit school at 17, maybe in TX it is different

None the less, the judge is an idiot, IMO

The age in Texas is 18.

And I agree that the judge's decision seems on the surface to be idiot, but perhaps the law in TX doesn't give him a choice. I am not familiar with the process in TX.
 
From what the judge himself said, his decision was based on "what about other students who would see this as setting a precedent", which ignores the fact that she had certain circumstances that were specific to her case. That is why it is best to base the decision on the information available.
Was he talking about the conviction or the sentence? How do you know he ignored the circumstances? Maybe the true circumstances aren't quite as they've been presented in the press. Maybe there are factors he had to consider that haven't been reported. The simple fact is that we don't know.

From the information we have, the judge was wrong.
But the information we have is hugely limited - a few paragraphs in a couple of news article. Certainly enough to ask further questions but not enough to lynch the judge.
 
I was reading further into the law regarding this situation. The judge clearly could have and should have "excused"* the absences and let the school handle this matter through counseling or as a mandatory reporter referred the student to child services for evaluation or assistance. Judge Lanny Moriarty is just a bad judge and Ms. Tran had the misfortune to have him assigned to her case.



Texas Family Code - Section 51.03. Delinquent Conduct; Conduct Indicating A Need For Supervision
(d) It is an affirmative defense to an allegation of conduct
under Subsection (b)(2) that one or more of the absences required to
be proven under that subsection have been excused by a school
official or by the court or that one or more of the absences were
involuntary, but only if there is an insufficient number of
unexcused or voluntary absences remaining to constitute conduct
under Subsection (b)(2). The burden is on the respondent to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that the absence has been or should
be excused or that the absence was involuntary. A decision by the
court to excuse an absence for purposes of this subsection does not
affect the ability of the school district to determine whether to
excuse the absence for another purpose
 
Last edited:
Any bets that the jail is privately run and the judge has connections to it?
I will bet you if there is a connection it is tenuous at best.


The Judge was right.
She was a truant.
She had no legitimate reason to miss whole days of school.

The girl should have listened the first time she was told.
 
Last edited:
I was reading further into the law regarding this situation. The judge clearly could have and should have "excused"* the absences and let the school handle this matter through through counseling or as a mandatory reporter referred the student to child services for evaluation or assistance. Judge Lanny Moriarty is just a bad judge and Ms. Tran had the misfortune to have him assigned to her case.



Texas Family Code - Section 51.03. Delinquent Conduct; Conduct Indicating A Need For Supervision
(d) It is an affirmative defense to an allegation of conduct
under Subsection (b)(2) that one or more of the absences required to
be proven under that subsection have been excused by a school
official or by the court or that one or more of the absences were
involuntary, but only if there is an insufficient number of
unexcused or voluntary absences remaining to constitute conduct
under Subsection (b)(2). The burden is on the respondent to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that the absence has been or should
be excused or that the absence was involuntary. A decision by the
court to excuse an absence for purposes of this subsection does not
affect the ability of the school district to determine whether to
excuse the absence for another purpose

Why did it make it to the Judge in the first place?
 
Last edited:
That's ridiculous.

Jail should only be for serious things you've done *wrong* - not for something stupid as not going to school on occassion . . . holy crap. He's an asshole. Meanwhile - I'm sure there are numerous other students who are little school skipping punks and write fake notes, beat up kids, and everything and nothing's happening to them.

Just wow - not all Texans are douchers but he sure is one.
 
Why did it make it to the Judge in the first place?

Under Texas Law* it was mandatory to file a complaint against this student.(see also post 4)

"Texas Education Code 25.0951 states that:
If a student fails to attend school without excuse on ten or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year, the District shall within ten school days of the student’s tenth absence:

File a complaint against the student or the student’s parent or both in a county, justice, or municipal court for an offense under Education Code 25.093 or 25.094, as appropriate, or refer the student to a juvenile court in a county with a population of less than 100,000;"
 
Under Texas Law* it was mandatory to file a complaint against this student.(see also post 4)

"Texas Education Code 25.0951 states that:
If a student fails to attend school without excuse on ten or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year, the District shall within ten school days of the student’s tenth absence:

File a complaint against the student or the student’s parent or both in a county, justice, or municipal court for an offense under Education Code 25.093 or 25.094, as appropriate, or refer the student to a juvenile court in a county with a population of less than 100,000;"
So the district did what they were supposed to do.

She was previously told not to miss but continued.
She is at fault.
She has no legitimate excuse for missing full days of school.

She is a truant.
 
So the district did what they were supposed to do.

She was previously told not to miss but continued.
She is at fault.
She has no legitimate excuse for missing full days of school.

She is a truant.

This situation is not black and white. Initially the judge should have referred the student to child services or other like agency/office as he is a mandatory reporter. He knew or should have know the facts and circumstance in this matter. He essentially set up the student to take a fall, to be absent once again. The judge abused his discretion and shirked his responsibility the first time Ms. Tran appeared before him. The judge is the fact finder and has the responsibility to act within his appointed responsibilities.

Ms. Tran was abandoned by both parents and supported herself and family to the point of exhaustion while pursuing her academic studies. The absences can be deemed "involuntary" pursuant to statute, As such the student should be referred for evaluation and assistance. Should the judge feel that the student acted contrary to the warning given her, he was well within his discretion to take the "totality of the circumstances" into consideration and dismiss charges. Point is the judge has discretion in this matter. His ruling is punitive based on the facts presented.
 
This situation is not black and white.
Yeah, it pretty much is.


Initially the judge should have referred the student to child services or other like agency/office as he is a mandatory reporter. He knew or should have know the facts and circumstance in this matter.
You are assuming he didn't on both counts.


He essentially set up the student to take a fall, to be absent once again.
Bs! If anything, she set herself up.


The judge abused his discretion and shirked his responsibility the first time Ms. Tran appeared before him.
You have no evidence to support such a conclusion.


The judge is the fact finder and has the responsibility to act within his appointed responsibilities.
Apparently he did.


Ms. Tran was abandoned by both parents and supported herself and family to the point of exhaustion while pursuing her academic studies.
We do not know if that is true.


The absences can be deemed "involuntary" pursuant to statute,[/QUOTE]
Code:
The burden is on the respondent to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that the absence has been or should
be excused or that the absence was involuntary.
Full day absences because she is tired? BS!
The school and the Judge were correct.


As such the student should be referred for evaluation and assistance.
How do you know she initially wasn't?

Point is the judge has discretion in this matter.
And he obviously exercised it. Just not to your liking.


His ruling is punitive based on the facts presented.
Of course it is punitive, as it should be. She failed to follow the previous ruling.
 
Under Texas Law* it was mandatory to file a complaint against this student.(see also post 4)

"Texas Education Code 25.0951 states that:
If a student fails to attend school without excuse on ten or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year, the District shall within ten school days of the student’s tenth absence:

File a complaint against the student or the student’s parent or both in a county, justice, or municipal court for an offense under Education Code 25.093 or 25.094, as appropriate, or refer the student to a juvenile court in a county with a population of less than 100,000;"

What's next? Someone doesn't eat their required 22g of fiber so they get jail time? Granted, the Judge was following the inane laws he's required to. Sounds to me as if the parents need to start getting involved locally and push for the "stupid" to be removed as a law there. Insanity....
 
If the facts are as were represented than the 17 year old should be given a CPS case worker and should have social services offered. A 17 year old is not supposed to be responsible for the parents dysfunction. She needs help...not jail.
 
Regardless of how the legalities are distributed; all in all - what point does the jail time serve? She's missing school *and* work to go to jail for a while. How is that teaching a lesson to her or anyone?

Just like suspension from school for behavior, etc - that's not teaching the student anything other than if they're bad enough at school they won't have to go anymore :shrug:
 
Yeah, it pretty much is.


You are assuming he didn't on both counts.



Bs! If anything, she set herself up.


You have no evidence to support such a conclusion.



Apparently he did.


We do not know if that is true.


The absences can be deemed "involuntary" pursuant to statute,




How do you know she initially wasn't?


And he obviously exercised it. Just not to your liking.


Of course it is punitive, as it should be. She failed to follow the previous ruling.

I have explained my position to you and the now judge seems to agree.

The judge has applied a one size fits all approach to this situation, the judge was again apprised of the facts after he ruled and he is now reconsidering this situation and his ruling as he has a certain latitude within his discretion .
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom