Imagine there is a 16-year-old Scarborough "devil." When he turned 13, he started taking illegal drugs and his mother began having problems with him. One day he sprayed graffiti on 14 floors of a Greenbrae Circuit apartment building stairwell. The youth now faces several criminal charges, and his family was evicted by their landlord. It is justified that they be evicted because the mother was not controlling her son regarding the building rules.

When the mother signed the lease, the contract said they must follow all the rules of the building. Even if her son caused the damage, she still had to pay for it. The problem is that the mother refused to pay for it. Obviously neither the woman nor her son followed the rules, so it is fair that she be evicted.

The mother knew her son was responsible for the graffiti, but she did nothing about it! Does the mother think when her son vandalizes property, she doesn't have to pay to repair that the landlord is not justified in kicking them out of the buidling? It wouldn't be fair if she didn't have to suffer the consequences. Her son didn't even apologize or offer to pay for the damage. This mother is not cut out to be a tenant if she lets her kids get away with criminal acts.

The mother is responsible for her son until he is 18. Why didn't she do anything to stop him? On April 16 of that year, the boy and a friend got in an argument with another tenant. The officers who investigated the argument had previously investigated graffiti problems reported by the property manager. The mother can't even take care of her son. He had already taken illicit drugs and sprayed graffiti in an apartment twice before. The mother has proven that she can't control her son, so we can assume that the vandalism would continue.

In my opinion, the mother should be evicted because her family did not follow the rules. If she cannot follow the rules, she shouldn't live there.