SHE could pass off as an average student in an average school. But here is her outrageous 'report card' presented in court.
She was part of a group that caused a ruckus at a mall, for which she received a stern warning from her school.
Worse, she was part of a gang that beat up a 14-year-old boy on two occasions earlier this year.
And when caught, she persuaded other gang members to lie to the authorities.
She went as far as producing letters, allegedly from some of her other gang members, to 'prove' her innocence.
And you can't even call her a teen terror, because she was only 12 years old then.
Meet tween terror Janet (we cannot use her real name as she's a juvenile).
Her story, and what a Juvenile Court judge said about her and her parents, will make sobering reading for other parents on how easily children can turn bad.
In a judgment released recently, Magistrate Wong Li Tein used strong words like 'flagrant dishonesty' and 'blatant lack of remorse' to describe Janet's behaviour.
She was also described as 'neither forthcoming nor cooperative' during her interview with a probation officer, despite repeated reminders to tell the truth.
Magistrate Wong said: 'Her audacity to lie to persons in authority through various means at such a young age is a cause for concern.'
As a result, she decided against putting Janet on home probation, and ordered her to be detained for a month in the Singapore Girls' Home, so she could reflect on her behaviour, and thereafter for 12 months in The Salvation Army's Gracehaven home.
She also ordered that the girl be placed on home probation for the remainder of the 18-month probation order.
So, how did Janet end up in this state?
The Sec 1 (Normal Academic) student lives with her brother and parents in a four-room HDB flat in the west.
Both parents have skilled jobs with a total household income of about $2,400.
Her father is pre-occupied with work, trying to make ends meet even as he pays off his debts as an undischarged bankrupt.
Janet is close to her 14-year-old brother. They are in the same school and she hangs out with his friends. As it turned out, she joined the gang because he did.
In school, she is an average student, with regular attendance.
Her parents, however, were described as 'lax and permissive'. They were observed to be 'protective' of Janet by the probation officer.
They did not monitor their children's activities after school or the company they were in. The siblings were often left on their own after school while their parents were at work.
Even before the assault, Janet had run into some trouble.
She was among a group of students who made a ruckus in a fast-food outlet at Pioneer Mall in early April, leading to a complaint of public nuisance.
A stern warning by her school did not deter her.
On 13 Apr, she joined in the assault of a 14-year-old boy who had wanted to leave the Pa Hai Tong secret society gang.
The gang members, including Janet and her brother, ambushed the victim at the 16th-floor lift lobby of a block of flats in Jurong West and beat him up.
They told the victim that he would be beaten for the duration it took their 17-year-old female gang leader to finish smoking a cigarette. As soon as she lit up, they punched and kicked the boy.
Among the attackers were three other 12-year-old girls. (See report on facing page.)
When the gang realised a resident was looking at them, they moved to the 11th-floor lift lobby and continued the assault.
Three days later, the group ambushed the boy again, and assaulted him by trying to strangle and choke him.
The boy made a police report and the gang members were hauled up by the authorities.
On 16 May, Janet's brother pleaded guilty to his charges. But at a court hearing a month later, he produced a letter from his school teacher stating that he was in class at the time of the assault on 16 Apr.
Further investigations showed that he had misled his teacher into believing that he was in class that day.
While he did sign the class register that day, he had then skipped his classes to join the assault.
He was put on supervised probation for 18 months.
Magistrate Wong said: 'It would not be conducive to either of their rehabilitation to have both (Janet) and her brother placed on probation at home at the same time.'
She noted that Janet's parents have since recognised the need to step up their supervision and encourage her to take part in constructive after-school activities.
But, she added, Janet had demonstrated a 'blatant lack of remorse and a refusal to accept responsibility for her wrongdoings', and the court needed to correct that.
'It is only where a juvenile has understood the seriousness of her misbehaviour and takes responsibility for her actions, that there is true hope for reformation and change.'
In ordering Janet, who turned 13 last month, to spend 12 months in Gracehaven, the magistrate said that some firm guidance within a 'structured and nurturing environment' would be suitable for her.
Magistrate Wong ordered that Janet be put on home-supervised probation after the 12 months in Gracehaven, and that she attends an anti-secret society talk and perform 80 hours of community service upon turning 14.
She also called for the parents to attend counselling programmes to improve their parenting skills.
Her parents are appealing against the sentence.