Child and lying

Suppose a parent is having trouble with their teenager regarding lying. Over the course of a couple of years during several situations in which the teenager was involved, the parents discover that their child lied to them regarding the outcome of the situation. Additionally, the parents discovered their child had attempted to cover up the lies in order to protect herself from the truth being discovered. Additionally, it was discovered that the lies were told on occasions in situations where the teenager would have been the beneficiary of the lie rather than telling the truth.

Now, through a series of circumstances, the family is faced with the possibility of losing their home and their livelihood unless an important decision is made that depends on the word of their teenager. The problem is, the teenager, who has been caught in lies and coverups during the past couple of years, stands to gain significantly if she lies as opposed to telling the truth.


Fortunately, there is a another person, a person who is outside of the family, who would be available to make that decision with the family without the lies. This would likely save the family from a devastating ruin of their family structure. But it would deny their teenager the opportunity for redemption.


Would the parents be justified by not letting their teenage daughter testify in this all important matter that would have a devastating impact on their livelihood if the teenager would lie?


Was your answer yes, the parents would be justified. If so, then how is that any different than the nation refusing to elect Hillary Clinton as President of United States?


Jim Killebrew