• 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

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.

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.

Did I suggest anything about lynching the judge or even firing him? No. I said his judgment on this case, given the facts we do have, was wrong. If it comes out there are further facts, fine, I can change my position. But as of what I know right now, this judge's decision was wrong.
 
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.

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.

Are you serious, or just playing Devil's Advocate?
 
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:
Yes that would be teaching her a lesson. And it is very lenient.

But you are right.
24 hours in jail is meaningless to someone who snubs the Courts order to begin with.
It is nothing to someone who is skipping school for no legitimate reason.

She had no legitimate reason to skip full days of school. None.
She is a truant and was already given a chance to straighten up and fly right.
She choose to disregard the chance she was given.
She is at fault.



Are you serious, or just playing Devil's Advocate?
Yes.
 
once they reach age 16, give them a senior level test, if they pass, let them graduate right then....
 
I don't feel sorry for the girl at all. She stated her curriculum which was extensive, she stated that she worked two jobs. Clearly this girl has taken on more than she can chew. The judge had previously given her just a warning and she failed to reduce what she herself had taken on. Highschool students do get to choose their curriculum and everyone can choose how much they work. Since she failed to heed the warning and skipped school again then she is at fault. And it is imo a good thing for her to learn this now than later in life. Later in life no employer is going to accept so many absenses and late arrivals. She would get fired. Which could potentially end up making her, and her family if she has one, living on the streets.

If this makes me an idiot and a hard ass then so be it. No one ever said that life was fair.

Also in case your thinking that this thing would be on her permanent record and as such shouldn't happen...well...it wouldn't. As she is a minor then there are avenues available to her that would wipe her record clean when she turned 18. Especially since this would be the first thing on her record.
 
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 .
At most, all he is going to do is suspend the sentence if she meets certain requirements. And we all know how she is at doing that.
 
10 days? Damn man, I skipped a lot during my senior year glad I didn't live in Texas.
 
At most, all he is going to do is suspend the sentence if she meets certain requirements. And we all know how she is at doing that.

He may not even do that. He said he would think about it and and may reconsider. I checked his bio and he has 31 years of law enforcement. He is not a career jurist. All I see are missteps on the part of the judge and while I do see various avenues for him to truly be a positive force in this girl's life and by example create a very good situation with the school and possible problemed children I have very little faith in the judicial acumen of this Justice of the Peace.

With a successful tenure in law enforcement including 21 years with the Houston Police Department and 10 years with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department, Judge Moriarty reminds himself daily, “I am a human first and a law enforcer second.” He was elected as JOP in 2003.

Looks like his judgement also came under fire with the state ethics board.

"The file below contains the Texas Ethics Commission’s Order and Agreed Resolution for Montgomery County, Texas, Precinct 1 Justice of the Peace, Lanny Moriarty.

JP Moriarty agreed to pay a $2,800 civil fine for various alleged mistakes made on campaign finance reports.

Some of the alleged mistakes listed included receiving contributions from corporations. "
Justice of the Peace, Lanny Moriarty – TEC Resolution – $2,800 Civil Fine*|*Montgomery County Monitor
 
He may not even do that. He said he would think about it and and may reconsider. I checked his bio and he has 31 years of law enforcement. He is not a career jurist. All I see are missteps on the part of the judge and while I do see various avenues for him to truly be a positive force in this girl's life and by example create a very good situation with the school and possible problemed children I have very little faith in the judicial acumen of this Justice of the Peace.

With a successful tenure in law enforcement including 21 years with the Houston Police Department and 10 years with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department, Judge Moriarty reminds himself daily, “I am a human first and a law enforcer second.” He was elected as JOP in 2003.
I see no missteps on his part.
He gave her a chance the first time.
I have no problem with that.

She misstepped.



Looks like his judgement also came under fire with the state ethics board.

"The file below contains the Texas Ethics Commission’s Order and Agreed Resolution for Montgomery County, Texas, Precinct 1 Justice of the Peace, Lanny Moriarty.

JP Moriarty agreed to pay a $2,800 civil fine for various alleged mistakes made on campaign finance reports.

Some of the alleged mistakes listed included receiving contributions from corporations. "
Justice of the Peace, Lanny Moriarty – TEC Resolution – $2,800 Civil Fine*|*Montgomery County Monitor
Pffft!
 
10 days? Damn man, I skipped a lot during my senior year glad I didn't live in Texas.
I was emancipated.
I wrote my own excuses.
 
He may not even do that. He said he would think about it and and may reconsider. I checked his bio and he has 31 years of law enforcement. He is not a career jurist. All I see are missteps on the part of the judge and while I do see various avenues for him to truly be a positive force in this girl's life and by example create a very good situation with the school and possible problemed children I have very little faith in the judicial acumen of this Justice of the Peace.

Who says going to jail for a night won't be a positive influence on the girl? It may teach her to 1: Take a warning from a judge to heart. 2: not to take so much on that it screws up your life. It is better that she learn this now than years later when she's responsible for her own kids (if she has some).

Besides if she gets away with breaking the rules just because she sheds some tears then she will never stop breaking the rules as she will never learn that there are consequences to every action she takes.
 
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,
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.



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.

No, she did not misstep. She has done what is virtuous: In order to provide sole support for herself and her siblings, she has worked 2 jobs and gone to school full time for a total of 100 hours of total weekly time obligation!!! This is out of a total of 168 total hours in a week and doesn't even account for time for doing homework. And when she needed to, took time off from school to rest. What she has done is WAY beyond what I could have done. I admire her fortitude. Your assertion that she didn't need to miss a full day of school is just plain stupid, period. Most people would miss 3 every week trying to do what she is doing (in other words, they wouldn't be able to do it). Yet, she still received good marks. BRAVO!!!

All that said, the Judge may not have taken the time to find out all the facts, so I am not quite ready to call him an ignorant monster. But, I am just this close.
 
No, she did not misstep.
lol
Yes, she did misstep.
If she hadn't, she wouldn't be in this pickle.
You don't just get to ignore a judges order.
She missteped.



She has done what is virtuous: In order to provide sole support for herself and her siblings, she has worked 2 jobs and gone to school full time for a total of 100 hours of total weekly time obligation!!! This is out of a total of 168 total hours in a week and doesn't even account for time for doing homework. And when she needed to, took time off from school to rest. What she has done is WAY beyond what I could have done. I admire her fortitude. Your assertion that she didn't need to miss a full day of school is just plain stupid, period. Most people would miss 3 every week trying to do what she is doing (in other words, they wouldn't be able to do it). Yet, she still received good marks. BRAVO!!!

All that said, the Judge may not have taken the time to find out all the facts, so I am not quite ready to call him an ignorant monster. But, I am just this close.
1.) I don't buy her sob story.
2.) This was all known by her when she received the original order. She chose not to follow it.
She mistepped.
3.) The above is not an excuse to miss full days. It just isn't.



Your assertion that she didn't need to miss a full day of school is just plain stupid, period. Most people would miss 3 every week trying to do what she is doing (in other words, they wouldn't be able to do it).
No it isn't. She had an order to follow. She chose not to.

And most people wouldn't miss three a week. That is hyperbole.
 
lol
Yes, she did misstep.
If she hadn't, she wouldn't be in this pickle.
You don't just get to ignore a judges order.
She missteped.



1.) I don't buy her sob story.
2.) This was all known by her when she received the original order. She chose not to follow it.
She mistepped.
3.) The above is not an excuse to miss full days. It just isn't.




No it isn't. She had an order to follow. She chose not to.

And most people wouldn't miss three a week. That is hyperbole.

She was faced with no good choices. She chose to do what was virtuous, which also apparently happened to result in a violation of the judges order.

It is not hyperbole, absolutely not. Most people simply wouldn't be able to sustain it, and something would indeed give way, catastrophically. That you can't see that is just blindness.
 
Who says going to jail for a night won't be a positive influence on the girl? It may teach her to 1: Take a warning from a judge to heart. 2: not to take so much on that it screws up your life. It is better that she learn this now than years later when she's responsible for her own kids (if she has some).

Besides if she gets away with breaking the rules just because she sheds some tears then she will never stop breaking the rules as she will never learn that there are consequences to every action she takes.

She wasn't behind in her work. She simply wasn't making it to school, actually attending classes. If she is learning the stuff, and from what is given about her grades, she is, then she is doing her job as far as school is concerned. We have kids sitting in classes, learning nothing or struggling to learn all the time and you think we should put a girl in jail for actually working hard to ensure she is keeping up with her work because she has to work to take care of herself. This is only teaching the girl that common sense is not very common at all, particularly when applied to the law and that hard work will get you into trouble because people don't have that common sense to know what school is for, learning, not being a butt in the classroom.
 
She was faced with no good choices. She chose to do what was virtuous, which also apparently happened to result in a violation of the judges order.
lol
She did not choose to be virtuous.


She knew her situation (whatever that may be) and chose to disobey a court order instead of taking steps and making arrangements to follow it.
That is a somewhat severe violation of which she needs to learn something about.
24 hours in a jail cell will do her good.


It is not hyperbole, absolutely not. Most people simply wouldn't be able to sustain it, and something would indeed give way, catastrophically. That you can't see that is just blindness.
It is hyperbole.
I have lived it. I was emancipated and supported three people. Don't give me this crap about blindness.
You are blind because you think her actions in violating a court order is virtuous. :doh
Yeah ... right! And you want to talk about blindness.
 
lol
She did not choose to be virtuous.


She knew her situation (whatever that may be) and chose to disobey a court order instead of taking steps and making arrangements to follow it.
That is a somewhat severe violation of which she needs to learn something about.
24 hours in a jail cell will do her good.


It is hyperbole.
I have lived it. I was emancipated and supported three people. Don't give me this crap about blindness.
You are blind because you think her actions in violating a court order is virtuous. :doh
Yeah ... right! And you want to talk about blindness.

LOL, right back at ya', hehe. She was working two jobs, going to school full time, getting awesome grades, with no parent figures around. Then she just decided to what? Throw all the hard work out the window and become a rebellious truant for no good reason? Yeah, she was probably just wanting to throw in a little partying or something those days cuz she just didn't have enough to do, and was trying to round out a light schedule. My bad.

Your interpretation would be laughable, if it wasn't so sadly arrogant. And your attempt to establish credibility is convenient and literally unbelievable.
 
I see no missteps on his part.
He gave her a chance the first time.
I have no problem with that.

She misstepped.



Pffft!

You have read my views, you have been informed that the judge stated he may reconsider the facts and his ruling. Please note I am not attempting to change your mind, it does not matter. When in a position of authority where you decision carries a record that follows a person through their lifetime there is a greater responsibility to look at all options and not rest with what you think you know, but, look to the actual facts of the case and weigh all the options to the applicable facts.

Here are some other perspectives:

  • Houston defense attorney Ned Barnett on Tuesday called the ruling "outrageous" and said "a little discretion should have been used" in the teenager's case. "It doesn’t take much discretion to have sympathy for Miss Tran," Barnett said. "To lock her up is just outrageous." Barnett, who is not defending Tran, said the girl likely spent her 24-hour jail sentence at Montgomery County Jail surrounded by suspected murderers, drug addicts and prostitutes.
  • Houston Councilman Al Hoang said what he worries about most is Tran's record. "I’m going to ask the judge to expunge the record," Hoang told FoxNews.com. "The truancy laws should be applied case by case and in this case, it should not be applied. I believe Judge Moriarty should have used his discretionary power to excuse her from this matter."


Texas honor student jailed for truancy likely spent night with 'hard-core' criminals
 
LOL, right back at ya', hehe.
Yeah ... What ever!



She was working two jobs,
How many hours? She alleges a full time and a part time.
But we don't know that to be true, you know why?
Because the story is pretty much absent specifics.




going to school full time,
No... That is what this is all about.
She should have been going full time but she wasn't. :mrgreen:


Then she just decided to what? Throw all the hard work out the window and become a rebellious truant for no good reason? Yeah, she was probably just wanting to throw in a little partying or something those days cuz she just didn't have enough to do, and was trying to round out a light schedule. My bad.
Just more hyperbole.


Your interpretation would be laughable, if it wasn't so sadly arrogant.
Wrong.

If I had been the Judge, I would also have given her a chance the first time.

And that is what you seem to want to ignore. She had her chance and wasted it.

And then you want to make a big deal that she got a very lenient 24 hours, to think about her actions in not obeying the courts order.
And unlike Lohan, Miss Tran most likely will be better for it.

This crybaby attitude that many people have now-a-days is ridiculous.

She had her chance, and screwed the pooch. Now it is time for the consequences.
She is lucky to get off so lightly, and that is most likey because of her astounding record.


And your attempt to establish credibility is convenient and literally unbelievable.
LMFAO
I care not if you believe me.
 
Last edited:
She wasn't behind in her work. She simply wasn't making it to school, actually attending classes. If she is learning the stuff, and from what is given about her grades, she is, then she is doing her job as far as school is concerned. We have kids sitting in classes, learning nothing or struggling to learn all the time and you think we should put a girl in jail for actually working hard to ensure she is keeping up with her work because she has to work to take care of herself. This is only teaching the girl that common sense is not very common at all, particularly when applied to the law and that hard work will get you into trouble because people don't have that common sense to know what school is for, learning, not being a butt in the classroom.

Answer me this question. Would ANY employer keep her on with such an attendence and tardiness record?

And we have no idea what her grades were like. It doesn't mention them. But regardless of what her grades were/are that doesn't excuse anything. She had been previously warned about missing school, she ignored that warning. She had the chance to reduce her workload. She did not do so. She's the one that chose to take on as much as she did.
 
When in a position of authority where you decision carries a record that follows a person through their lifetime there is a greater responsibility to look at all options and not rest with what you think you know, but, look to the actual facts of the case and weigh all the options to the applicable facts.
Apparently that is how it worked the first time around.


"Houston defense attorney Ned Barnett on Tuesday called the ruling "outrageous" and said "a little discretion should have been used" in the teenager's case."
Why do you think this persons opinion matters?
As far as I am concerned it is much like many of the opinions here; A knee-jerk reaction.
Not realizing that the girl had already been given a chance, and deserving of punishment for failing to obey the courts order.
And an over reaction to a mere 24 hours.

"Houston Councilman Al Hoang said what he worries about most is Tran's record. "I’m going to ask the judge to expunge the record,"
Which goes right back to what I thought the judge may be likely to do.


Hoang told FoxNews.com. "The truancy laws should be applied case by case and in this case, it should not be applied. I believe Judge Moriarty should have used his discretionary power to excuse her from this matter."
Well Mr. Hoang is a little lost on the facts it seems.
Apparently the Judge used that discretionary power the first time. and she failed to follow the courts order.


And as thorough as you are, I doubt you missed this, but from the link you provided.

E. Tay Bond, a well-known Houston defense attorney, said the judge likely had no discretion to avert a jail sentence.

"There's no legal exception that I’m aware of that if you're an honors student, you’re allowed to exceed a maximum number of unexcused days under the Texas Compulsory Education Laws," Bond told FoxNews*com. "Twenty-four hours would be about the minimum period of confinement to make a point.
 
Last edited:
Apparently that is how it worked the first time around.


"Houston defense attorney Ned Barnett on Tuesday called the ruling "outrageous" and said "a little discretion should have been used" in the teenager's case."
Why do you think this persons opinion matters?
As far as I am concerned it is much like many of the opinions here; A knee-jerk reaction.
Not realizing that the girl had already been given a chance, and deserving of punishment for failing to obey the courts order.
And an over reaction to a mere 24 hours.

"Houston Councilman Al Hoang said what he worries about most is Tran's record. "I’m going to ask the judge to expunge the record,"
Which goes right back to what I thought the judge may be likely to do.


Hoang told FoxNews.com. "The truancy laws should be applied case by case and in this case, it should not be applied. I believe Judge Moriarty should have used his discretionary power to excuse her from this matter."
Well Mr. Hoang is a little lost on the facts it seems.
Apparently the Judge used that discretionary power the first time. and she failed to follow the courts order.


You are assuming facts that have not been presented. The judge, the school system and her parents failed Ms. Tran. Ms. Tran has overcome a great deal and I have no doubt she will this time as well. She should have been referred for assistance the first time, but, was not.


And as thorough as you are, I doubt you missed this, but from the link you provided.

E. Tay Bond, a well-known Houston defense attorney, said the judge likely had no discretion to avert a jail sentence.

"There's no legal exception that I’m aware of that if you're an honors student, you’re allowed to exceed a maximum number of unexcused days under the Texas Compulsory Education Laws," Bond told FoxNews*com. "Twenty-four hours would be about the minimum period of confinement to make a point.

I addressed this previously in post 14. Your "authority" cites that the law does not excuse "honors students" and he is correct, but, that is not the issue whatsoever. The issue is whether Ms. Tran's absences could have been excused by the judge using his discretion and the answer is yes.

For your convenience I will repost the relevant part of the statute. Also note that the above authority you rely upon has no idea what the hell he is talking about and is a legal malpractice case waiting to happen.

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
 
It is unfortuanate she has to juggle with a broken home, school, survival, take care of her siblings etc. Judge could have been compassionate but the law takes its course if the judge is not flexible.
 
Last edited:
I addressed this previously in post 14. Your "authority" cites that the law does not excuse "honors students" and he is correct, but, that is not the issue whatsoever. The issue is whether Ms. Tran's absences could have been excused by the judge using his discretion and the answer is yes.

What you don't seem to be getting is that he had already used his discretionary powers and had already gave her a warning previously. This was not the first time that Ms. Tran had been in front of the judge for truancy. This was the second time. If Ms. Tran did not heed the first warning why would she have heeded a second warning?
 
Who says going to jail for a night won't be a positive influence on the girl? It may teach her to 1: Take a warning from a judge to heart. 2: not to take so much on that it screws up your life. It is better that she learn this now than years later when she's responsible for her own kids (if she has some).

Besides if she gets away with breaking the rules just because she sheds some tears then she will never stop breaking the rules as she will never learn that there are consequences to every action she takes.

What you don't seem to be getting is that he had already used his discretionary powers and had already gave her a warning previously. This was not the first time that Ms. Tran had been in front of the judge for truancy. This was the second time. If Ms. Tran did not heed the first warning why would she have heeded a second warning?


The judge was lazy in the execution of his duties, the school administration was negligent. Ms. Tran stood before the judge who was apprised of the facts and therefore he was a mandated reporter. The school was aware of the family situation and did not report this.

"Mandatory Reporting for.... Professionals

A professional who has cause to believe that a child has been abused or neglected is required by law to report the abuse or neglect within 48 hours of becoming aware of the incident. The professional cannot delegate to or rely on another person to make the report.

For the purposes of reporting, other professionals are defined as persons who are:

· licensed or certified by the state;

OR

· employed by a facility licensed, certified, or operated by the state;

AND

· in the normal course of official duties or duties for which a license or certification is required, have direct contact with children.

The term professional includes:

· teachers;

· nurses;

· doctors;

· day-care employees;

· employees of a clinic or health care facility that provides reproductive services;

· juvenile probation officers; and

· juvenile detention or correctional officers.


Further, “Texas law says anyone who thinks a child, or person 65 years or older, or an adult with disabilities is being abused, neglected, or exploited must report it to DFPS. A person who reports abuse in good faith is immune from civil or criminal liability. DFPS keeps the name of the person making the report confidential. Anyone who does not report suspected abuse can be held liable for a misdemeanor or felony. Time frames for investigating reports are based on severity of allegations. Reporting suspected child abuse makes it possible for a family to get help.”



The facts. The parents left the minor child as follows:

SUBTITLE E. PROTECTION OF THE CHILD
CHAPTER 261. INVESTIGATION OF REPORT OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(4) "Neglect" includes:
“(iii) the failure to provide a child with food, clothing, or shelter necessary to sustain the life or health of the child, excluding failure caused primarily by financial inability unless relief services had been offered and refused;”

DFPS - Report Abuse or Neglect
 
Back
Top Bottom