In at least some jurisdictions, including the one where I live, your parents typically CAN’T throw you out of the family home. Not even in housing court - there may be some exceptions if the kid created a tenancy by paying rent or signing a lease. The legal theory is not the silly one espoused by the OP, but the theory that ALL family members have an equal legal right to reside in the family home, regardless of who pays the bills. These policies are also driven by public health and safety concerns, as thousands of homeless wives and teenagers aren’t good for anyone.
I don’t think there’s anything in these laws that require the parents to actually feed and clothe the adult child, though.
You are assuming only one or two toxic members of a household. I wish to introduce you to The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia which is an entire tribe of toxic individuals. They are also, regrettably, the cousins of my late mother-in-law and far too representative of too many of that extended family, which is why my late spouse lived hundreds of miles away from them. If my spouse had NOT cut ties with them he would never have gone to college, never earned his degree, never owned his own business, and never be assured of keeping either private possessions or needed medication (no joke - on the few occasions we visited his mother and the others were about we had to keep valuables and medications locked in our car, and also fend off constant requests to loan people our car keys).
That is EXACTLY the sort of family where a person might do much better getting a continent away from them. You don’t “mitigate” such people, you get away from them, because there is only one of you and many of them.
I used to joke my spouse was the “White Sheep” of the family because he was not involved in fraud, crime, drugs, etc.
This tells me there was no landlord-tenant contract in place. IANAL, but if there is no contract in place, how can the legal process remedy this through eviction protections?
Mike . . . Mike, it’s not your house. I suspect the parents bought it and maintain the mortgage. I don’t quite see where Michael gets the privilege to make that sort of a statement.
I’ll need a deli slicer for all this baloney. Any consumption of utilities costs money. And as indicated above, he’s not paying rent. I doubt there’s any arrangement for reimbursement of utilities. If there is no utility arrangement, then he is costing them money. “Should” is not a duty to act. There is no requirement to expend resources on someone who is not reimbursing those expenses.
In an earlier version of reporting, I thought I saw something about Michael having a son of his own, and how he wasn’t able to see them. Bottom line: no landlord-tenant contract, then no eviction protection. If I had a buddy living on a couch for an extended period of time, I’d kick his ass out too after awhile.
It must be legal to protect ones’ interest if there is no contract to obligate otherwise.
Tripler
My two cents goes to the parents to offset the cost of utilities.
This one is pretty good. It goes into a little more detail about the legal remedy - which is much more lengthy than a standard eviction case. And apparently you have to give the child a 6 month notice before you can even file the lawsuit. So the procedure probably takes a year, at minimum.
And here’s a good one that explains the legal theory.
And here are a couple of case summaries. The theory of the familial relationship conferring a right to occupancy is also mentioned.
My use of the word “can”–as in “the toxicity of a spouse can be mitigated”–indicates that I only stating one possibility out of many. I wasn’t making an assumption about anything.
We could spend all day coming up with worst case scenarios for everything, including what could happen to someone who gets kicked out of the house before they are financially and emotionally ready. But trading horror stories about the extreme cases doesn’t advance the discussion very much, though.
What jurisdiction is that- and are you sure it’s that the parents can’t remove the child from their home or is it that they can’t use an eviction proceeding? Because I know in New York ( city and state), you can’t evict a family member who does not have a lease and isn’t paying rent- but that doesn’t mean you can’t have them removed. It just means you have to file an ejection action in Supreme Court rather than an eviction proceeding in landlord-tenant court. Although a lot of articles referred to “eviction”, Michael Rotondo’s parents actually filed an ejection action.
ETA - It took three months from when the parents first gave him notice in February , and when Rotondo brought up the “six months notice” , the judge apparently brought up an appellate decision that said six months notice was not necessary in this case.
The point I’m trying to make is that there isn’t just one superior mode of living, and people should be able to choose what works for them - so long as it isn’t harming anyone else, or sucking away resources.
Can’t parents simply treat their children the same as unwanted intruders, by a certain age, and have them kicked out legally the same way a squatter can be kicked out (although of course the law still gives ridiculous protections to squatters?)
I didn’t mean to imply that it was impossible. Bad editing on my part, I meant to go back in and mention the more involved ejection proceeding after I refreshed my memory. And I forgot.
I know someone who kicked her daughter (well over 18) out after the daughter stole from her. Drinking and drugs are going to happen if she is in the house or out, but being out at least only damages one person.
This woman has had plenty of warning signs. She has had therapy, which she rejects. It is a miracle she hasn’t wound up dead already.
I asked my 20-something kids this, and got The Look.
You know that look kids can give Olde Fartes: “Are you crazy like senile, or were you this crazy all along?” Their position is “Why would I WANT to keep living with old people who listen to Vintage Country Rock, when I could get an apartment with my friends and blast TechnoHouseEDMShoegazerWeirdo Music?”
“Not to mention there’s a lot more pot at my ‘aPARTYment’…”
Seriously, I’d assume a couple of decades of living with the older generation would give the OP a more realistic view of the world…
Right. Most (all?) states have a summary eviction proceeding whereby landlords can quickly evict non-paying renters. Were this not the case, deadbeat renters could get three or four months of free living while the court system slowly grinds to justice.
This same policy is not needed in a consensual living situation. The other party moved in with permission. Revoking the permission is fine, but you wait in line with the others.
In the good old days (and much of the third world) people lived at home for extended periods, married couples lived with the parents - because everyone supported each other, and everyone had to pull their weight. The eight-year-olds tended the goat herd, because they were able to and someone had to. The thirty-year-olds did the back breaking labour. It’s only the modern world (or old-time nobility) where a household could conceive (heh!) of having a capable adult who chooses to do nothing.
The guy in the news is forgetting that support goes both ways. If he wants to stay there, he has to contribute. If nothing else, McDonalds is always hiring. (As Wayne says in Wayne’s World, “I don’t exactly have a career, but I have a large collection of nametags and hairnets…”)
The guy in the news is also apparently not adult enough to contribute anything to the household, but he is adult enough to conceive a child. Oddly, he doesn’t have custody. According to the OP, he ought to be able to provide for this child, for life. How is he going to do that if he doesn’t have a job, doesn’t see the need to get one, doesn’t contribute to his joint household, and doesn’t see the need to do so?