The Cost of a Homesick Child

By Rabbi Baruch M. Levine

There is no more fundamental summer institution than summer camp – where a child creates valuable memories, experiences and friends that last a lifetime. Finding a suitable camp for your child can be quite an undertaking, and often times, whether for unforeseeable reasons or a sudden change of heart, a parent may feel compelled to opt out of a camp.

This will obviously leave the camp unhappy, as they must now scramble to find a way to supplement the lost income. In this article we will discuss what Halachic recourse do parents or camps have in the various possible scenarios.

A Replaceable Slot

When parents wish to opt out of a camp they enrolled their child in, the first thing we must determine is whether the slot can be replaced. The responsibility to find a replacement falls on the camp, and if the camp is able to replace the slot with another child with reasonable effort, the parents would not have any responsibility to pay the camp if they back out, even if a kinyan (transactional act) was madeⁱ. If the (full) camp tuition was prepaid it would have to be refunded.

Even if the parents signed an application form which stated they would be responsible for the full tuition in the event they cancel their slot, this would generally not include such an instance where the camp has the ability to replace the slot, unless the application clearly stated so. [Even so, although the camp would have the option of charging the tuition and not replacing the slot, they would not be allowed to keep the tuition and replace the slotⁱⁱ.] If the camp requested a “deposit”, there is strong basis to allow the camp to keep this payment, since it is generally understood that a “deposit” is non-refundable.

Grievances (Taromes) and Lacking Faithfulness (Mechusar Amana)

Even though in this case the parents have the option of backing out, nevertheless, Chazal would entitle the camp to have a Taromes – justified grievances – against the parents for causing them the hardship of replacing their slot. However, if the camp is able to find a replacement without difficulty, and the child did not start attending the camp yet, they would not have a right to have Taromes ⁱⁱⁱ. Still, the parents would be frowned upon byChazal and termed “Mechusar Amana” – lacking faithfulness – for reneging on their word^iv [unless they are backing out due to an unforeseen circumstance, as we shall discuss later].

An Irreplaceable Slot

If after reasonable effort the camp cannot find a replacement, the parents may bear some financial responsibility depending on the following factors:

If the parents only made a verbal commitment to enroll their child, and did not sign any formal application or give any deposit, they are not technically bound to the agreement. Nevertheless, they may still be liable for causing the camp a financial loss. Accordingly, if the camp could have filled that slot with another child, the parents would generally still be responsible to pay the tuition for the entire duration they had agreed to enroll their child for (except for an unavoidable termination, which will be discussed below). However, if at the time of the cancellation there is little or no reason to assume that the camp will be unable to replace the slot, then even if the camp is indeed unsuccessful in doing so, the parents will not be responsible for the tuition^v.

When paying for lost tuition, the parents do not pay the full amount; rather they first deduct the amount that a camp would agree to forfeit in order to have one less child in their camp. Depending on the age of the child and the size of the camp, this deduction may only be a minimal amount or possibly nothing at all^vi.

If the camp would not have been able to fill this slot either way, for example, if they still have slots available, then the parents have not prevented them from enrolling other children by their enrollment and subsequent cancelation. They would therefore have the ability to back out without any financial obligation to the camp. The halachos of Mechusar Amana as previously outlined would still apply.

Even in a case where the camp would not have been able to fill the slot, and thus the parents are not responsible for the tuition, nevertheless, if the camp had made specific (non-refundable) expenditures in anticipation of the child’s attendance, and the parents were aware that the camp would be doing so, the parents may be responsible for this loss. Examples of this could be the purchase of supplies, trip reservations or hiring extra staff^vii.

If a kinyan was done to finalize thecamp enrollment, the parents are halachically bound to the contract. Examples of a kinyan can include signing an application^viii or paying full tuition. It is unclear whether paying a deposit would constitute a kinyan to obligate them to pay the rest of the tuition out-of-pocket^ix. In any event, a deposit or even a full tuition payment specifically earmarked for the first half of the summer (July) would generally not obligate the parent to pay out of pocket for the second half of the summer (August). If the child started attending the camp it would also constitute a kinyan. However, attending the camp for the first half of the summer (July) would generally not obligate the parents to pay out of pocket for the second half of the summer (August). [Here too, they would not pay the full amount as detailed above.]

Oness – Unavoidable Termination

If it becomes unfeasible for the child to attend the camp this would be a case of oness and the parents may back out without any consequences, even if the camp was prevented from filling that slot because the parents originally signed up. Mechusar Amana and Taromes would also not apply. However, according to some Achronim, the camp would not be required to refund the parents any prepaid tuition or deposit^x they had already paid.

Often, a Dayan or a Bet Din would need to determine if it is indeed one of an onessxi. Some examples of an oness may include the parents moving out of town for the summer, the child becoming sick ר“ל, or if the child simply refuses to go to the camp.

If the parents had knowledge of (or had reason to anticipate) the oness at the time they signed up, yet did not inform the camp of this, they would still be liable, unless the camp had equal knowledge of the likelihood of the oness [for example, if the child has a social issue which both the parents and the camp knew about].

BAIS HAVAAD HALACHA CENTER

{Matzav.com}