Judge: Maple Hts. parental-responsibility law is unconstitutional

I want to thank Jill from, Writes Likes She Talks, for pointing this out to me.

The Maple Hts 'Parental Responsibility Law' that was being challenged in Garfield Municipal Court as to vague, has been ruled unconstitutional.

Posting my feelings on this case previously, I feel the way Maple Hts. had their law drafted was vague and could be considered subjective. While well intentioned, it seemed to be backwards as their were no steps for parents to take prior to being charged, thus maybe the judges reference to due process...

From the PD --

Judge Jennifer Weiler dropped the charges against a Maple Heights mother who a city prosecutor said failed to supervise her 17-year-old son when he led police on a high-speed chase last fall that ended when the car slammed into a tree.

The mother, Thelma Ephraim, 44, challenged the parental-responsibility law, which is believed to be the first of its kind in Ohio.

In her decision, Weiler wrote that the law is vague, fails to define "poor supervision" of a minor and is unevenly applied, because not every parent whose child is charged with a crime is cited.

The ordinance gives parents a chance to convince a court that they have taken reasonable steps to control their child. But Weiler ruled that the law unconstitutionally places the burden of proof on the accused and violates due process. More....

The City of Bedford, which has a similar ordinance, has a juvenile diversion program involving the parent & child, prior to any charges being filed. To date, I am unaware of any parent being charged under Bedford's version of the Parental Responsibility Law. But, we can be sure our law will now be challenged.

The article notes that Maple Hts will appeal the ruling but has charged 11 other parents through Garfield Municipal Court under this ordinance. Nine have pleaded no contest and were sentenced to parenting classes. Being one of two judges in Garfield Municipal Court, I find it hard to believe Judge Weiner has not presided over one of these cases.

This leads me to ask....

If having sentenced a defendant on a law she later ruled unconstitutional, did Weiler willfully violate their civil rights?

Do the parents previously charged & sentenced have any recourse against Weiler and/or Maple Hts?