You break it, you buy it.

Very few people trash works of art intentionally, but when it comes to kids, one might say parents are on the hook for what their offspring do, especially when they should be supervising them.

Of course, keeping your eye on a 5-year-old while attending a social function is no easy task.

That’s why Sarah Goodman and her husband don’t think they should be charged for the sculpture their son broke while they attended a wedding reception at the Tomahawk Ridge Community Center in south Overland Park, Kansas in May 2018.

The Community Center holds a variety of events and at the time that the couple lost sight of their son it was also the site of a juried art show with 158 pieces on display. They ranged in value from $80 to $132,000.

Guess which one he broke.

There’s no denying it – the 5-year-old was running around unsupervised with a friend for some time. Surveillance video shows not only that but the deed itself.

The boy tried to either lift or “hug” the statue and it toppled over. Luckily, he was unhurt.

Goodman put it this way to The Kansas City Star:

“Maybe my son hugged a torso because he’s a loving, sweet nice boy who just graduated from preschool.”

That’s nice. We just wondered how she would have reacted had he been hurt by the sculpture.

Unfortunately for her, the suggestion that her son was just innocently loving on the statue doesn’t match up with the footage. It clearly shows the boy and his friend trying to play with it earlier and being scolded by an adult for touching it.

They defied that warning when they came back later. That’s just a thing that 5-year-olds do.

That’s when Goodman’s son ended up accidentally pulling down the statue. He was apparently obscured from the nearby adults (none of which are his mother) by a column in the room.

Only when it fell did it draw the attention of other people in the room.

That’s when the child did what most children would do – attempted an escape. It’s nice to think that if you ignore a problem it will go away, but we all know that’s not how it works.

However, it’s fair to suggest that perhaps the adults who finally noticed what happened told him to run and fetch someone.

No one present has commented on that part of the video.

Art is something that should be seen and shared with the community, but now some are questioning the wisdom of having it available at a place like a community center (which is a shame since that gives it maximum exposure for people who wouldn’t normally go to a museum).

Then again, some have pointed out that a museum has stricter rules and people to enforce them.

So should anything breakable be taken away from the community simply because it might be broken? That’s what Mrs. Goodman’s excuse seems to suggest.

She complained that the piece was too fragile to be on display out in the open and needed better safety precautions.

Her reason for letting her son run around unsupervised? Other parents were doing the same.

Goodman also disputes the value of the sculpture.

The artist loaned it to the community center with the understanding that it was worth $132,000. That means, legally, someone has to pay.

The parents were shocked when they were told they were on the hook for the amount. Anyone would be!

Goodman insisted her family bore no financial responsibility, though she managed a partial apology:

“We’re sorry for the accident, but we were not negligent in any way,” Goodman said. “It should never have been there in the first place. This is not an art gallery.”

That response didn’t endear her to fellow parents or her community. When she told newspapers that she hoped the whole incident would just go away, people suggested that she take the opportunity to teach her son (the one who ran away from the problem) about responsibility instead.

That might be a lesson he has to learn outside the home.

Of course, Goodman had her defenders as well. After all, no one is prepared to pay that kind of money for an accident.

They refused to pay.

In June, the artist, Bill Lyons said he had not had the artwork – titled “Aphrodite di Kansas City” – professionally appraised and did not personally insure it.

So who paid?

On July 9, 2018, The Kansas City Star reported that city spokesperson Sean Reilly told them “The city received a check for $107,000 from the insurance company of the boy’s family” – the full amount minus the artist’s commission.

By August 15th, they corrected their story and revealed that it had in fact been the city’s insurance company, Travelers, that picked up the tab.

Goodman’s insurance refused to pay. If they had been taken to court, that means the family would have had to come up with the money.

Travelers reimbursed the city for all but the $25,000 commission they would have received if they had actually sold it.

No one is sure if the city’s insurance rates would go up as a result, costing taxpayers.

At the end of July, the city sent Lyons $99,000 for his piece. They kept the remaining $8,000, as well as the damaged sculpture, pending any renegotiation of the settlement.

It’s safe to say everyone paid a price. But was it fair?

Scroll down to see the parents’ defiant interview followed by the original surveillance footage of the statue’s destruction.

Please SHARE this with your friends and family.

Source: The Kansas City Star (original story), The Kansas City Star (follow-up piece), Kansas City Star (final, August)