Candle Court
The mystery of who played with fire in the bathroom.
On a typical Saturday afternoon, while doing dishes, my nine-year-old daughter, Leighton, walked into the kitchen looking bewildered. When I asked her what was wrong, she said, “Somebody burned something in the bathroom.”
“Burned something?” I replied. “Yes,” she answered. I asked her to show me what happened, and she led me through her bedroom into the Jack and Jill bathroom she shares with her brother, Quinn (10). On the counter among the bric-a-brac was an unlit candle with cinders in the dried wax. There were rogue cinders strewn about the counter, bits of paper with burnt edges, and a small butane lighter.
While I knew the answer to the question, I still asked, “Did you do this?” To which she replied, “No,” leaving only one culprit, Quinn. Quinn was still out playing with friends around the neighborhood. I informed my husband, Trevor, of the situation, and we agreed to confront Quinn when he returned. Thereupon, we would lecture him about playing with fire and ground him for a day. Satisfied with our plan, we went on with our day.
When Quinn walked through the door, my husband and I sat him down to discuss his infractions. I immediately asked him if he was responsible for the fire mess in the bathroom. In hindsight, asking him this was not the brightest idea. He vehemently denied involvement with the candle or lighter and accused his sister of the crime. Immediately, I knew he was lying based on the evidence we already possessed and because I knew the kid better than he knew himself at this point in his life.
Knowing he was responsible but not having any definitive proof, I thought for half a second, then accused Quinn of committing the crime and lying about it. The accusation did not sit well with 10-year-old Quin. He blew up, denying any part of it and accusing his sister through tears and sniffles. Leighton then interjected with her own rebuttals, creating a cacophony of shrill voices with no discernable words. Heretofore, my husband had only been observing but not participating in the conversation orally. With the ease of a court judge, Trevor quieted us down and offered a resolution. If the offender came forward, he or she would be grounded for one day, but if no one owned up to the crime, they both would be grounded for one week. I nodded in agreement as we waited.
Both kids protested, not understanding why they should both pay for something only one of them was party to. Trevor pondered this for a few seconds and offered a new solution: a trial. There was to be a trial where Trevor was the judge, he and I were the jury, and each child was their own advocate. The sentence was also amended after explaining how the trial would work for the children. If the offender comes forward now and allocutes, he or she will be grounded for one day (a plea bargain). Upon trial adjournment, whoever is found guilty will be grounded for one week. Quinn and Leighton agreed to the terms, but neither admitted guilt, and the trial commenced.
Leighton presented her case first, followed by questions from my husband and me for clarity. Quinn presented last and was also questioned by Trevor and me. Once both parties rested, we gave the offender another chance to come forward and only be grounded for one day. With no takers, my husband and I (the jury) retreated to our bedroom for deliberations. We agreed without much discussion that Quinn was the party responsible and that we would find him guilty. However, we deliberated for a few more minutes for optics.
When my husband and I emerged from our deliberations, we again offered the aforementioned plea bargain before we read the verdict and handed down a sentence. Still, neither child spoke up. With that, we informed them we found Quinn guilty of the crime and was sentenced to be grounded for one week. The verdict was met with shouting, crying, stomping, and door slamming.
Quinn was sticking to his original denial, but Trevor and I knew he was lying, and we had made the right decision. Leighton was now also crying because she didn’t want Quinn to be in trouble. Quinn was still trying to convince us he was innocent and not to ground him, but his pleas were in vain. It was too late. He’d have to carry out his sentences as adjudicated.
Before his sentence began the next day, Quinn confessed to his crime. He served his sentence and was released without prejudice.