In November 2025, and as previously published by the New Jersey Libertarian Party, the Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project intervened in Barrington Borough's consideration of a proposed "parental responsibility" ordinance after identifying serious due-process concerns in the draft law.
As originally written, Ordinance 1219 included language that would have subjected parents to municipal court summonses based largely on the conduct of their children. Specifically, if a juvenile committed a second offense within a defined period, the ordinance authorized proceedings against the parent for an alleged lack of supervision. The ordinance defined "offenses against the public peace, safety and morals" broadly, including conduct such as "being a disorderly person." Upon a second offense, the parent was effectively presumed guilty and required to rebut that presumption.
On November 10, 2025, the Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project advised the Mayor and Borough Council that this presumption violated due process, citing Doe v. Trenton, 143 N.J. Super. 128 (App. Div. 1976), aff'd, 75 N.J. 137 (1977), a case in which similar language was struck down. Shortly thereafter, the Council tabled the ordinance.
On December 9, 2025, the Barrington Borough Council adopted a revised version of Ordinance 1219. Critically, the Borough removed the sections that tied parental liability to juvenile adjudications and eliminated the second-offense presumption entirely. The revised ordinance no longer authorizes parents to be summoned to municipal court or penalized solely because a minor committed multiple violations within a specified period.
In a December 9, 2025 article published by The Retrospect, a local newspaper covering parts of Camden County, Mayor Kyle Hanson confirmed that the ordinance was revised specifically to address due-process concerns and to ensure legal compliance.
The Retrospect article quoted Hanson as stating: "There was language in the ordinance stating that two violations by a juvenile within a year created a 'rebuttable presumption that the parent violated the ordinance,' which raised due-process concerns. To address this, we removed Section 249-15 (Presumption of Evidence) and Section 249-16 (Apprehension of Violators) to clean up the language and ensure the ordinance is fully compliant."
While the ordinance still reflects an aggressive approach to "parental responsibility," the Borough's decision to remove its most constitutionally problematic provisions represents a concrete improvement and a clear example of how early intervention can prevent the adoption of overreaching local laws.
This outcome underscores the importance of the NJLP's ongoing work monitoring municipal ordinances across New Jersey and pushing back when local governments drift into legally questionable territory. Even when repeal is not achieved, narrowing and correcting defective language can reduce the risk of unconstitutional enforcement and costly litigation for taxpayers.