Conviction of School Shooter’s Mother Sets a Key Precedent

Tim Mudd / Unsplash

On February 6^th, a Michigan jury found Jennifer Crumbley guilty of involuntary manslaughter for her role in the 2021 Oxford High School shooting. Her son, age 15, killed four classmates and injured seven others with a gun purchased for him by Ms. Crumbley and her husband, who faces the same charges in a trial that begins in March.

The verdict is unprecedented, marking the first time a parent has been criminally convicted for failing to prevent a mass shooting carried out by a child in their custody. That said, the degree to which Ms. Crumbley and her husband ignored highly visible red flags and warning signs is equally stunning.

Not only did the Crumbleys purchase the weapon for their son, but they failed to secure it properly in a locked case, according to his testimony. They also showed little regard for the danger it posed. For example, Ms. Crumbley texted her son, “LOL I’m not mad, you have to learn not to get caught,” upon learning he had been found searching online for ammunition while at school.

Even more devastating is the disregard the Crumbleys showed for their son’s mental health. Social media posts reveal he asked to see a doctor about intrusive thoughts, only to hear his father tell him, “Suck it up.” And just hours before the shooting took place, the Crumbleys were called into school to discuss a drawing by him depicting a gun and a person bleeding, along with the phrases, “the thoughts won’t stop,” “help me,” and “blood everywhere.” They declined to take him out of class even though they knew he had access to a weapon.

Ms. Crumbley now faces up to 15 years in prison.

While attorneys for Ms. Crumbley argued the case was “dangerous” for parents, with a clear eye toward families impacted by serious mental illness, I believe the ruling sets a strong and beneficial precedent. Under certain circumstances, I do consider it just for parents to be held accountable for these often highly preventable tragedies that claim the lives of innocent people and devastate families, communities, and our country as a whole.

After years and years of successive mass shootings perpetrated by individuals with clear, unmet needs and often easy access to deadly weapons, it’s not surprising that a jury felt the same. Like many of us, they arguably feel more proactive, preventive work needs to be done. Reactive approaches are simply not working.

Starting now, I anticipate that many parents, especially gun owners, will think more deeply about the responsibility they might have to one day take for the potential actions of children experiencing serious crises or emotional distress. They could have to pay a heavy price for ignoring red flags and denying the realities of a destabilizing situation, though one might argue that parents already accept this possibility. The first victim of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was the perpetrator’s mother.

Either way, mental health professionals—attorneys, clinicians, case workers, etc.—will also likely feel more empowered to counsel parents of patients and clients about the dangers of keeping weapons at home. This has traditionally been a difficult conversation, given the large number of Second Amendment advocates across the U.S. The verdict against Ms. Crumbley helps practitioners raise and reinforce the issue of liability with less fear of politicizing their recommendations. In my mental health law practice, I myself will now, and moving forward, train my staff and those clinicians with whom we closely collaborate to ask about access to weapons, especially firearms.

Parenting is inherently difficult. Parenting a child with mental health needs is a far greater and more complex challenge. But many of the underlying issues of this case feel irrefutably simple. The right to own weapons cannot trump people’s rights to move safely through the world. This requires a greater level of care and accountability, especially among parents of children suffering from serious mental health conditions.