Printable View
Someone made an astounding claim on another forum, namely that children in the US are apparently not legally able to own anything and that anything they think they own is in reality legally owned by their parents.
Is this true?
Should it be?
Discuss.
I think the person in question doesn't know the distinction between ownership and the right to enter into agreements without the consent of your guardian.
I think so too. I think you can definitely own stuff as a minor, but your parents (or guardians) have an amount of control over it (as they do over most things in your life). Over here you're, for example, allowed to buy stuff as a minor, but you're not allowed to buy something too expensive in relation to your age (or at least, your parents/guardians can reverse the sale). So anything they owned is legally owned by them, but is in reality it is managed by their parents/guardians and they can't access it until they are emancipated.
Of course I am not a lawyer or American, so I may be wrong.
If an American parent declares personal bankruptcy, would his childrens' possessions be considered as being his possessions?
Okay, some answers here: http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is...rt-770573.html
Children can own property but generally do not. It pretty much needs to be explicitly in their names which means it will only be for high-ticket items (say a car) or in unusual circumstances. If you point to any random thing in a minor's room, chances are they don't legally own it. I am ignorant about what distinctions exist, if any, wrt independent income streams a minor might have and the assets acquired with them, e.g. an xbox bought with earnings from manning a local cinema's concession stand.
Well.....in some US states, a minor child doesn't have legal 'ownership' of, nor protections for, even their own bodies. Not just for behavioral things like sex or birth control for teens, but routine Medical Care for infants/babies/toddlers. Sick little kids can die an early death, if they have religious parents who believe faith healing is part of "God's Plan":
http://www.worldreligionnews.com/iss...ng-be-repealed
Of course they have legal ownership of their own bodies. But they're also under custodial guardianship.
If they can own property without controlling it, do they really own it at all? I can recognize circumstances such as being an orphan and having property willed to you. But couldn't I just deed all my property to my child, then go on a debt binge and not fear any consequences of bankruptcy?
You'd still be bankrupt yourself, you wouldn't keep anything acquired on the debt binge, and any trace of that spending that predates transferring property would make it all liable for seizure due to the prior claim. And then there are all sorts of federal and state rules on transfer of title, not to mention trust law (since transferring title but not control which remains with some other party is practically the definition of a legal trust) none of which minutia I am educated about. If you can think of the dodge, chances are someone else has and is already regulating it, unless you're one of those financial geniuses that get picked up to help firms figure out innovative ways to hide/protect their assets.
I think that practically most minors in the US have little in the way of substantial property that is solely owned by them. For example, most bank accounts have a co-owner (normally a parent), any property/equities they have received in inheritances tend to be explicitly tied up in trusts with custodians and guardians until at least maturity, etc. Thus, the question for most intents and purposes is largely moot.
I can think of two classes of property many kids might have. The first is financial assets that are solely in their name. Parents can't get to that money or influence how kids use it. It's not super common, but I think it's at least theoretically possible. Second, small bits of movable property - toys, books, games, etc. If they are gifted (or bought) solely for the purpose of the child, then that child probably owns them outright (if they're bought as 'family' toys or books or whatever, that's a different story). Theoretically minors can exercise property rights over said objects, then, though it's likely it would be hard to enforce in court, say, an allegation of theft against a parent who took away a favored toy as a punishment. (Then again, many other forms of punishment against children violate rights that would normally accrue to adults - imprisonment, for example.)
Not sure this is a particularly relevant question in most contexts. Parents are given a great deal of leeway over conducting the affairs of their minor children (though as said minors get older, they do start to accrue more rights and self-determination). There are few cases where property rights of children would have a significant legal impact, since most big-ticket items have an explicitly defined legal status, and most other stuff isn't worth arguing about.
This bit is why I think that allowing minors outright ownership of their toys and so on is problematic - and it's not just taking them for punishment, either. I am not punishing my daughter by not allowing her to use her electronics or cell phone during the week (somewhat fluid, if she needs her laptop or to talk to a friend for homework I it's allowed, of course). I'm eliminating distractions to make sure she gets everything she needs to done (I also have to stop her from reading for pleasure before her work is done, though in that case it's less about her property since the books she reads are usually either from the library or mine).Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I was just thinking about that distinction Lolli, wrt high-ticket items e.g. teens and junkers they buy with the proceeds of a part-time job. In some circumstances those cars are in the parents name but in others they're in the minor's name. If so, the parent can't sell it but they can still prevent them from using it. They're not exerting ownership of the property but they are exerting regulatory control over the custodial minor's behavior. Not the same thing.
Did you even read the article I linked? Custodial guardianship gives parents the legal right to make decisions for the minor child -- including withholding medical care (for religious reasons) or routine vaccinations -- even when that can put the child in danger.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
If a kid is being starved or neglected, a state agency like CPS or Health Dept. can legally intervene, assign another custodian, or put them in foster care. But a little kid whose parents think faith healing OR new-age homeopathy can replace modern medicine isn't likely to get a lawyer, to challenge their parents in court, in order to get chemotherapy for cancer, let alone routine childhood vaccinations against measles or whooping cough. :donkey:
Our legal systems are designed to be used by adults, including Juvenile or Family courts that 'represent' a child's interests. Minors only have proxy-power, so it's a stretch to say kids have legal ownership of anything....even their own bodies. Yeah, that's me being more pedantic than you, Fuzzy! :eek:
You're contradicting yourself. :confused: NO minor can hold financial assets or property solely in their name. Even child actors, singers/musicians, and 12-year old computer app/game designers need to have an adult co-signor/guarantor. That's standard contract law.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
"Gifts" given to minor children aren't automatically considered their "own" property, either. That largely depends on the type of gift, its monetary value, and its ultimate purpose. If Uncle Sal buys a collectible car, and gives it to little Jimmy when he's 10 years old....maybe it's not meant to be stored in a garage until he's old enough to drive it himself, but sold for a profit, to pay for his college costs. Either way, little Jimmy isn't the legal owner at age ten. He depends on adults making the right/best choices on his behalf.
If Jimmy's parents see the value of the car, and sell it at auction.....what matters is how they use the proceeds. If they put it into little Jimmy's "education account" it's been used according to Uncle Sal's wishes. If they use the money to take a vacation, or pay off their own credit card debt, they're not using the money as intended....
But if they use the proceeds to pay for their own education, to get a better job, and more family income, and the ability to pay for little Jimmy's education....who's to say Uncle Sal's wishes weren't ultimately met?
<Now we're getting into tax codes and tax deductions based on intent>
What minor can buy a junker car without an adult's signature? Even if they pay with cash, most states will require an auto insurance policy to get license plates/tags. And what insurance company doesn't require a co-signor for minors? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy