Do you know where your children are?

Kids will be kids.

But when they do something truly boneheaded, like, say, sneak out of the house in the middle of the night and vandalize four rental homes to the tune of nearly $60,000 in damage, somebody should have to pay.

But figuring out exactly who that somebody is can be maddening, as evidenced by a case the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided Aug. 1.

The court affirmed a trial judge’s ruling that insurers for the mothers of two of the teen wrecking balls in question were not on the hook for the vandalism damage, because the policies don’t cover intentional acts.

The ruling could leave Donald Dawson, who owns Plum Properties, the named plaintiff in the case, holding the bag.

“My guy was big-time wronged,” said Dawson’s attorney, Gregory Wendling of Greensboro. He had argued that while the kids obviously acted intentionally, their mothers did not intend for the vandalism to occur (even though he said they were negligent for failing to supervise the youngsters) and therefore the damage should be covered as an accidental occurrence.

Unfortunately for Dawson, the appellate court said Wendling’s argument “strains logic.”

“They had precedent to do that,” Wendling said of the decision. “I was fighting an uphill battle, but I felt it was necessary.”

He and Dawson waited until the vandals turned 18 before suing them and their parents. So far, judgements have been entered against two of the young men, who were ordered to pay $46,000 in compensatory damages plus $200 in punitive damages.

Two of the moms have been ordered to each pay $6,000 on strict liability claims — the court tossed the negligent supervision claims against them and Dawson is appealing that ruling.

Default judgment has been entered against another parent, who was a no-show in court, for $58,250 in compensatory damages, plus $6,000 for strict liability.

Two other vandals were hit with default judgments ordering them to pay $58,250, plus another $50,000 in punitive damages.

But Wendling said they don’t have college degrees and work menial jobs. The appellate decision, he said, has “taken away any potential coverage.”