And ever worserer:
Wikipediadoesn’t make the details very clear. Probably a lot of state by state variation here in the US. But it’s clear that sales to minors are hazardous.
Haven’t really heard about this since I was a teenager and the 26th amendment passed. It took a little while for the state laws to change but by the time I turned 18 in 1974 it had become a non-issue for me. Not long before that minors at ages 18-21 needed a car to be registered in an adult’s name in PA, even if paid in full.
ETA: I see Czarc has added some details.
I want to make a point about the phrase “Can a parent legally put a child in debt …” only. The rest of the question seems illegal, but a lot of stuff that seems illegal isn’t.
An example of a parent putting a child in debt (via another method) was the patriarch of the 60s group The Cowsills. He “managed” their money. I.e., spending it will not paying the IRS it’s due. This resulted in his kids having large IRS debts that took them a lot of time and trouble paying off. Despite many being minors at the time.
It would seem to me that in fairness if a child can become indebted, even if through no fault of their own, then they should be entitled to own assets. But fairness has little to do with the law.
Also note that the Coogan law in CA has not protected many child stars. Gary Coleman is a famous example. Evil people can always figure out how to grab onto a kids money and once spent, what recourse does anyone have?
NHLer Jack Johnson had given his mother power of attorney. It was not a pleasant situation.
His parents not only spent his money, they put him in a position where he had to declare bankruptcy just after signing a multi-million dollar contract.
ETA: He wasn’t a minor, but still…
The fact that California had to pass a law to protect the earnings of (some) minors (in specific industries) suggests that it’s not murky at all: parents generally have a right to employment income from minors, and minors don’t.
I’m curious about the idea that minors own personal property. I agree it seems like they do/should. Is there any case law to back it up?
It would seem weird to me (thought not impossible) that the $20 that grandpa gives you in a birthday card is legally enforceably yours, but the money you make working a job isn’t.
Well, right at the very fundamental level of early law - if the new king (or queen) was a minor, they have limited powers and a regent stood in for them in important decisions. But the Regent could not take their throne under his authority (unless he stuck them in the Tower of London and murdered them). But generally that sort of “ownership” nowadays is covered by legal tricks - minors inherit a fund held in trust for them until they are adults, to prevent whomever has control from taking it all while they are still young. So the minor never really “owns” the property until they are of age.
However, there is the “Willy Nelson principle” which basically says that just because someone stole your money doesn’t mean your obligations are forgiven; the IRS still wants its share of the money. You don’t get out of your credit card debt or mortgage just because someone you trusted cleaned out your bank account.
The money you make from a job? I guess it’s the “possession is 9/10 of the law” rule. If you put the money into an account which your parents have access to - they have access to it. There are plenty of ways threats can go back and forth over this, but if the parents are dicks, well, you can choose your friends, you can’t choose your family. You could cash your paycheque and take cash, but nowadays many payments are direct deposit. You could buy savings bonds and keep them in a secret place…
A number of the articles I saw addressed that issue- apparently , where the parents are entitled to the minor child’s earnings they also have the right to insist that the employer pay the wages directly to the parents.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NO.
Parents are required by law to provide housing, food, & clothing for their children until age 18. (If they aren’t willing to do that, they should have used a condom.) Control of a minor’s earnings may be murky and vary by state, but every US State has laws requiring parents to provide for their minor children – and enforcement programs for child abuse/neglect.
In this case it’s more about the family dynamic than legal rights. If someone is working and does not see a dime of it, what’s their motivation to work? Most likely physical and verbal threats and abuse from the parents.
The only positive motivation I could see is if it goes into a college fund (for real) or the family desperately needs to additional cash and they all see the direct benefit. Neither of those choices suggests to me coercion to surrender all pay, or leaving the child absolutely nothing, would be part of the situation.
Even if we’re talking child star serious money here, I would imagine the child would at least see an above-average allowance out of their earnings. To get absolutely nothing indicates a seriously warped family dynamic - i.e. those parents are dicks.
Without totally derailing the thread, you do realize that the FICA taxes you pay aren’t put “into” Social Security for you to use later, right? :smack:
I’m going to assume that you have never known anyone in the latter situation - because it is not so uncommon for a child in those circumstances to be left with nothing after paying his her own expenses to get to/from work. It’s also not uncommon for parents in that situation to be left with no personal spending money after paying their expenses to get to/from work.