In response to school blockages, Éric Ciotti, president of the UDR, proposed that parents of students responsible for violence should cover the costs of repairs and face sanctions, including the removal of social housing benefits. This idea echoes a similar proposal by Éric Zemmour, who also suggested financially penalizing parents of students involved in bullying. However, the idea of removing social assistance from a family as a punishment for a child's behavior contradicts the French Constitution. A preliminary legal judgment is necessary. The destruction or damage to another person's property is a criminal offense under article 322-1 of the Penal Code. Therefore, the student responsible should be identified and prosecuted by the juvenile court. If the family allocation office were to remove benefits, it would need information about the student's condemnation. This exchange of information conflicts with privacy protection, especially since juvenile justice follows strict rules to protect the educational rehabilitation of minors. This is one obstacle, but another, even more significant, must be overcome. A collective sanction, such as removing benefits due to an individual's behavior, is unconstitutional. All sanctions must adhere to the requirements of article 8 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, as emphasized by the Constitutional Council. This article establishes that no one can be punished for the actions of another, a principle also included in article 121-1 of the Penal Code. Thus, a collective sanction based on an individual act is unconstitutional. Removing social benefits from a family because of a child's behavior would punish parents who have done nothing wrong, as well as siblings not involved in the incident. An automatic removal would also ignore the principles of proportionality and individualized penalties, derived from the same article 8. Social benefits are not linked to the child's behavior but are part of national solidarity, as stated in the 1946 Constitution's preamble. These benefits depend on residence in France and are paid to the person who provides the child with care, regardless of the child's actions. Only the incarceration or placement of the child could justify the removal of a benefit, but this is not a punishment against the parents. The child's placement or incarceration is no longer the parents' responsibility during that period. While the mayor of Nice is not legally wrong in considering the possibility of holding parents responsible for damages caused by their children, the Civil Code states that parents are civilly liable for damages caused by their minor child (article 1242). The region owning the high school can demand compensation from the court. However, it is difficult to determine the exact amount of compensation, as students rarely act alone, so the burden of compensation must be shared among all parents of responsible students. Parents can also be pursued for their own fault if they fail in their educational duties, as stated in article 371-1 of the Civil Code and article 227-17 of the Penal Code. The government has chosen a different approach. Amid social unrest, it has accelerated the examination of a bill concerning the compensation for damages resulting from violence or damage in public spaces, known as casseur-payeur. Article 4 of the bill would allow the seizure of family benefits and housing assistance, which are usually non-seizable, to recover damages and interest set by a final judgment. This would also apply to criminal convictions against a minor, and parents would be financially responsible if the judge decides to compensate the victim. Benefits would not be suspended or removed, as the Constitution prohibits this. Instead, they would be used to pay a debt set by a judge, with deductions calculated to ensure a minimum living allowance. In its opinion of September 3, 2026, the Council of State validated this mechanism. The government would thus make the repairs payable by seizing the benefits, while Éric Ciotti wants to remove the benefits as a sanction: this is the entire difference. The bill must be examined by the Senate at the beginning of October.