I find it interesting that the age that a person is considered a legal adult is different in different jurisdictions. I had a fantasy of some type of “Dred Scott” case where a person who is, say, 18 years old passes across a jurisdictional boundary where the age of majority is 18 on one side and 19 or 20 on the other. Has a case ever arose where legal adultivity was affected by a border crossing, especially in an interesting way?
E.g.
Dad: “Son, I’m sure you’re wondering why we decided to take a trip to Japan a week after your 18th birthday.”
Boy (18): “Uhh, isn’t it because mom wanted to see that temple?”
Dad: “Not really. Now that we’re here, I can tell you. In Japan, the age of majority is 20 years old. You are legally a child here and we have authority over you again. We have registered you for Reform School in Kobe. Don’t resist or we will call the Japanese police and they will force you.”
or:
Dad: “Where were you last night? I was looking around for you because we have to wrap up our vacation and leave Hawaii to go back home to New Zealand, because I have work on Monday.”
Girl (18): “Dad, I’m not going home.”
Dad: “But you must, I am your father and you are a child”
Girl (18): “No, actually. Did you know the age of adulthood is 18 here? Let me introduce you to Bill, he’s now my husband. Yesterday I married him across the street and we’re applying for a green card for me. There’s nothing you can do because I’m an adult here and if you try to force me to go home I will call the cops and have you arrested. I also know about Mississippi law so don’t try some funny business and pretext me to a picnic there.”
Dad: “!@#$%^ You may have won this battle, but don’t ever come home! If you dare set foot on New Zealand territory before you’ve reached the Kiwi age of adulthood we are whisking you to the Naughty Children Center so fast that you won’t know what hit you, and the law would be on our side.”
Situations within one country are also within the scope of this question, such as an 18 year old in a US state where the age of majority is 19 attempting to run away to a state where the age of majority is 18. Might it matter if the kid tries to run away and escape to a state with a lower age or if the kid was there in the jurisdiction with a lower age with parental permission (shades of Dred Scott here).
Does residency or domicile affect this? E.g. an 18 year old Californian is an adult, and remains an adult as a tourist in Japan, but if he gains Japanese residency, he legally becomes a child again.
If the hypothetical scenarios above couldn’t happen due to the specific laws in those jurisdictions and the facts I made up, feel free to go ahead and modify them (e.g. change the jurisdiction, or make the kid one year older or younger) so it meets the essence of my question.
Note that this question is not inherently about the Age of Consent for sexual intercourse or the Drinking Age (which may be different from the general Age of Majority), but about the general age of capacity as an adult (e.g. right to establish one’s own residence, travel, contract, marry, possess a weapon, emigrate, join the Army, or pretty much make life decisions in general without parental permission, right to keep all property, etc.)
So, in a sense, do young people in the borderlands of adulthood have to worry about where they travel lest their 18 year old American tourist self end up in an orphanage in Honduras until age 21 or their parents come and pick them up?
You seem to be talking about the age of consent in the context of parental control. I’m not aware that that is anything other than 18 anywhere in the world, except in cases where that has been changed for a specific person by a court order.
Can you force someone to go to reform school even if they are under 18? Most countries have a limited view of parental control even for minors. Once they’re 16 you can’t even stop them from leaving home. Locking them up is still illegal, hence the huge number of runaways.
There was the case of a girl from Alberta (18) who married a fellow she met over the internet. When she tried to move to England with him, she was denied entry because (to stop Moslem arranged marriages) it’s difficult for someone under 25 to get resident status there for their new spouse.
IIRC, a lot of the age of majority laws in some states, at least until recently had the exception that “unless the person is married”.
That seems to indicate that an 18 year old cannot legally have their own bank account in Nebraska, but must wait until they are 19 to do so. So, I wonder what would happen if an 18 year old Californian with a bank account goes on a road trip and ends up in Nebraska and needs to access his funds.
“Uhh sorry, in Nebraska you need parental permission to access this account. You are a child here. Did you get permission from your parents to travel? No? I’m calling Child Protective Services right now and reporting a runaway and we’ll put you in foster care.”
It seems like what the OP is asking is what happens when an un-emancipated minor in one state (say Mississippi, where the age of majority is 21) flees to another state (like Arkansas, where it’s 18). Can the parents exert rights that cross the border and force the individual to return?
Cornell Law school has an interesting discussion of that issue (with links to specific state laws).
In a nutshell, if a minor is emancipated by virtue of a court order, then one state would tend to recognize that ruling. If a minor is emancipated by virtue of reaching the age of majority in state X, than parents in state Y would have to prove that the minor wasn’t actually emancipated, which would seem to be pretty difficult to argue if the person is physically separated from his parents.
This is part of it. Also, whether or not an 18 year old from Arkansas who was legally emancipated under Arkansas law on his 18th birthday (which happened when he was in Arkansas) suddenly becomes “un-emancipated” by crossing into Mississippi (allowing his parents to attempt to exert control again, or requiring that the 18 year old have parental permission to do things), or whether emancipation is a singular act that cannot be reversed (once it happens, it’s permanent).
Emancipation isn’t an act, it is a fact. I can’t imagine a circumstance in which a person who was emancipated in one state would not be considered emancipated in another.
If the minor is living on his own in Mississippi, isn’t in school, and has a job, the court would recognize that he was emancipated as a matter of law… even if he was 17. The court in Mississippi could also rule that he has emancipated himself based on other criteria (getting married, convicted of a felony, joined the military, etc.) It’s not a blanket rule that you remain unemancipated solely based on your age.
This is interesting. I’ve not really thought of legal emancipation like that. When I was young, there was this magical age of 18 on which you gained a smorgasbord of rights and responsibilities. It was a bright line - on one side, you had few rights but also were protected from much of the world (parents were required by law to support you, you were, for the most part, protected from gaining a “real” criminal record), and the other side included all the dangers of life and your parents could kick you onto the street at any time - their obligations were over. In real life, it wasn’t that dramatic for me - I was still in high school, living at home, with no car and my life didn’t change immediately. The high school did ask me to sign some form or another that legally adult students were supposed to sign, so it seems the school thought that the magical age of 18 mattered in some way that was important enough to warrant administrative attention.
Can then, a child really become emancipated by the circumstances of life itself in a way that a court or child welfare agency would recognize? I know that in many jurisdictions, a person can legally change their name by simply using and being recognized generally under that name - is that remotely similar to this situation? I highly doubt that it would work the other way around - that an 18 (or even 21) year old who is still living with his parents is still not considered emancipated, or the act of moving back in with your parents somehow “unemancipates” you under the law and terminates your right to sign contracts under your own name, own a gun, serve on a jury, or vote, or permits your parents to access your adult health records.
<Little nit-pick>
16 & 17 year old Kiwis need parental consent to marry… 18+ do not. (NZ Dept Internal Affairs).
While age of majority in NZ may technically still be 20 – although that was under review last year – there are few age related restrictions left after 18… gambling… I’m trying to think of another…
<end nit-pick>
But the age of majority in England is 18, so she was legally an adult when she applied to immigrate, so this case isn’t one where England was treating her as a child but a case where it was treating her as an adult who was denied a visa for whatever reason.
Are there ANY actual cases where a person’s adulthood was in question like my OP? Cases could include actual court cases (e.g. whether or not Johnny 18-year-old is an adult or a child for the purpose of the administration of some law or for capacity to perform a specific act, such as voting or preventing his parents from viewing his medical records or academic transcripts, or the parents want kid to turn over pay from his job), or simply administrative actions that never made it to court (e.g. 18 year old from Iowa with own job and car on vacation in Nebraska gets picked up by City of Omaha Child Protective Service, put in orphanage, parents come and pick him up, chew out city social worker, no lawsuit, tell son to stay away from Nebraska for a year, kay?)
Especially see section 393. This seems to indicate that yes, a person can be considered an adult at home but a child in some other jurisdiction. Any attorneys want to tell me that this book is horribly obsolete?
After my pretty pointless nit-pick I thought I 'd try to be helpul…
So, I’ve just phoned Auckland’s “Sky City” casino and checked the age restriction. It’s R20… and that applies universally. So any 18-19 year old, fully adult / past the age of majorty, US travellers are still prohibited from gambling there.
Fully adult at home in the US but treated as minors here… at least with regards to gambling.
For a flip-side example, the drinking age here is 18. So those same 18 year old Americans who are banned from the casino can find solace in one of the bars while their parents push coins into the slot machines.
