Dhyān Yogi, 

The main occupant has the major liability and is held accountable. Just as in human society, a parent is liable for the antisocial behavior of a child, so among the inhabitants of a psyche, the main observer carries the responsibility.

If a child shoplifts, that child is held by police until the situation is sorted in terms of the identity of the parents and the charge levied. There are cases however where the parent is freed from charges. That is if the child was a habitual offender and a court assigned that child to be regarded as if he or she was an adult.

The permissive contribution of a parent to a child’s criminal behavior is rated in a juvenile court to see what percentage of the incidence the parent is liable for. Someone who lives in the psyche of another person, cannot act to use that psyche unless somehow the main observer consents. Of course such consent is given while under the influence of the dependent. But then the liability will be based on consent, where the person is penalized for being influenced.

How would it sound in a court, if a juvenile committed a thief in a store and was caught by video evidence, where the child got permission to put the stolen item in his mother’s purse?

When cross examined, the parent told the court that she was innocent, because she was influenced by the child to allow him to put the item in her hand bag. Should that mother have no liability for the theft?