On Sept. 4, 2024, 14-year-old Colt Gray walked into Apalachee High School in Georgia with an AR-15 and shot and killed two students and two staff members. Last month, his father Colin Gray was convicted on 27 charges in connection to the shooting, including second-degree murder and cruelty to children.
Colin’s conviction marks the third time that a parent has been held responsible for a shooting their child allegedly committed, and given the role he played, the conviction is justified. Colin gave his son access to an AR-15 and failed to intervene. When a parent enables their child to cause harm, the justice system must hold them accountable for their negligence.
But this conviction does not take into account all the other parties that could have and should have acted. It allows courts to only address individual negligence while overlooking the larger issue: how the structural limitations of schools, law enforcement, and Child Protective Services prevent them from responding to warning signs before clear violence or danger occurs.
In most school shootings, 50% of perpetrators demonstrate early warning signs, such as direct threats, online posts relating to violence, and emotional or physical changes.
Colt’s case followed a similar pattern. In sixth grade, the school flagged him for Googling how to kill his father. Though school counselors talked to Colt and his mother, the situation was ultimately dropped. In May 2023, a sheriff’s deputy questioned Colt and his father after the FBI discovered his online messages of threats of gun violence, along with images of a rifle and a shotgun. The officer later dropped the case due to lack of evidence or immediate threat, and Colin still allowed Colt access to firearms.
In order for law enforcement and schools to intervene, there has to be a clear sign of immediate danger or neglect. Without that, they disregard the case without classifying it as an ongoing risk.
The definition of “immediate danger” and “neglect” takes on a loose meaning for law enforcement and even CPS. In Georgia, neglect is defined as the “failure to provide proper parental care or control; subsistence; education, as required by law; or other care or control necessary for a child’s physical, mental, or emotional health.” This ambiguous definition leaves it open for interpretation and allows CPS officers to only act on cases that they feel pose an immediate threat. The definition of neglect also varies by state, which leads to inconsistent rulings across the nation.
People close to the Grays called CPS on Colt’s mother, reporting violence between Colt’s parents and mistreatment toward their children. The caseworker assigned to Colt’s case stated that the family was receiving “services for the issues identified,” and no intervention followed. These repeated reports likely did not meet the required legal threshold for serious intervention.
As a result, CPS often does not act on early warning signs. For example, in Southern California, a parent doesn’t have to let CPS into their home, take a drug test, or allow their child to be removed from their care without a court order or evidence of serious danger. This means that CPS’ ability to act is dependent on if the situation meets certain legal requirements, rather than if the child is struggling. If it acts too early, it risks lawsuits from parents who argue that it violated their parental rights. These narrow legal definitions of severity prevent similar organizations from helping with issues that they were quite literally built to solve.
In addition, the subjectivity of these situations also leaves room for personal biases. For example, Black and Native American children are roughly twice as likely as white children to experience intervention from CPS by the time they turn 18. Additionally, research shows that, in many cases, despite showing similar levels of risk, family characteristics, and harm, CPS was more likely to report suspected negligence and abuse in Black families than white ones.
As a result, CPS spends extra time on low-risk cases that involve minorities while disregarding high-risk cases due to personal bias. Intervention by CPS is not only limited, but it is also very inconsistent. When systems like these rely on subjective opinions rather than strict legal definitions, they act too late and act irregularly. Some families are oversurveilled, while other families are left without meaningful intervention, which demonstrates that the problem isn’t a lack of action; it’s the lack of uniform and reliable responses.
Holding parents accountable for their children is justifiable, since they are responsible for raising them. Though that accountability can reinforce responsibility, it ultimately does not change a system that relies heavily on personal bias and legal constraints. As long as these justice systems are incentivized to only act when harm is immediate, early warning signs will continue to go unaddressed. It creates a fake reality in which the legal system can pat itself on the back for “solving” the problem. Accountability cannot stop at an individual level — it must also take into account the institutions that decide when and how intervention is allowed.
