Blaming and declaring responsible are separate actions - as shown by your duty to make restitution for what your father did
Blame can be separated from responsibility.
Take the following case.
Imagine your father was a dictator and stole all the
money in the nation out of the banks. He dies. You are not to blame for what he
did. But you have a responsibility to return what he took if you can. You have
no right to benefit from it or keep it.
But as long as you know he stole it and do not start the
process of giving it back you are as bad as him.
It follows that it is no big deal if you are blamed as he
is for stealing it if you hold on to it. It might be wrong but it is not like
you are blameless.
The argument shows that blame is being accepted as partly
legitimate. Blame means condemning a person for doing wrong. The condemnation is
punishment in itself and it calls for the person to suffer saying he has earned
suffering for causing suffering or breaking the law.
Those who do not blame, usually deny that right and wrong
behaviour really exist or, more commonly, they think they don't know enough to
be able to work out if the person is blameworthy. The latter have the following
position, "If you are guilty then I condemn you and wish punishment on you."
Society and religion are both good training schools in fake charm.