School truancy is a problem which deserves, but rarely receives, serious public attention. The greatest predictor of a child’s success in school is having parents who regularly ask the question, “Have you done your homework?” The greatest predictor of failure is having parents don’t care if their child ever shows up for class.

The mothers of ancient Sparta used to send their sons off to war with the admonition, “Come home with your shield or on it!” My mother must have borrowed a page from their handbook when she told me, as a youngster, not to come home without a good report card. Her words left no doubt as to her high expectations, which I worked hard to meet. She never mentioned truancy, because I don’t think it occurred to her (or me, for that matter) that skipping school was an option.

Times have certainly changed. Today’s family life hardly resembles Norman Rockwell’s scenes of small town, mid-20th century America. But parental encouragement and involvement is still as essential to a child’s success in learning as when Rockwell created his beloved illustrations.

That’s precisely what disturbed me about a feature that appeared in last Sunday’s Sun Journal, entitled “Tackling Truancy.” The piece, by staff writer Bonnie Washuk, explored the scope of the truancy problem in Lewiston’s school system, where about five percent of students are absent without excuse on a typical day and where attempts to reduce truancy have met with little success.

A Lewiston truant officer quoted by Washuk cited the case of a mother who claimed her daughter had missed 49 out of 135 days at Geiger Elementary School because other students were picking on her. The mother yawned so often while the officer was questioning her at home that he wondered if she either didn’t take seriously her daughter’s frequent school absences or she’d been up all night. Instead of asking the child’s principal to discipline the bullies, the mother had failed to alert school authorities to the problem. In short, she hadn’t tried to get her daughter back to school, let alone checked on her progress in school.

The bottom line, according to Washuk’s report: There wasn’t much the truant officer could do to change the behavior of this parent or other parents of truants.

I certainly understand why some children don’t wish to cross the schoolhouse threshold. Students with learning disabilities often become frustrated and lose hope. Highly intelligent or creative students may become bored. In addition, bullying, social tribalism, shyness and alienation at school, as well as conflict, substance abuse, chaos and mistreatment at home, can take a huge toll on a youngster’s psyche and motivation.

Still, with a push from an involved parent at one end and a pull from welcoming teachers and support personnel at the other, all but a handful of truants will likely return to school and at least have a shot at success.

When parents of truant students fail to do their part, however, they should be confronted with the credible threat of losing their liberty, their benefit checks, their children, or all three.

Presently the parent of a child who is truant (defined as seven full days or five consecutive days of unexcused absences for primary students and 10 full days or seven consecutive days of unexcused absences for secondary students) can be brought to court in a civil proceeding and fined a maximum of $250. Even that anemic penalty can only be imposed after the school system offers a menu of remedial services and provides the parent an opportunity to meet with the superintendent. Other legal sanctions exist – protective custody proceedings and criminal prosecution – but they’re rarely, if ever, used.

The definition of “abuse or neglect” under Maine’s child protective statutes includes “failure to ensure compliance with school attendance requirements.” “Serious” abuse or neglect can justify the state in removing a child from a parent’s custody.

In practice, however, DHHS tends to initiate child protective proceedings only in the most extreme cases of child jeopardy — sexual predation or physical abuse so severe as to cause broken bones, burns or internal injuries. Yet the legal framework already exists for removing truants from their parents’ care, and it could be implemented with firm direction from Augusta.

There’s also an offense under Maine’s Criminal Code which could be applied to parents who fail to prevent truancy. “Endangering the welfare of a minor” — a Class “D” crime punishable by up to 364 days in prison — covers a variety of parental acts, including recklessly endangering “the health, safety or welfare of a child under 16 years of age by violating a duty of care or protection.”

District attorneys, whose job includes prosecuting endangerment cases, generally focus their efforts on parents who inflict cruel punishment on their children, place them at risk of severe physical harm or fail to provide them shelter or necessary health care. However, strengthening the child endangerment law and re-ordering law enforcement and prosecutorial priorities to raise the importance of fighting truancy could make a difference in parental responsiveness.

Finally, the deprivation of governmental benefits could provide a strong disincentive to ignoring truancy, particularly for those parents who equate having children with receiving a TANF of SSI check. But it would require a rewriting of federal and state laws and regulations — in effect, a new round of “welfare reform” – to make receipt of benefits contingent upon a minimal level of responsible parenting.

I can anticipate the strident objections and querulous questions that critics would raise to such a tough approach to reducing truancy. Since there’s already a shortage of qualified foster and adoptive families, what would DHHS do with all those children removed from their parents’ custody? During a parent’s term of criminal incarceration, who would take care of the truant child and any other children in the household? Wouldn’t kids be the ones to suffer the most if TANF, SSI or other benefits were denied to their parents?

My response is that it would rarely become necessary to impose penalties if the mere threat of their use could be made credible.

As for those parents so apathetic, cynical or impaired to be unmoved by either threat or appeal, they truly deserve to forfeit their parental rights just as their children deserve the opportunity to be raised by adults who take seriously the responsibility of educating youngers in their care.

Elliott L. Epstein,a local attorney, is founder of Museum L-Aand an adjunct history instructor at Central Maine Community College. He is the author of “Lucifer’s Child,”a recently published book about the 1984 oven-death murder of Angela Palmer.Hemay be reached [email protected].