When Ronald Jackson found a text he thought was rude and inappropriate on his then-12-year-old daughter’s phone in September 2013, he took the cell away. But the child’s mother, Michelle Steppe, balked at his action — and she called the police.
Steppe and Jackson have not been a couple for years, and Steppe is now married to a Grand Prairie, Texas, police officer. When the police showed up at Jackson’s door later that day and asked for the iPhone 4 back, Jackson refused. “At that point I decided the police don’t interfere with my ability to parent my daughter,” he told KHOU 11 News on Wednesday.
But Steppe insisted that the phone belonged to her, and three months after Jackson refused to return it, he got a citation in the mail for theft of property. He was offered a plea deal in January 2014 if he would return the phone. Instead, Jackson hired an attorney and requested a jury trial.
The case moved to Dallas County and, unbeknownst to Jackson, a warrant was issued for his arrest. The police showed up at his door around 2 a.m. in April 2015, and Jackson was handcuffed and taken to jail.
“It made no sense to me for them to show up and make a big deal out of something that was a small thing,” Jackson said. “I couldn’t believe they would go to this extent for a cellphone. It didn’t seem right.” He posted $1,500 bail and was released after a night in jail.
“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Cameron Gray, Jackson’s defense attorney, told KHOU Wednesday. “You would think we were on the Jerry Springer Show.”
After just a two-day trial — in which Jackson’s daughter, now 15, testified — Dallas County Criminal Court Judge Lisa Green ordered the jury to find Jackson not guilty, citing insufficient evidence to prove a theft charge. Steppe disagrees with the verdict. “Even if you purchase something with your own money and have a receipt, it’s not yours,” she said. “Someone can take it from you.”
Although Jackson won the case and is allowed to keep the phone, he said he has had to separate himself from Steppe and his daughter because of this incident. “I can’t ever have a relationship with them again,” he said.
You would have thought the ex's new boyfriend that was a police officer should have known better, or he was an idiot and encouraged her. Eh, who knows.
Sounds like a poor kid getting in the middle of a bitter divorce. This isn't about the dad taking the phone from his daughter, but a man taking a phone from his ex wife that was in the possession of his daughter. It sounds like the not guilty was down to her not being able to prove the phone was purchased by her, not to do with the daughter at all.
He says "that extent for a cellphone", but they are not cheap. If the mum did buy it, and he did take it and refuse to return it to the mum when asked he has taken an expensive electronic item from her. The daughter is not relevant IMO.
Both sides were being d-bags, exacerbated this trivial non-issue into news by virtue of the new man being a cop.
Also, he "has to" separate himself from his daughter? Is this because of a court order or because this guy feels the need to double down on his own rampant d-baggery?
I think that the ruling actually got it wrong and that he should have been found guilty.
A friend of ours actually had a very similar situation. She is divorced and dad is doing stupid stuff but they have shared custody. There are agreements that on the days that he has the daughter, HE has to have the daughter. Instead the daughter says that most of the time he just drops her off at his parents house and is really more interested in making sure that mom doesn't spend time with the daughter instead of him wanting to spend time with his daughter.
Long story short: Mom got the 10 year old an iPhone (because that is what mom uses) with the dual purpose of being able to reach her and being able to track her physical location to make sure that he is following the custody agreements. Dad didn't like it, took the phone because "I'm dad and no 10 year old daughter of mine needs a phone" and he kept the phone. Ended up having to get the police involved who came to his door with mom to help her get the phone, he denied that he had it but was dumb enough to have it turned on, mom pinged it with "find my phone" and the cops could hear it beeping in the home and kindly informed him that he will be arrested for theft unless he produced it.
As to the story: Dad has every right to discipline his daughter however he sees fit, there is no disagreement about that for me. The daughter doesn't have a "right" to the phone as far as I'm concerned. But at the same time, he also doesn't have a right to the phone because he didn't purchase it and he should have been held accountable for the theft if he didn't return it to the mother who purchased it. Make a simple rule of "while she is with me, she can't have the phone. So don't give it to her when you drop her off or I will take it, turn it off, and hand it back to you when you pick her up."
So, father said he took phone from daughter because he found inappropriate messages on the phone. As far as I'm concerned, that's good parenting. Mom doesn't like it? Tough. That doesn't sound like bad parenting to me.
I agree with D-USA and Steve. He didn't own the phone, ultimately. He had a lot of opportunities to return it without it being a big deal and decided to make a big dramatic scene about it. Lots of other ways to have resolved it.
timetowaste85 wrote: So, father said he took phone from daughter because he found inappropriate messages on the phone. As far as I'm concerned, that's good parenting. Mom doesn't like it? Tough. That doesn't sound like bad parenting to me.
Him confiscating the phone is reasonable. Him withholding it from the mother, who bought it, is not reasonable.
The father should have just returned the phone directly to the mother. Now he's won a court case, but lost his relationship with his daughter as she won't speak to him it seems. Bit of a waste.
timetowaste85 wrote: So, father said he took phone from daughter because he found inappropriate messages on the phone. As far as I'm concerned, that's good parenting. Mom doesn't like it? Tough. That doesn't sound like bad parenting to me.
Him confiscating the phone is reasonable. Him withholding it from the mother, who bought it, is not reasonable.
The father should have just returned the phone directly to the mother. Now he's won a court case, but lost his relationship with his daughter as she won't speak to him it seems. Bit of a waste.
Agreed here. Should of just told his ex wife about the messages and returned the phone then after voicing his feelings
timetowaste85 wrote: So, father said he took phone from daughter because he found inappropriate messages on the phone. As far as I'm concerned, that's good parenting. Mom doesn't like it? Tough. That doesn't sound like bad parenting to me.
Agreed.
However, a lot of drama could have been avoided if he would have shown the mother the message on the phone, and returned it to the mother personally.
timetowaste85 wrote: So, father said he took phone from daughter because he found inappropriate messages on the phone. As far as I'm concerned, that's good parenting. Mom doesn't like it? Tough. That doesn't sound like bad parenting to me.
It's bad parenting at the point where he refused to return the phone to the person who it rightfully belonged to.
Good parenting would have involved following up the confiscation with discussing the issue with the other parent, and returning the phone to said other parent when requested.
The fact that your child currently has something in their possession doesn't automatically give you the right to appropriate it.
I deeply apologize for not considering the fact that some users might confuse my support of general parental discipline, such as taking away a phone in particular such as this case, and think that I am in support of a father donkey punching his daughter while raping her because she broke curfew.
I realize my mistake and will now speak out against disciplinary parental donkey punching.
So 3 years elapsed between the initial confiscation to the trial.
This is D baggery of the highest order. Theres two adults here who couldn't wind their necks in long enough to see the wood for the trees.
Although these shenanigans don't startle me that much. My wife used to work in a solicitors and I have been told far worse tales about every day divorce and separation.
Kilkrazy wrote: Divorces when they turn bitter and confrontational often end up using the children and even pets as weapons without proper regard for their wellbeing.
Guardianship cases as well. I have heard shocking tales of Dickensian proportions of orphans having their inheritances swindled by relatives.
d-usa wrote: I deeply apologize for not considering the fact that some users might confuse my support of general parental discipline, such as taking away a phone in particular such as this case, and think that I am in support of a father donkey punching his daughter while raping her because she broke curfew.
I realize my mistake and will now speak out against disciplinary parental donkey punching.
Well said. I'd like to join your crusade on this matter. Can we call ourselves the common sense brigade?
timetowaste85 wrote: So, father said he took phone from daughter because he found inappropriate messages on the phone. As far as I'm concerned, that's good parenting. Mom doesn't like it? Tough. That doesn't sound like bad parenting to me.
It's bad parenting at the point where he refused to return the phone to the person who it rightfully belonged to.
Good parenting would have involved following up the confiscation with discussing the issue with the other parent, and returning the phone to said other parent when requested.
The fact that your child currently has something in their possession doesn't automatically give you the right to appropriate it.
I agree with the thunder from down under. Confiscate the phone, give it to the mother, tell her what happened.
d-usa wrote: I deeply apologize for not considering the fact that some users might confuse my support of general parental discipline, such as taking away a phone in particular such as this case, and think that I am in support of a father donkey punching his daughter while raping her because she broke curfew.
I don't think you support such things, I just disagree that a parent has free reign to discipline their child.
d-usa wrote: I deeply apologize for not considering the fact that some users might confuse my support of general parental discipline, such as taking away a phone in particular such as this case, and think that I am in support of a father donkey punching his daughter while raping her because she broke curfew.
I don't think you support such things, I just disagree that a parent has free reign to discipline their child.
I still agree with d-usa because none of the things you list are anywhere close to the realm of discipline. So, parents still have "right to disciple however they see fit" because abuse and abusive practices are not discipline.
The father would have been neglectful if he allowed to daughter to keep sending and/or receiving inappropriate texts. Be these messages between her friends, with boys OR a paedophile - it matters not, he did the right thing.
The mother went way beyond unreasonable. If he had given the phone back (arguably he should have) then the mother would have just handed it back to the daughter and the issue of safety continued (again, neglect). A discussion between parents would have been helpful about the issue - but considering how the mother immediately hit the nuclear war button, I doubt that would have been in any way constructive.
The mother taking the father to court and getting the daughter to testify against him is what destroyed the relationship - he's well worth rid of that revolting individual, it's a shame she's corrupting and manipulating their child.
Some people can be incredibly petty when it comes to divorce. There was a couple that that fought for years over the ashes of a dog that neither really wanted but did not want the other to have. There was an image going around of a guy who got a picture of himself and his new (younger) wife on them just to use as alimony checks. That way whenever he sent his ex a check she would have to look at his new wife. Some just call it a day and move on, or are even friends that just can't be married, but others get nasty and mean about it.
I still agree with d-usa because none of the things you list are anywhere close to the realm of discipline. So, parents still have "right to disciple however they see fit" because abuse and abusive practices are not discipline.
What about spanking? That can easily be construed as abuse.
The father would have been neglectful if he allowed to daughter to keep sending and/or receiving inappropriate texts. Be these messages between her friends, with boys OR a paedophile - it matters not, he did the right thing.
The mother went way beyond unreasonable. If he had given the phone back (arguably he should have) then the mother would have just handed it back to the daughter and the issue of safety continued (again, neglect). A discussion between parents would have been helpful about the issue - but considering how the mother immediately hit the nuclear war button, I doubt that would have been in any way constructive.
The mother taking the father to court and getting the daughter to testify against him is what destroyed the relationship - he's well worth rid of that revolting individual, it's a shame she's corrupting and manipulating their child.
He can't keep the phone whatever happens, it's not his
His first step should be to have talked to his ex-wife
if the phone had inappropriate content on it he should have taken it to the police (if it was anything potentially illegal) which would have meant he would not have been in charge of returning it
or potentially to a family court judge if he really thought mum was allowing stuff harmful to the daughter
He would also be able to say 'no phones when my daughter is with me'.
also getting the daughter to testify did not wreck his relationship with her (mum forcing daughter to do something she didn't want to against dear old dad would be more likely to wreck her relationship with mun), taking the phone did and refusing to return it did
The father would have been neglectful if he allowed to daughter to keep sending and/or receiving inappropriate texts. Be these messages between her friends, with boys OR a paedophile - it matters not, he did the right thing.
The mother went way beyond unreasonable. If he had given the phone back (arguably he should have) then the mother would have just handed it back to the daughter and the issue of safety continued (again, neglect). A discussion between parents would have been helpful about the issue - but considering how the mother immediately hit the nuclear war button, I doubt that would have been in any way constructive.
The mother taking the father to court and getting the daughter to testify against him is what destroyed the relationship - he's well worth rid of that revolting individual, it's a shame she's corrupting and manipulating their child.
He can't keep the phone whatever happens, it's not his
His first step should be to have talked to his ex-wife
if the phone had inappropriate content on it he should have taken it to either the police (if it was anything potentially illegal) which would have meant he would not have been in charge of returning it
or potentially to a family court judge if he really thought mum was allowing stuff harmful to the daughter
He would also be able to say 'no phones when my daughter is with me'.
also getting the daughter to testify did not wreck his relationship with her (mum forcing daughter to do something she didn't want to against dear old dad would be more likely to wreck her relationship with mun), taking the phone did and refusing to return it did
The article suggests that the mum called the police straight away rather than talking to the father - it works both ways. It's a little difficult for him to talk when he's had the police called on him. I'm not surprised he thought 'stuff it'.
You could take the phone to the police, depends what the content is. Either way child protection comes first and that means removing the potential for further abuse.
The idea of 'no phones when with me' just means the abuse is still occurring, just not when she's with him.
How do you know the child was forced? Could be a spoiled child who was encouraged by bitter mother.
I still agree with d-usa because none of the things you list are anywhere close to the realm of discipline. So, parents still have "right to disciple however they see fit" because abuse and abusive practices are not discipline.
What about spanking? That can easily be construed as abuse.
That largely depends on what side of that fence you sit on. And even if you are OK with, or are for spanking children, it is very easy to cross that line into abuse territory, and then it no longer is discipline.
if the phone had inappropriate content on it he should have taken it to the police (if it was anything potentially illegal) which would have meant he would not have been in charge of returning it
But what constitutes inappropriate content? If she was using her phone to create CP both parents are potentially liable for distributing it.
Wulfmar wrote: The article suggests that the mum called the police straight away rather than talking to the father - it works both ways. It's a little difficult for him to talk when he's had the police called on him. I'm not surprised he thought 'stuff it'.
No, it isn't. It isn't hard for a man to behave in a humble manner.
if the phone had inappropriate content on it he should have taken it to the police (if it was anything potentially illegal) which would have meant he would not have been in charge of returning it
But what constitutes inappropriate content? If she was using her phone to create CP both parents are potentially liable for distributing it.
Wulfmar wrote: The article suggests that the mum called the police straight away rather than talking to the father - it works both ways. It's a little difficult for him to talk when he's had the police called on him. I'm not surprised he thought 'stuff it'.
No, it isn't. It isn't hard for a man to behave in a humble manner.
The article in the OP specifically says "rude and inappropriate".... which to me suggests it isn't CP, but rather the fairly typical 12 year old insults "like, OMG, your braces are so, like, nasty!"
And while it isn't hard for a person to behave in a humble manner.... I can also understand his behavior in this instance, as I can see myself responding in such a way.
I mean, think about it.... You take a phone away from your kid because of something you see on it.... Kid returns to other parent. Next thing you know, the cops are knocking on your door, telling you to give it up. While I doubt it happened this exact way, I can also see the wife at the edge of the drive way with another officer, acting all distraught, and then doing the "locate my phone" app thing, and then when the cops arent looking, giving the ex-husband the "gotcha bitch!" look.
The article in the OP specifically says "rude and inappropriate".... which to me suggests it isn't CP, but rather the fairly typical 12 year old insults "like, OMG, your braces are so, like, nasty!"
Can activity be typical but also "rude and inappropriate"? To me "rude" necessarily disqualifies 'typical", with inappropriate as a significant modifier. And I'm not sure parents get the right to violate their children's privacy in that way.
Wulfmar wrote: The article suggests that the mum called the police straight away rather than talking to the father - it works both ways. It's a little difficult for him to talk when he's had the police called on him. I'm not surprised he thought 'stuff it'.
I think it's clear the article is trying to push an adgenda here, so I would not asume that the absence of details on what happened before the police became involved means that nothing happened.
Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?
Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx
Wulfmar wrote: Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?
Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx
Apart from the fact that this is not what happened. Nowhere does it say that there was no discussion. All we know is that he took the phone that was apparently the property of his ex wife and refused to return it to his ex wife. He had still did not return it 3 months later. He refused time and again to return the phone to its owner. He is not in the wrong for confiscating the phone, he is in the wrong for refusing to return it to the owner, his ex wife. I would guess if he had given it to the officer when he turned up that day nothing would have happend, which would have been the reasonable response had she called the police in an over reaction. But he didn't. He chose to hold on to it, not just from his daughter, but also from his ex wife and the police. For a long time, with no intention of returning it even after it went to court.
Wulfmar wrote: Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?
Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx
Like most things in life, this is not a binary yes/no, black/white, right/wrong answer. Both parties were being foolish, stubborn, and immature.
Wulfmar wrote: Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?
Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx
By my count, 7 people have already done so on the very first page of this thread.
How does that meme go?
"That escalated quickly!"
Removal from use of electronic devices for inappropriate behavior is pretty basic (good call by him, we need to monitor and feedback social interactions... privacy at a young age is premature and not a good idea).
Returning the phone with daughter to mother with a report of the issue would be a reasonable hand-off (that was his error).
A further rule of phone stays separated from daughter during time of care would be a prerogative as well (I think would be his right).
Phone being used as a "spying device" or to threaten "I'll tell mom!" I could see going out of control and I would be tempted to remove for that reason alone (Do not allow either the mother or daughter to give in to easy temptation).
Ex-wife deciding to sick the cops on father of her child one would think is weapon of last resort: you would have burnt the bridge better than a divorce and not made a "friend". (Ummm... psycho crazy, use your words! grownups remember?)
Step-dad cop should have been the light of reason on this... too bad on that. (Letting his peers be used for this kind of garbage? Really?)
Well, crazy happens, looks like the divorce was legit.
Wulfmar wrote: Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?
Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx
Reading the thread prior to your post might have helped somewhat.
He's in the wrong because he refused to return the phone to its rightful owner.
His wife is also in the wrong for getting police involved in what should have been a fairly easily resolved family issue. However, from the point where he refused to return the phone when asked, perpetuating the stupid here is entirely on him. If he had just handed the phone over when the police showed up at his door, the ensuing silliness would likely have been avoided, and he could have demonstarted to his daughter an adult way of resolving disputes.
insaniak wrote: If he had just handed the phone over when the police showed up at his door, the ensuing silliness would likely have been avoided, and he could have demonstarted to his daughter an adult way of resolving disputes.
Or at least let it be known that deciding to take a stand with police is just stupid in the extreme, which was demonstrated in reality quite well.
Christ - I asked a question to better gauge peoples replies (hence the yes/no followed by expansion because unlike a load of you English isn't my first language and it would help my comprehension).
And I get a load of BS replies being sarcastic including a Mod - well done.
I read the previous replies, I wanted to know if people were in favour of some aspects or all. It's not difficult for native speakers, but apparently it's too much to ask.
So, this is your shtick, huh? You come into established threads, stir the pot, and ask for people to explain (the stuff you didn't read), and then get butthurt when people aren't receptive to that?
Wulfmar wrote: Christ - I asked a question to better gauge peoples replies (hence the yes/no followed by expansion because unlike a load of you English isn't my first language and it would help my comprehension).
And I get a load of BS replies being sarcastic including a Mod - well done.
That will happen when you come into a thread on page 2 asking for people to explain their point of view when that's exactly what they've already been doing for the last page and a half.
If there was something that had been previously posted that you felt was unclear, then addressing that directly rather than posting a blanket 'Please explain?' would have garnered a much less negative reaction.
dogma wrote: Parents do not possess children, they are not slaves. Children have Constitutional Rights, even when in conflict with their parents.
I have an 11 year old that thinks he is in full charge of his life and his parents only get in the way.
He still makes decisions from silly to dangerous to his well being.
We are in charge and "guardians" for a reason: to give a safe environment so they can learn and not kill themselves off before they are a contributing member of society.
They have the right to food and shelter, a caring family life but zero rights to privacy until all the various nasty pitfalls of social interaction and dealing with "bad people" have been covered and addressed: I am not as concerned what my child says but what others say to him.
Children are not property, but they are a terrible responsibility not to be taken lightly while being cute enough to not drive parents completely crazy.
My boy got all angry with me the other day when I was telling him shouting while in a moving car is not a good idea and a punishment was to be given since he ignored me for the 3rd time.
He was about to "storm off" out of the van for school drop-off and I had to cloths-line him as he was about to run out in front of a moving car (school drop off is dangerous!).
Or my favorite was going to Buffalo and watching a Penguins and Buffalo game and my son was bad mouthing the Sabers for a while till I pointed out the density of fans around us not being Penguins (thought he was going to get me killed with him!).
Even as they enter their teen years they can be pretty good 95% of the time but that 5% is brutal and gives us all heart attacks.
I think Dogma is right, although I think it's not a very clear line as far as privacy goes. You guys that are saying kids have no rights to privacy know it too, if you think about it. To use a hypothetical, do you think a parent who insisted on watching a 15 year old shower for whatever reason wouldn't wind up in trouble?
Children are the responsibility of the parents until they reach their legal majority. It's not a matter of slavery or the Constitution.
Therefore, children have no right to privacy.
Supcom has ruled that children have Constitutional Rights, regardless of what their parents say.
That only applies in certain circumstances. Children do enjoy certain protections under the law, but not to the extent that those of their legal majority do.
Parents are well within their rights to search their children's property, search their place of dwelling, confiscate their property, forbid them to leave the residence (or any other local), etc, etc.
To say that children have the full rights and privileges of adults past their legal majority is false. And it's a ridiculous notion to boot.
It could probably depend on the circumstance. I don't think that parents have a right to search a room because they are a parent, I think they have a right to search a room because they own the room. If they buy their child a car, they can search it. If the child has a job and buys his own car I would argue that it is off limits to the parents without consent. Stuff like that is what makes sense to me. Children do have a right to privacy when it comes to their own property. I don't think google is going to hand you a password just because you are a parent as another example.
There appear to be some unhealthy boundary issues in this thread.
They have the right to food and shelter, a caring family life but zero rights to privacy until all the various nasty pitfalls of social interaction and dealing with "bad people" have been covered and addressed: I am not as concerned what my child says but what others say to him.
Children are the responsibility of the parents until they reach their legal majority. It's not a matter of slavery or the Constitution.
Therefore, children have no right to privacy.
I'm not seeing how your conclusion fits your premise.
How does responsibility for someone give you the right to refuse them privacy?
Responsibility of the child, and for their safety and well-being. If a parent suspects something out of the ordinary, they are well within their rights to take measures to insure that the child isn't at risk to themselves and others. That includes violation of privacy, confiscation of property, and suspension of privileges.
@Ouze:
I think Dogma is right, although I think it's not a very clear line as far as privacy goes. You guys that are saying kids have no rights to privacy know it too, if you think about it. To use a hypothetical, do you think a parent who insisted on watching a 15 year old shower for whatever reason wouldn't wind up in trouble?
An over the top, and silly, example. And completely beside the point. What you describe is criminal behavior on the part of an adult. Children enjoy protections under the law from such criminal behavior against their person.
They don't enjoy Constitutional protection against parent fulfilling their parental responsibilities and obligations to the child.
What if you want to make sure they don't have genital warts and just want a quick peek because you are a nurse? They don't have a right to privacy and it is your job to keep them healthy.
I was using an extreme example because I don't think anyone would dispute that, and which then shows that "kids have zero privacy rights" isn't accurate.
d-usa wrote: What if you want to make sure they don't have genital warts and just want a quick peek because you are a nurse? They don't have a right to privacy and it is your job to keep them healthy.
Once again, an irrelevant, silly, an over the top attempt to deflect.
If the child is in pain, the parent does have the right to investigate and see what is wrong. It's call being a good parent. And being a nurse, it goes doubly so if it's your own child, and the kid is complaining.
Since people want to keep throwing around "examples", I'll do one of my own.
What if you noticed the grip of a revolver sticking out from under your kid's mattress? One that they bought from somebody else with their own money? It's technically theirs, is it not? Just like their cell phone and diary, right? The fact that they had it hidden, means they want you to respect their privacy, right? Going by the opinions I'm seeing so far, I get the impression that some think the parent has no right to violate their privacy, even in circumstances such as this.
An over the top, and silly, example. And completely beside the point. What you describe is criminal behavior on the part of an adult. Children enjoy protections under the law from such criminal behavior against their person.
So children are persons? The argument you're making right now establishes them as lesser things than corporations.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Since people want to keep throwing around "examples", I'll do one of my own.
What if you noticed the grip of a revolver sticking out from under your kid's mattress? One that they bought from somebody else with their own money? It's technically theirs, is it not? Just like their cell phone and diary, right? The fact that they had it hidden, means they want you to respect their privacy, right? Going by the opinions I'm seeing so far, I get the impression that some think the parent has no right to violate their privacy, even in circumstances such as this.
Of course you have the right to search them or their room if you see a weapon, but I never made a claim that either kids have absolute privacy or they have zero privacy.
Wulfmar wrote: Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?
Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx
Yes,
The confiscation was fine if he thought his (minor) daughter had something inappropriate on it,
keeping it until she was due to return to her mum would also be fine, as the responsible adult he gets to decide on that sort of stuff in his household (in her household the mum is the responsible adult and gets to make the rules)
but not returning the phone was where he went wrong as it didn't belong to him.
He either had to return it to the daughter when she left his care
or to the mother who bought it (where he could also talk to her about the inappropriate content). When shown the content mum might have agreed it meant daughter could not be trusted with a phone (or perhaps could with a phone but not a smart phone), problem solved. If they could not agree he could have said the daughter could not have it the phone when she was with him in the future and he'd hold it until she left if she did arrive with it
or finally to the police if the content was illegally inappropriate (eg sexting).
If the mother went straight to the police in a formal way she certainly over reacted, better to talk to the husband informally first only then if he won't return the phone would making a formal complaint make sense. That she had a police partner/boyfriend makes it more complicated as I wouldn't be surprised if he jumped in when daughter came home saying ex-dad took my phone, but from the report you just can't tell.
that it went all the way to court just shows how much bitterness and anger hangs around in many divorces
Wulfmar wrote: Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?
Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx
Yes,
The confiscation was fine if he thought his (minor) daughter had something inappropriate on it,
keeping it until she was due to return to her mum would also be fine, as the responsible adult he gets to decide on that sort of stuff in his household (in her household the mum is the responsible adult and gets to make the rules)
but not returning the phone was where he went wrong as it didn't belong to him.
He either had to return it to the daughter when she left his care
or to the mother who bought it (where he could also talk to her about the inappropriate content). When shown the content mum might have agreed it meant daughter could not be trusted with a phone (or perhaps could with a phone but not a smart phone), problem solved. If they could not agree he could have said the daughter could not have it the phone when she was with him in the future and he'd hold it until she left if she did arrive with it
or finally to the police if the content was illegally inappropriate (eg sexting).
If the mother went straight to the police in a formal way she certainly over reacted, better to talk to the husband informally first only then if he won't return the phone would making a formal complaint make sense. That she had a police partner/boyfriend makes it more complicated as I wouldn't be surprised if he jumped in when daughter came home saying ex-dad took my phone, but from the report you just can't tell.
that it went all the way to court just shows how much bitterness and anger hangs around in many divorces
Thank you very much! I see why people aren't automatically defending the Father then. The whole part with the police being included in a family matter still seems alien to me (I understand and agree if the content was illegally inappropriate they should be!), I'm just surprised the family members didn't talk about it and instead prefer the shame of getting outsiders to deal with their immaturity
Thank you very much! I see why people aren't automatically defending the Father then. The whole part with the police being included in a family matter still seems alien to me (I understand and agree if the content was illegally inappropriate they should be!), I'm just surprised the family members didn't talk about it and instead prefer the shame of getting outsiders to deal with their immaturity
When a boy and a girl love each other (or get gak-hammered one night on nickle beer night), they sometimes make a baby.
When a boy and a girl grow up (or a boy find out that other girls are into kinkier gak), they sometimes get divorced.
I think if I were in that exact situation, and confiscated the phone, I'd block pretty much every app and the ability to add new ones under a password that only I knew...
Of course you have the right to search them or their room if you see a weapon, but I never made a claim that either kids have absolute privacy or they have zero privacy.
But what constitutes a weapon? Lots of sports equipment could be construed as a weapon, and a lot of it is the sort of thing kids would keep in their room: bats, sticks, cleats, spikes.
Of course you have the right to search them or their room if you see a weapon, but I never made a claim that either kids have absolute privacy or they have zero privacy.
But what constitutes a weapon? Lots of sports equipment could be construed as a weapon, and a lot of it is the sort of thing kids would keep in their room: bats, sticks, cleats, spikes.
I still agree with d-usa because none of the things you list are anywhere close to the realm of discipline. So, parents still have "right to disciple however they see fit" because abuse and abusive practices are not discipline.
What about spanking? That can easily be construed as abuse.
Spanking, or, as it’s formally known, “corporal punishment,” has been much in the news of late.
Out on the presidential campaign trail there was Senator Ted Cruz’s revelation that
If my daughter Catherine, the five-year-old, says something she knows to be false, she gets a spanking.
And recently, in Canada, following a call by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to prohibit spanking, the Liberal government has promised to abolish a parent’s right to physically discipline children. Along similar legal lines, in June 2015, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state was justified in denying foster parenting privileges to a couple who practiced corporal punishment and supported spanking or paddling children. The couple in the case had argued, unsuccessfully, that physical discipline was an integral aspect of their Christian faith.
According to a recent Washington Post article,
America is slowly growing less supportive of spanking children. But a majority of Americans still support it.
So, is it okay to spank a misbehaving child, every once in a while?
By way of personal disclosure, my wife and I don’t have children, and I try not to sit in lofty judgment of couples whose kids present very difficult behavioral problems. But as a psychiatrist, I can’t ignore the overwhelming evidence that corporal punishment, including spanking (which is usually defined as hitting a child with an open hand without causing physical injury), takes a serious toll on the mental health of children.
Why Parents Spank Children
In a review of corporal punishment in the United States, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toledo Michelle Knox noted a striking irony in the American attitude toward corporal punishment.
In the United States, it is against the law to hit prisoners, criminals or other adults. Ironically, the only humans it is still legal to hit are the most vulnerable members of our society – those we are charged to protect – children.
What makes parents spank kids? Lauren, CC BY-NC-ND
Knox, like many mental health professionals, cites a strong correlation between corporal punishment and child abuse, noting that “…spanking is often the first step in the cycle of child abuse.”
What may begin as the parent’s well-intentioned wish to discipline a child often ends with the parent’s mounting anger and worsening blows.
It isn’t that the parent is “evil” by nature or is a “child abuser.” Often, the parent has been stressed to breaking point, and is not aware of alternative methods of discipline – for example, the use of “time-outs,” removal of privileges and positive reinforcement of the child’s appropriate behaviors.
Impact Of Spanking On Children
The psychological toll on children subjected to corporal punishment is well-documented.
In 2011, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (NAPNA) issued a statement noting that,
Corporal punishment (CP) is an important risk factor for children developing a pattern of impulsive and antisocial behavior…[and] children who experience frequent CP… are more likely to engage in violent behaviors in adulthood.
Similarly, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, in a 2012 statement, concluded that,
…although corporal punishment may have a high rate of immediate behavior modification, it is ineffective over time, and is associated with increased aggression and decreased moral internalization of appropriate behavior.
In short, spanking a child may seem helpful in the short term, but is ineffective and probably harmful in the long term. The child who is often spanked learns that physical force is an acceptable method of problem solving.
Parents vs. Researchers
But wait: aren’t there exceptions to these general findings? Aren’t there times when a light rap on the backside can do a misbehaving child some good – or at least, not cause any significant harm?
Many parents think so, but most specialists would say there is little evidence to support such claims. That said, Dr Marjorie Gunnoe, a professor of psychology at Calvin College, and her colleague, Carrie Lea Mariner published a study in 1997 that concluded that, “for most children, claims that spanking teaches aggression seem unfounded.”
Gunnoe and Mariner argued that the effects of spanking may depend on the “meaning” children ascribe to it. For example, spanking perceived by the child as parental aggression (as opposed to nonaggressive limit setting) may be associated with subsequent aggressive behavior by the child.
Spanking can lead to child aggression. Greg westfall, CC BY
And, to be sure, some parents have argued that it is the misbehavior of children that leads to spanking – not the reverse.
Nevertheless, there is a strong consensus in the mental health community that any form of corporal punishment can cause harm.
Dr Catherine A Taylor (of Tulane University) and colleagues concluded in a 2010 review that
…even minor forms of corporal punishment, such as spanking, increase risk for increased child aggressive behavior.
Furthermore, clinical studies have shown that reducing parents’ use of corporal punishment can reduce children’s subsequent aggression.
Parents who believe they have no alternative except to spank their misbehaving children do not need finger-wagging lectures from clinicians.
But they do need professional support and education, aimed at reducing their level of stress and increasing their use of alternatives to corporal punishment.
dogma wrote:So children are persons? The argument you're making right now establishes them as lesser things than corporations.
If that's how you take it, then that's on you. Not me.
Children are human beings, but underdeveloped human beings. They need to be protected, guided, and taught right from wrong. Your arguments are based around the idea that they have the same rights as adults across the board, including an absolute right to privacy. No if, ands, or buts. Which is, with all due respect, a load of horse crap. And an argument generally made by teenagers when they don't get their way, people who never raised kids, or people who are so absolutely "progressive" or "libertarian" in their outlook that their heads are in the clouds. I hate to break it to ya, Cap'n, but Ben Spock's ideas on child rearing went out the door years ago.
Ouze wrote:
Of course you have the right to search them or their room if you see a weapon, but I never made a claim that either kids have absolute privacy or they have zero privacy.
If I seemed like I was accusing you directly, my apologies. No harm, no foul. I was speaking in general on that point.
When kids get older certain allowances have to be made, including allowing a certain amount of freedom and privacy. However, it must be understood that those are merely privileges that can be rescinded if they screw up.
If they are still living in your home when they reach legal majority, you have to treat them like adults. But there still has to be ground rules. If they can't accept those rules, then they can move out.
I raised two step daughters, and have a hand in raising my adoptive grand kids. I don't have them goosestepping around the house going "HEIL PAPA!". But they understood/understand that as long as I was/am responsible for them, there will be rules (some of them are strict). And one of those is that if you screw up, there are consequences. Up to a loss in the amount of privacy they have, temporary loss of property, and a good old fashioned grounding.
Call me overprotective, a Captain Bligh, an donkey-cave, or lack in "modern" "progressive" methods of raising kids by not letting them do whatever the hell they want (when they want). But I'm responsible for seeing that they get guidance, learn responsibility, learn respect, and become good people and citizens. My step daughters turned out pretty good, and you couldn't ask for better grandkids. So, I have, and am still doing, something right.
dogma wrote:So children are persons? The argument you're making right now establishes them as lesser things than corporations.
If that's how you take it, then that's on you. Not me.
Children are human beings, but underdeveloped human beings. They need to be protected, guided, and taught right from wrong. Your arguments are based around the idea that they have the same rights as adults across the board, including an absolute right to privacy. No if, ands, or buts. Which is, with all due respect, a load of horse crap. And an argument generally made by teenagers when they don't get their way, people who never raised kids, or people who are so absolutely "progressive" or "libertarian" in their outlook that their heads are in the clouds. I hate to break it to ya, Cap'n, but Ben Spock's ideas on child rearing went out the door years ago.
Or they could be parents confident in their ability to teach their children. Or they could be parents who understand the benefits of privacy. Or they could just understand that every person has fundamental human rights.
You could also continue to try to paint people in a broad brush in order to make your argument seem like it is right. "Look at these guys over here! What sissies! Am I right boys?!"
Your arguments are based around the idea that they have the same rights as adults across the board, including an absolute right to privacy. No if, ands, or buts. Which is, with all due respect, a load of horse crap.
So your argument is that it is alright for a child to be tried as an adult, at the age of 13, but that they don't have adult rights?
dogma wrote:So children are persons? The argument you're making right now establishes them as lesser things than corporations.
If that's how you take it, then that's on you. Not me.
Children are human beings, but underdeveloped human beings. They need to be protected, guided, and taught right from wrong. Your arguments are based around the idea that they have the same rights as adults across the board, including an absolute right to privacy. No if, ands, or buts. Which is, with all due respect, a load of horse crap. And an argument generally made by teenagers when they don't get their way, people who never raised kids, or people who are so absolutely "progressive" or "libertarian" in their outlook that their heads are in the clouds. I hate to break it to ya, Cap'n, but Ben Spock's ideas on child rearing went out the door years ago.
Ouze wrote:
Of course you have the right to search them or their room if you see a weapon, but I never made a claim that either kids have absolute privacy or they have zero privacy.
If I seemed like I was accusing you directly, my apologies. No harm, no foul. I was speaking in general on that point.
When kids get older certain allowances have to be made, including allowing a certain amount of freedom and privacy. However, it must be understood that those are merely privileges that can be rescinded if they screw up.
If they are still living in your home when they reach legal majority, you have to treat them like adults. But there still has to be ground rules. If they can't accept those rules, then they can move out.
I raised two step daughters, and have a hand in raising my adoptive grand kids. I don't have them goosestepping around the house going "HEIL PAPA!". But they understood/understand that as long as I was/am responsible for them, there will be rules (some of them are strict). And one of those is that if you screw up, there are consequences. Up to a loss in the amount of privacy they have, temporary loss of property, and a good old fashioned grounding.
Call me overprotective, a Captain Bligh, an donkey-cave, or lack in "modern" "progressive" methods of raising kids by not letting them do whatever the hell they want (when they want). But I'm responsible for seeing that they get guidance, learn responsibility, learn respect, and become good people and citizens. My step daughters turned out pretty good, and you couldn't ask for better grandkids. So, I have, and am still doing, something right.
The problem people are having is that you said "Therefore, children have no right to privacy. ". Do you now agree that children have some right to privacy?
Talizvar wrote: They have the right to food and shelter, a caring family life but zero rights to privacy until all the various nasty pitfalls of social interaction and dealing with "bad people" have been covered and addressed: I am not as concerned what my child says but what others say to him.
But what if a parent is one of the "bad people"?
I think the "caring family" bit was to cover that.
I have a narcissistic parent and a few protections from that piece of work would have been nice when I was a kid.
BUT I face serious challenges as a parent with a kid that has ADHD and very mild autism where most of my challenges are helping him understand why kids like to try to victimize him and how to deal with it without resorting to physical violence.
I have seen easily demonstrated that until some level of maturity is reached, certain rights and freedoms fall under the same category of "being of sound mind and body"... they are a work in progress and need some oversight.
Talizvar wrote: I think the "caring family" bit was to cover that.
Family can care without being good people, in fact that's pretty much the basis of psychology for a controlling parent. They see their kids as property, not people, and influences they can't control are threats to take that property away.
I have seen easily demonstrated that until some level of maturity is reached, certain rights and freedoms fall under the same category of "being of sound mind and body"... they are a work in progress and need some oversight.
Who sets that level? I know plenty of really immature people that qualify as adults.
I have seen easily demonstrated that until some level of maturity is reached, certain rights and freedoms fall under the same category of "being of sound mind and body"... they are a work in progress and need some oversight.
Who sets that level? I know plenty of really immature people that qualify as adults.
I don't have an answer myself, but I'm interested in what you would set it at as you asked the question. What to you qualifies as an adult?
If the daughter qualifies as adult then the situation is different.
If the girl qualifies as a child, then the situation is different.
I'm following on the conversation flow between two people as I'm interested
d-usa wrote: Being able to take a joke requires a certain level of majority, so that could be two strikes...
I get kicked about on this part of the forum too much to take things 'as a joke' when it's all that happens. If you're going to use 'its'a joke' as an excuse you're no different than an abusive parent / partner who excuses their behaviour and makes out the victim is 'over sensitive'
I have a two year old, feel free to google the number to Oklahoma's DHS office to report me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: also, in case you haven't noticed. I post in the OT, a lot, and my joke was very much self-depreciating humor. I know that it is immature to get heated up about Internet arguments because I do get worked up way too much about Internet arguments. We need to realize that none of the stuff we post here makes any sort of difference and that's is just childish bickering. Once we realize the immaturity of getting into arguments that result from posting in the OT, looks at my post and your post as "exhibit A", we can be more light hearted about them and realize that they are silly.
dogma wrote: Who sets that level? I know plenty of really immature people that qualify as adults.
Agreed that there are many levels of maturity or "competence".
I am sure many would like a mandatory test to see if someone qualifies to become a parent but that is not the case either.
Setting a minimum age or "qualification" makes administering rules easier, everyone is their own special snowflake but cannot always be catered to.
Age of sexual consent, marriageable age, school leaving age, drinking age, driving age, voting age, smoking age... certain levels of age set to ensure some kind of minimum distribution of maturity.
Age of majority is 18 in most states of the USA = legal adult.
I am sure we could do away with the age requirement and setup some right / trial of adulthood a person would have to pass.
It is all well and good to not agree to something but it would be beneficial to suggest an alternative.
Say like with standardized testing in school, you would have a series of tests to see if you have sufficient knowledge to function as an adult.
If my son had his way, he would be more than happy to spend the multiple thousands put in "his" account for his education and spend them for his needs now (Pokémon, Steam games...).
All in all, the girl in this case was not a legal adult so "her" property was not hers BUT her other guardian could state it was "her" property (not the daughter's) that was confiscated and she would be within her rights to require it back. Fun times. Remind me to never get divorced.
I listened to an interesting article a couple days ago that talked about at least one state that had legislation introduced to raise the "charged as an adult" age above 18. There is a lot of science out there about brain development and impulse control and how it's not nearly done developing at 18 years of age.
d-usa wrote: I listened to an interesting article a couple days ago that talked about at least one state that had legislation introduced to raise the "charged as an adult" age above 18. There is a lot of science out there about brain development and impulse control and how it's not nearly done developing at 18 years of age.
In all honesty, looking back, I think I achieved a reasonable level of maturity at around 28, late bloomer or not?
I would say that is the time I could take-on pretty much anything and stopped blaming outside causes for my difficulties.
As has been pointed out, it may vary wildly for others.
Setting a minimum age or "qualification" makes administering rules easier...
I'm not certain that it does, because in the US it isn't uniform. You've got differing ages of majority, differing ages of consent (That themselves vary according to sexuality and marriage status.), drinking ages that are "enforced", various dropout ages, various emancipation ages...a whole lot of frangibility.
Setting a minimum age or "qualification" makes administering rules easier...
I'm not certain that it does, because in the US it isn't uniform. You've got differing ages of majority, differing ages of consent (That themselves vary according to sexuality and marriage status.), drinking ages that are "enforced", various dropout ages, various emancipation ages...a whole lot of frangibility.
It IS easier to enforce since a person's age is well documented and objective evidence based.
Pointing out the variation of a subjective topic just means a discussion on standardization or more quantitative methods have not been reached yet, it does not mean the whole thing is invalid.
Determining what is a "mature" age would be less controversial than what are reasonable questions to determine a level of maturity sufficient for the activity being assessed.
Yes, it does vary for the very reasons you point out: they are trying to identify when someone is mature enough to do something with sufficient knowledge to not be a danger to others or themselves.
Not easily done and again I see no suggestions.
Driver's license at least involves testing as well as age: gotta be sure when they drive a ton and a bit of killing machine down the road.
Drop-out ages would be controversial: many kids do not like school but it is necessary for many future options, it is not something to be left to short term thinking.
I agree at least in principle that leaving it all to a hard and fast age set is not very satisfactory but unless there is a means of individual assessment with an agreed criteria for evaluation or scoring: a maturity or merit based system is not in reach.
Plus, teaching a daughter manners and not swearing at people on the phone is a good lesson to give: text and the internet remembers forever.
Talizvar wrote: It IS easier to enforce since a person's age is well documented and objective evidence based.
What if it isn't? A good number of US children have unverified birth dates, adoptions from abroad immediately spring to mind but the same applies to any immigrant child.
The father would have been neglectful if he allowed to daughter to keep sending and/or receiving inappropriate texts. Be these messages between her friends, with boys OR a paedophile - it matters not, he did the right thing.
The mother went way beyond unreasonable. If he had given the phone back (arguably he should have) then the mother would have just handed it back to the daughter and the issue of safety continued (again, neglect).
The inappropriate message in question wasn't to a pedophile or sexting, it was "I don’t like his ratchet girlfriend or her kids." in reference to the father's girlfriend. So, part of his refusal to return the phone was because he was butthurt that his kid didn't like his girlfriend.
Anyway, reading the article, I feel better about my initial read - he should have been charged for not returning the phone, and he seems like a grade-a douchenozzle atop that.
Unfortunately, there isn't really much in there about the girlfriend or her kids, so I can't speculate on whether she or is not in fact, ratchet.
Ouze wrote: The inappropriate message in question wasn't to a pedophile or sexting, it was "I don’t like his ratchet girlfriend or her kids." in reference to the father's girlfriend. So, part of his refusal to return the phone was because he was butthurt that his kid didn't like his girlfriend.
It still seems pretty inappropriate for a 12 year old to be saying "ratchet" about another human being so brazenly, and I can't imagine that if your kid (if you have one or not, no idea) started insulting your partner you would just shrug and say "c'est la vie". I'm not buying that it was just him being wrong in being unhappy about it. I'm sure it played a part, but I doubt it was that simple.
It also doesn't say that is a direct quote, just that it is "roughly" what was written.
Kilkrazy wrote: Are children as well as not having a right to privacy also not allowed to hold opinions?
They're certainly allowed to hold them... doesn't mean gak though. I mean, if they are of the opinion that a dirty room is cool, and I the parent am of the opinion that it needs to be cleaned.... guess who's opinion matters??
And if you divorce and get a new girlfriend, will you check your children's messages in case they say something you aren't going to like, and then confiscate their phones?
Ahtman wrote: It still seems pretty inappropriate for a 12 year old to be saying "ratchet" about another human being so brazenly, and I can't imagine that if your kid (if you have one or not, no idea) started insulting your partner you would just shrug and say "c'est la vie".
I simply avoid the whole situation by never being ratchet, in the first place, and trying to be swag instead.
Ratchet
A diva, mostly from urban cities and ghettos, that has reason to believe she is every mans eye candy. Unfortunately, she's wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: And if you divorce and get a new girlfriend, will you check your children's messages in case they say something you aren't going to like, and then confiscate their phones?
No, I would look at it to learn new terms like ratchet and such.
Depending on the age of the child and how trustworthy they are, I would imagine people check their kids phones from time to time to make sure they aren't being bullied or harassed or planning on skipping school for a New Kids on the Block concert.
Talizvar wrote: It IS easier to enforce since a person's age is well documented and objective evidence based.
What if it isn't? A good number of US children have unverified birth dates, adoptions from abroad immediately spring to mind but the same applies to any immigrant child.
Yep and I am sure they will not get a birth certificate or adoption papers or any other document that will give a "best estimate" of an agreed birth date.
I fail to see this as a show stopper or an argument against using a birth date as an "arbitrary" means of setting limits.
Talizvar wrote: Plus, teaching a daughter manners and not swearing at people on the phone is a good lesson to give: text and the internet remembers forever.
That's not entirely true. Text archives are not permanent, and I'll bet GamerGate is a bit of a flashback.
No-one has copy/pasted texts before or done a screen grab?
But yes, the carriers do hold them for a limited time: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393887,00.asp The intent here is to make the child aware that some text or email can be retained for an indefinite length of time or forwarded to any number of people.
It bears some thought and guidance.
BUT it appears with further information the father was unhappy with how his daughter was describing his new girlfriend.
An opinion given in confidence to a friend = none of his business.
Proclaiming it on Facebook to a bunch of friends and family would be a different matter.
I admire your need to stick-up for under-age children's rights but I look at it as needing less freedoms for them and more responsibility and code of conduct on the "guardian" looking out for the interests of the child.
My mother gave me a "choice" of wearing a "full headgear" of braces or not... my choice as a 12 year old (needless to say she was not trying to sell me on them).
I chose not to have them and have a couple nasty crooked teeth as an adult to show for it, you know what my choice would be now right?
I do not give my kids a choice, they get the darn braces.
My eldest son has some mighty fine looking teeth now and the "torment" of wearing braces was a couple years.
Which is the better means of attending to a child's best interests?
Ahtman wrote: It still seems pretty inappropriate for a 12 year old to be saying "ratchet" about another human being so brazenly, and I can't imagine that if your kid (if you have one or not, no idea) started insulting your partner you would just shrug and say "c'est la vie". .
'Brazenly'...? It was a text message, to a friend. I'm not sure what's 'brazen' about that.
Saying it to the girlfriend's face would be somewhat more 'brazen'... but this sounds like it's just a kid complaining to a friend about something that they don't like, that they can't control. As kids were doing for centuries before mobile phones came along.
And sure, just 'shrugging and saying 'c'est la vie' probably wouldn't be a likely response to that situation. Sitting down with the kid and talking about the issue they have with my partner would be the most likely outcome. Confiscating her phone for having an opinion about someone she's forced to share a house with from time to time?
That's a bit out of line, IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: I chose not to have them and have a couple nasty crooked teeth as an adult to show for it, you know what my choice would be now right?
It would be your choice. As it was then.
Which is the better means of attending to a child's best interests?
Whichever better suits the child in question and the situation at hand, I would think.
Here's the thing - You chose to forgoe the braces, and so avoided having to have braces as a teenager and wound up with some crooked teeth that can still be fixed as an adult if you really feel the need. But you also had a demonstration of the fact that your body belongs to you, and it's your choice what happens to it, which is a darned important lesson for kids to learn ... Particularly for girls, IMO.
By contrast, your son has 'mighty fine' teeth, and the knowledge that he has no control over what happens to him, regardless of his own opinion.
Saying outside one's head in a way that others can see.
insaniak wrote: As kids were doing for centuries before mobile phones came along.
And they also had to deal with a punishment of some form.
I never defended the parents actions, just the idea that there would be no response seems a bit silly. It is a tough spot when one parent owns the phone and the other pays for it (according to the article). He shouldn't have kept the phone, but then the cops probably were brought out way to early as well. The whole situation seems like everyone did something wrong thing, but not necessarily something illegal.
Ahtman wrote: Saying outside one's head in a way that others can see.
Sorry, but... what?
And they also had to deal with a punishment of some form.
Which would have been nonexistent, since the parent wouldn't have known about it.
There's ultimately no difference between the girl sending her friend a text complaining about her dad's partner, or waiting until the next day at school and complaining in person.
Except, of course, if Dad decides to go snooping on the girl's phone and comes across a conversation that is none of his business.
Which brings us back to the whole 'privacy' thing.
So, just to clear up any confusion, are the people who are ok with snooping on their children's phones 'for their own good' also suggesting that parents should follow their kids around all day and listen in on their conversations with their friends?
Going through a kid's messages does seem incredibly creepy. If the guy accidentally saw the message, okay, but then I think the problem would be "why don't you like stepmom and how can we fix it," not "I don't care if you hate her, just watch your smart mouth."
Just because you can surveil your kid's messages doesn't mean you should.
Ahtman wrote: Saying outside one's head in a way that others can see.
Sorry, but... what?
What is so hard about understanding that she said it in a way that the people she was referring to would notice it? If they hadn't this wouldn't even be a story but she did so it is.
insaniak wrote: Which would have been nonexistent, since the parent wouldn't have known about it.
So we are going to bring up the past as an example but then pretend it was always about cell phones? I'm pretty sure even before cell phones if one talked gak about there parents spouse there would be repercussions, which has nothing to do with privacy. Obliviously snooping on your kid in such a fashion is problematic, but then if there was one easy way to parent I imagine all parents would follow that path. It wasn't even her phone or her account, which muddies the waters even more.
What is so hard about understanding that she said it in a way that the people she was referring to would notice it? If they hadn't this wouldn't even be a story but she did so it is.
I wasn't having trouble understanding the sentiment. I was having trouble understanding what you said, as it wasn't an actual sentence.
She sent a message to a friend. That's not something that other people are likely to notice unless they're snooping on her phone.
So we are going to bring up the past as an example but then pretend it was always about cell phones?
No. I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm pretty sure even before cell phones if one talked gak about there parents spouse there would be repercussions, which has nothing to do with privacy.
It has everything to do with privacy, as it required an invasion of said privacy for this whole sorry situation to occur in the first place.
Taking gak about a parent's partner in their earshot should certainly have repurcussions.
Taking gak in private with your friends is a whole different kettle of fish. Being a child doesn't preclude having an opinion.
She sent a message to a friend. That's not something that other people are likely to notice unless they're snooping on her phone.
One plausible explanation without snooping could be a situation where Dad is asking an innocuous question, like, "what do you want for dinner?" And seeing no response, asks repeatedly, until finally to get her attention, he grabs her phone, and as it's unlocked (as teenage girls are constantly texting) sees the messages directly on the screen.
insaniak wrote: It has everything to do with privacy, as it required an invasion of said privacy for this whole sorry situation to occur in the first place.
That is some mighty fine assuming you got going on there. I'm also curious what level of privacy a twelve year old has for a phone she neither owns or pays for. It seems like that wouldn't be something so simple to figure out, except on the internet of course, where everyone can solve anything.
No, it's actually really, really simple: If it's not her Dad's phone, he has no good reason to be looking at it without her permission, and him doing so is just as much an invasion of privacy as it would be if he eavesdropped on her private conversations when she's with friends.
insaniak wrote: It has everything to do with privacy, as it required an invasion of said privacy for this whole sorry situation to occur in the first place.
That is some mighty fine assuming you got going on there. I'm also curious what level of privacy a twelve year old has for a phone she neither owns or pays for. It seems like that wouldn't be something so simple to figure out, except on the internet of course, where everyone can solve anything.
The father neither owns nor pays for it either, so if owning or paying for it is some prerequisite to being allowed to look at it then he has no right to see it anyway.
As an example, if a teacher sees a kid on their phone in class they can confiscate the phone. They cannot then look through all of the kids messages in case the kid said something bad about them. Also, the teacher would have to give it back if the parent who legally owned the phone asked for it to be returned.
insaniak wrote: Yeah. I'm not really sure that snatching someone's property away from them excuses you for reading a private message that wasn't intended for you.
Teachers used to do it all the time in school: get caught passing a note, and the teacher would read it in front of the class.
I'm sure this isn't a thing anymore, since most kids have forgotten how to write with pen and paper. Or because each child is such a special snowflake, that if their note got read aloud the teacher would be fired for embarrassing them.
Also, what if the girl used Siri and did voice-text to her friend? Dad could HEAR her say it, and ask to see her phone to confirm his ears weren't playing tricks on him. Old people's ears do that. But now he's heard her talk out AND has visual proof.
insaniak wrote: Which brings us back to the whole 'privacy' thing.
So, just to clear up any confusion, are the people who are ok with snooping on their children's phones 'for their own good' also suggesting that parents should follow their kids around all day and listen in on their conversations with their friends?
I think that's not a fair analogy. So far as whether or not you have the right to search your kids room, look through their belongings, or peruse their phone, my answer is "it depends", because it does.
I have a niece and nephew. They're both more or less good kids, but my niece is the kind who comes home from school on time, does her homework without being told, and so on and so forth. My nephew is also a good kid but he was, for a while, the kind of kid who associated himself with lousy friends, dabbled in light drug use, and got into low level mischief. As a result, my sister would occasionally drug test my nephew, and check his phone to make sure he's wasn't getting into trouble that was beyond her ability to manage. I would argue that not only does she have the right to check his cell phone - which she bought and pays for the plan on - but she also has a responsibility as a parent to occasionally check his room for drugs and his phone. Once he started getting away from those behaviors, she gradually eased up on him and he enjoys about the same privacy as his sister.
I would say that privacy isn't a gimme, and it's contingent upon being earned by making good choices.
As a side note to Malus, the father didn't own the device but he did pay for the plan.
Confiscates phone because finds innappropriate messages on it.
Ex-wife thinks "I'm not having that, she's my daughter and only I get to discipline her." Gets him arrested.
Case closed for me, nothing more to it. What I'm actually surprised didn't happen was an investigation into the messages, as the girl is 12 and that gak is taken seriously, no?
Deadshot wrote: Confiscates phone because finds innappropriate messages on it.
Ex-wife thinks "I'm not having that, she's my daughter and only I get to discipline her." Gets him arrested.
Case closed for me, nothing more to it. What I'm actually surprised didn't happen was an investigation into the messages, as the girl is 12 and that gak is taken seriously, no?
insaniak wrote: Whichever better suits the child in question and the situation at hand, I would think.
Here's the thing - You chose to forgoe the braces, and so avoided having to have braces as a teenager and wound up with some crooked teeth that can still be fixed as an adult if you really feel the need. But you also had a demonstration of the fact that your body belongs to you, and it's your choice what happens to it, which is a darned important lesson for kids to learn ... Particularly for girls, IMO.
By contrast, your son has 'mighty fine' teeth, and the knowledge that he has no control over what happens to him, regardless of his own opinion.
I see what you are getting at how purely cosmetic changes can be a slippery slope of forcing our wants on our children.
What next, a nose job?
The "lesson" or knowledge of my body being my own... not all that great when you find out a short time later it was a "one time offer"... "too bad for you!".
It turns out my son was having difficulty with his bite so it may not have been the best example in this regard.
There is the matter of hygene, "forcing" regular shower/baths heck, getting the kid to wipe his behind rather than find poop smears (not skid marks) in the underwear.
We as parents try to teach how to fit in society and teach social norms.
I have seen many a rant on this board about gamer smell and letting my kid smell of body odor and feces would be a hard thing to let them learn the hard way.
To do with this OP, it is a matter of who's property the cell phone was, by law it was the ex-wife's.
Respect of children's privacy, I feel interaction needs to be monitored somewhat mainly received rather than sent, but in this case it was a private opinion made in confidence so should not have been commented on.
To not come to some agreement for releasing the phone and police involvement is a bad example of adult behavior.
It all boils down to what decisions at what time/age children can be considered mature enough to make binding decisions?
The easiest means of dodging that question is to make a surrogate accountable for their best interests.
All you can do then is fall back on the charter of human rights if that surrogate fails in their duty and must be held accountable.
timetowaste85 wrote: So, father said he took phone from daughter because he found inappropriate messages on the phone. As far as I'm concerned, that's good parenting. Mom doesn't like it? Tough. That doesn't sound like bad parenting to me.
Him confiscating the phone is reasonable. Him withholding it from the mother, who bought it, is not reasonable.
The father should have just returned the phone directly to the mother. Now he's won a court case, but lost his relationship with his daughter as she won't speak to him it seems. Bit of a waste.
^ This.
The daughter, being a minor, doesn't legally "own" anything. All her items, one way or another, belongs to one of her parents. If Mom bought that cellphone for her daughter? Then that's Mom's phone (given the divorce situation). Dad can take the phone from the daughter for whatever reason, but needs to return it to Mom if she asks for it, because it's not his phone.
If dad is paying for the phone bill, then he's certainly paying more for the phone than mom. Somebody mentioned in here that he's fronting the bill. At the very least, he has just as much right as the mother. But, (and here's a freebie for you Dakka-bingo players) I'm sure the SJWs in the crowd will say even if he pays 10x more to maintain it than what she did when she initially bought it, she has more right. Because reasons.
timetowaste85 wrote: If dad is paying for the phone bill, then he's certainly paying more for the phone than mom.
Unless the phone bill is also covering the purchasing of the phone, he's paying nothing for the phone.
Paying the bill potentially gives him ownership of the phone account. It doesn't give him ownership of the device used to access that account, anymore than, say, your housemate paying the bulk of the grocery bill gives them ownership of your fridge.
timetowaste85 wrote: If dad is paying for the phone bill, then he's certainly paying more for the phone than mom. Somebody mentioned in here that he's fronting the bill. At the very least, he has just as much right as the mother. But, (and here's a freebie for you Dakka-bingo players) I'm sure the SJWs in the crowd will say even if he pays 10x more to maintain it than what she did when she initially bought it, she has more right. Because reasons.
Not necessarily. Depending on the model of phone and the carrier, it might be a $700 iPhone that he's paying $50 a month for unlimited talk, text and data. He's going to need to be paying that bill every month for over a year to even equal the cost of the phone.
timetowaste85 wrote: If dad is paying for the phone bill, then he's certainly paying more for the phone than mom. Somebody mentioned in here that he's fronting the bill. At the very least, he has just as much right as the mother. But, (and here's a freebie for you Dakka-bingo players) I'm sure the SJWs in the crowd will say even if he pays 10x more to maintain it than what she did when she initially bought it, she has more right. Because reasons.
I have a Wii U. My roommate has bought games on my Wii U and DLC. He used his own money. It is still my Wii U.
In this case, an even better example might be that your roommate pays the electric bill, so that means he also owns your Wii U. Because of SJW reasons, or something.
Unless I missed something, which is possible, it seemed like the general agreement was that the dad was fine in taking the phone* but should have given it back to the mother instead of holding on to it as he didn't own the phone proper, the mother did.
*Whether he should have been able to know about her conversation is a different kettle of fish.
Ouze wrote: In this case, an even better example might be that your roommate pays the electric bill, so that means he also owns your Wii U. Because of SJW reasons, or something.
Ahtman wrote: Unless I missed something, which is possible, it seemed like the general agreement was that the dad was fine in taking the phone* but should have given it back to the mother instead of holding on to it as he didn't own the phone proper, the mother did..
When the story was that the message was something 'inapropriate', that was the common opinion, yes.
When it turned out that the 'inapropriate' message was actually just her venting about her Dad's partner, his justification for taking the phone suddenly became somewhat dubious.
insaniak wrote: When it turned out that the 'inapropriate' message was actually just her venting about her Dad's partner
That seems like a pretty rose-tinted appraisal of the situation. I would be curious what was actually said and not sort of what was said. There is a difference between "I don't like Dad's new girlfriend" and "**** that ***** I hope she dies and can go **** herself", as far as concern from parents go.
Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.
You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight. So...let's look at another example being a CAR. Little Timmy at age 16 buys a clunker of a car, $1500. Dad agrees to pay for registration, insurance, gas and maintenance. Car needs regular maintenance due to age and such, goes into the shop a lot. Plus say...$700 during the year for insurance. After , with all the maintenance and charges and such, dad pays $4000, while Timmy had only put in initial $1500. Timmy gets failing grades, caught with drugs, knocks up his sibling's babysitter, whatever; basically, he does bad stuff. Dad takes away rights to car.
And yes, that's basically the same situation, just a different item being punished. Timmy's name is on the car, but dad puts more money into it, repeatedly. If Timmy acts up, I'd say dad damn well has the right to pull the keys.
"I buy more food, so the fridge belongs to me". Seriously? Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
An alternative view is that Dad's contributions of money for insurance and servicing are gifts. As such the money and car belong to Timmy and Dad therefore has no legal or moral right to take them away and certainly no right to check the GPS records on Timmy's satnav to see where Timmy has been driving around.
If Dad had said at the outset that he would contribute X but expected Timmy to behave properly in return, that would be a different kettle of fish.
"I buy more food, so the fridge belongs to me". Seriously? Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
The fact that it's a ridiculous claim is the entire point. It's no more ridiculous than your suggestion that paying someone's phone bill means you own their phone.
Only as a parent, and, only while the child lives under your roof. Look, I'm not a parent. But if I was 12, and I started sending inappropriate messages to people, and my dad confiscated my phone (or computer, as we didn't have cell phones until I was graduating)...hell, I'd feel it appropriate. At least now as an adult I would. As a 12 year old, I'd have been mad as hell. But 12 year old kids just don't have a clue. They really don't.
I actually planned to write an addendum, once I got onto an actual computer and woke up a bit more clearheaded. My previous post was ONLY acceptable when the child still lives under the parent's roof. And yes, the father SHOULD tell Timmy "these payments stop if you do this, this or this; you either have to FULLY pay yourself, or I take the car. Your pick." Yes, that should be something the dad says (and has in writing, to teach the son of the importance of written contracts), but it's not a 100% must. But should happen.
I have a friend with a teenage son. Son has bought his own X-Box 360. It's his. Yet when he got failing grades in school, because he was playing too many video games, his dad took away the X-Box. Even though his son fully bought it. Are you going to tell me that's wrong? Because I consider that good parenting. Under parent's roof=living under parent's rules. The parents shouldn't abuse this, but when kids act up, there should be consequences. It's called a life lesson. Fewer and fewer kids are being taught them.
It's better than letting him fail, but I think it would be much better parenting to set down sensible rules about video game playing time when they ask for a machine, long before someone gets into bad grades territory.
Under parent's roof does not mean that all parent's rules are good ones.
Arbitrary confiscation of other people's property by the authorities is one of the things the USA supposedly was formed up to stop.
Just because I paid for the pen my daughter uses to write a letter, doesn't give me the legal or moral right to read the letter she writes.
While I agree with you on the moral grounds, I don't think that in this situation you wouldn't have legal grounds.
For example, when I was in basic training in the army, the drill sergeants weren't allowed to open my mail, but once I had broken the seal on the letter, they were then able to take said letter and read it. They really didn't often do this to letters, but did do this to packages as anyone who received contraband items had those items taken immediately.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I was in basic training in the army, the drill sergeants weren't allowed to open my mail, but once I had broken the seal on the letter, they were then able to take said letter and read it. They really didn't often do this to letters, but did do this to packages as anyone who received contraband items had those items taken immediately.
Oh I had fun with this one.
For example, when one of my younger brothers was going through basic I bought a set of lacy thong type panties for a chick with like a 60 inch waist. Had a female friend of mine spray perfume on them and write a 'Can't wait to see you again' love note, and then sent them to him. He had to open them up in the platoon open bay in front of his Drill and the rest of the guys.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I was in basic training in the army, the drill sergeants weren't allowed to open my mail, but once I had broken the seal on the letter, they were then able to take said letter and read it. They really didn't often do this to letters, but did do this to packages as anyone who received contraband items had those items taken immediately.
Oh I had fun with this one.
For example, when one of my younger brothers was going through basic I bought a set of lacy thong type panties for a chick with like a 60 inch waist. Had a female friend of mine spray perfume on them and write a 'Can't wait to see you again' love note, and then sent them to him. He had to open them up in the platoon open bay in front of his Drill and the rest of the guys.
Well, I posted a response and it got lost in the failed connection. I forgot what I wrote. Something about reminding you that I wrote "parents shouldn't abuse their power blah blah blah".
Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree-I think my friend provided proper parenting in his situation, and with knowing the father pays for the cell phone bill, (which depending on the length of time he's been paying will outweigh the cost of the initial phone purchase) I'd say he has as many rights as the mother in this situation. And I'd also say the father in my car example was in the right, although yes, it would be in the best interest of him and Timmy to determine a clause that could cause Timmy to lose the car.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's better than letting him fail, but I think it would be much better parenting to set down sensible rules about video game playing time when they ask for a machine, long before someone gets into bad grades territory.
Under parent's roof does not mean that all parent's rules are good ones.
Arbitrary confiscation of other people's property by the authorities is one of the things the USA supposedly was formed up to stop.
Yeah, not so much. Until such time as someone reaches legal majority, they are in essence the chattel of their parents. In the case where the parents are not a couple, the legal responsibilities for the upkeep and maintenance of the children is determined by whatever court order is in place. Parents are legally responsible to provide for their children and so, conversely, enjoy certain supervisory rights. The simple fact that a child has been gifted with certain items does not provide them with carte blanche usage of said items; if this were the case, the parents would not be legally responsible for their use of the items. In example, if a child drives a vehicle recklessly and causes an accident, the parent is responsible for the damages, not the child.
A common practice is to install "governors" on electronic devices that limit "screen" time. Amazon in particular has a built-in function that lets parents input exactly how much time each day a child is allowed to use the device and then prevents further use.
In the case of this father, it would have been easier for him to restrict or curtail use of the phone service via parental account controls that the major networks offer.
On a tangential point, it has been ruled that Employers have the right to access and read electronic communications of their staff during working hours. Now while that is a EU directive, and it has been recommended that employers do not use the powers excessively, it does kind of throw a huge spanner in the right to claim privacy.
If an employer is legally entitled to access your electronic communications while you are at work, why is it such a leap to accept a parent who accesses a childs electronic communications while they are in your care?
A parent has the responsibility to protect a child from harm when in their care. That includes protecting them from themselves, and that may, at some point, require checking at an extent that some people find excessive.
Kilkrazy wrote: Children are not chattels. They are human beings and have most of the same rights as adults.
Yes and no. While the historical status of children is one of viewing them as property; they do in fact have rights, though limited in many regards until such time as they reach the age of majority (17-19 years of age depending upon state laws). You may disagree with my usage of the term; however, please do not get stuck on that to the point where you ignore the rest of the conversation.
Just as in the case of school (Tinker v Des Moines). Children have no reasonable right to privacy in regards to parent oversight of their activities. SCOTUS has consistently held that parents have pre-eminent control of and responsibility for their children's development, placement, safety, education, health, and upbringing.
(Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510"] 268 U.S. 510; 268 U.S. 510; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205"] 406 U.S. 205; 406 U.S. 205; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158"] 321 U.S. 158; 321 U.S. 158; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390"] 262 U.S. 390. 262 U.S. 390. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, distinguished. Pp. 600-604.)
For this reason, the parent in question of this case was found to have improperly retained ownership of a device that was purchased by the other parent as technically the child has no property ownership rights.
AndrewC wrote: On a tangential point, it has been ruled that Employers have the right to access and read electronic communications of their staff during working hours. Now while that is a EU directive, and it has been recommended that employers do not use the powers excessively, it does kind of throw a huge spanner in the right to claim privacy.
If an employer is legally entitled to access your electronic communications while you are at work, why is it such a leap to accept a parent who accesses a childs electronic communications while they are in your care?
A parent has the responsibility to protect a child from harm when in their care. That includes protecting them from themselves, and that may, at some point, require checking at an extent that some people find excessive.
Cheers
Andrew
I imagine that those rights only extend to communication sent from devices owned by the company. Also, the requirement that it only applies during working hours is also there.
So you could sit on your phone during your lunch break send messages bitching about your boss and your boss would have no right to look at them.
Also, if you were using your privately owned phone or a personal email account during work hours then I don't think the directive would allow your employer to look at messages sent on them. You could just lock the phone and refuse to unlock it or log out of the email account. They may have the right to see what you sent but they don't have the right to force you to unlock your phone or log in to your personal email account.
I imagine that those rights only extend to communication sent from devices owned by the company. Also, the requirement that it only applies during working hours is also there.
So you could sit on your phone during your lunch break send messages bitching about your boss and your boss would have no right to look at them.
Also, if you were using your privately owned phone or a personal email account during work hours then I don't think the directive would allow your employer to look at messages sent on them. You could just lock the phone and refuse to unlock it or log out of the email account. They may have the right to see what you sent but they don't have the right to force you to unlock your phone or log in to your personal email account.
It was one of those curious (read as common sense fail) cases, where it was deemed that the ownership of the device didn't matter, though in the particular case it was a work device that was used.
I also think that the lunch hour is included in many contracts of employment, and so is still considered 'work time'.
The ruling only came through recently, 13th Jan I think, so there may be a lot of creases to iron out before we can see the full implications, of what they can and cant do with regard to access, but if they have the right to see something and you refuse to do so, doesn't that then land you in it for a breakdown of the working relationship? Wasn't there a case a couple of years ago where someone was sacked after posting remarks on their FB page disparaging their boss?
Good old George wasn't that far off for his book, only 30 years or so. (even the chocolate ration is shrinking!!!!)
I imagine that those rights only extend to communication sent from devices owned by the company. Also, the requirement that it only applies during working hours is also there.
So you could sit on your phone during your lunch break send messages bitching about your boss and your boss would have no right to look at them.
Also, if you were using your privately owned phone or a personal email account during work hours then I don't think the directive would allow your employer to look at messages sent on them. You could just lock the phone and refuse to unlock it or log out of the email account. They may have the right to see what you sent but they don't have the right to force you to unlock your phone or log in to your personal email account.
It was one of those curious (read as common sense fail) cases, where it was deemed that the ownership of the device didn't matter, though in the particular case it was a work device that was used.
I also think that the lunch hour is included in many contracts of employment, and so is still considered 'work time'.
The ruling only came through recently, 13th Jan I think, so there may be a lot of creases to iron out before we can see the full implications, of what they can and cant do with regard to access, but if they have the right to see something and you refuse to do so, doesn't that then land you in it for a breakdown of the working relationship? Wasn't there a case a couple of years ago where someone was sacked after posting remarks on their FB page disparaging their boss?
Good old George wasn't that far off for his book, only 30 years or so.
Children have no reasonable right to privacy in regards to parent oversight of their activities. SCOTUS has consistently held that parents have pre-eminent control of and responsibility for their children's development, placement, safety, education, health, and upbringing.
This case isn't about child safety, etc. it's about a bitter divorced dad snooping on his daughter's private messages and overreacting like a great big drama teenager because his daughter doesn't like his new girlfriend.
Also the chocolate ration has been increased to 20 grammes a week.
timetowaste85 wrote: Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.
You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.
Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.
Children have no reasonable right to privacy in regards to parent oversight of their activities. SCOTUS has consistently held that parents have pre-eminent control of and responsibility for their children's development, placement, safety, education, health, and upbringing.
This case isn't about child safety, etc. it's about a bitter divorced dad snooping on his daughter's private messages and overreacting like a great big drama teenager because his daughter doesn't like his new girlfriend.
Also the chocolate ration has been increased to 20 grammes a week.
Exactly, and he has every legal right to do the snooping. Sure, we can bemoan his overreaction as outside observers who are not privy to the entire story (unless you're one of those rare people who believe that media outlets are comprehensive sources of information) but he acted within his rights up until he illegally withheld property that didn't belong to him (the phone) from the rightful owner (not the child but the mother).
I recall my short stint working social services and being forced to intercede between two siblings fighting over how much more in food assistance one received over the other. People are silly.
timetowaste85 wrote: Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.
You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.
Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.
I thought that consoles these days were all solar powered and generated their own internet signal? Surely you don't have to actually pay for other things in order to use it?
A console is nothing like a phone.
For a console you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to run it, internet to play online, and games/accessories
For a phone you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to charge it, data plan to use it, and cases/accessories.
timetowaste85 wrote: Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.
You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.
Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.
I thought that consoles these days were all solar powered and generated their own internet signal? Surely you don't have to actually pay for other things in order to use it?
A console is nothing like a phone.
For a console you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to run it, internet to play online, and games/accessories
For a phone you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to charge it, data plan to use it, and cases/accessories.
I fail to see how those are in any way similar.
You're both aware that a console doesn't need Internet access, aka upkeep costs, to run, right? A phone DOES need a data plan of some sort to be a phone (now, anyway. It wasn't always this way). You can play Xbox without having Live. You can't use a phone to text or make calls (you know, the main things that make a phone a phone) without some form of data plan. You CHOOSE to enhance your Xbox experience (or wii, as the example was) by connecting online, but you can still play a lot of games offline. You can't make a phone call without a plan. Except 911. Which totally exists outside of the rules anyway.
Honestly, the argument from both of you just makes you look entitled.
These days many do for software updates (including for games).
Sure, you can ignore all that and hope your new game doesn't require an update to play initially (some do) or require a more up do date version of the console's OS.
The same can be said for a phone. You can ignore all that and just use the home wifi to download apps to play and use Facebook. No plan required. Or just use it as a fancy clock/calculator/notebook or listen to music without any plan or internet connection at all. These days phones are used for more than just making and taking calls and texts.
timetowaste85 wrote: Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.
You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.
Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.
I thought that consoles these days were all solar powered and generated their own internet signal? Surely you don't have to actually pay for other things in order to use it?
A console is nothing like a phone.
For a console you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to run it, internet to play online, and games/accessories
For a phone you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to charge it, data plan to use it, and cases/accessories.
I fail to see how those are in any way similar.
You're both aware that a console doesn't need Internet access, aka upkeep costs, to run, right? A phone DOES need a data plan of some sort to be a phone (now, anyway. It wasn't always this way). You can play Xbox without having Live. You can't use a phone to text or make calls (you know, the main things that make a phone a phone) without some form of data plan. You CHOOSE to enhance your Xbox experience (or wii, as the example was) by connecting online, but you can still play a lot of games offline. You can't make a phone call without a plan. Except 911. Which totally exists outside of the rules anyway.
Honestly, the argument from both of you just makes you look entitled.
Actually, you can call, text, and do everything you want on a phone without a plan. Skype and other voice programs. Messenger services.
Honestly, the argument from you just makes you look like you have no clue what you are talking about.
timetowaste85 wrote: Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.
You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.
Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.
I thought that consoles these days were all solar powered and generated their own internet signal? Surely you don't have to actually pay for other things in order to use it?
A console is nothing like a phone. For a console you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to run it, internet to play online, and games/accessories For a phone you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to charge it, data plan to use it, and cases/accessories.
I fail to see how those are in any way similar.
You're both aware that a console doesn't need Internet access, aka upkeep costs, to run, right? A phone DOES need a data plan of some sort to be a phone (now, anyway. It wasn't always this way). You can play Xbox without having Live. You can't use a phone to text or make calls (you know, the main things that make a phone a phone) without some form of data plan. You CHOOSE to enhance your Xbox experience (or wii, as the example was) by connecting online, but you can still play a lot of games offline. You can't make a phone call without a plan. Except 911. Which totally exists outside of the rules anyway.
Honestly, the argument from both of you just makes you look entitled.
Now, I know that entitled is one of your favourite words to use when complaining about kids these days, but can you please give a justification for saying that I'm coming across as entitled? Because I'm not sure how arguing that a console has upkeep costs makes me entitled.
Also, Pay as You Go phones exist. Also, you haven't addressed the need for electricity. Frankly, your argument seems to mostly be "Well, if you ignore the similarities and misrepresent the requirements of each device then they're nothing alike".
I don't "choose to enhance my experience", I "choose" to be able to actually use the games that I purchase by updating the console or downloading others, otherwise I would be limited to the games that were released with the console and that is it. So actually yeah, I was wrong. I'm choosing to enhance my experience from that of looking at the home screen and being unable to play games because they all need to be updated.
timetowaste85 wrote: [You're both aware that a console doesn't need Internet access, aka upkeep costs, to run, right? A phone DOES need a data plan of some sort to be a phone (now, anyway. It wasn't always this way). You can play Xbox without having Live. You can't use a phone to text or make calls (you know, the main things that make a phone a phone) without some form of data plan. You CHOOSE to enhance your Xbox experience (or wii, as the example was) by connecting online, but you can still play a lot of games offline. You can't make a phone call without a plan. Except 911. Which totally exists outside of the rules anyway.
Honestly, the argument from both of you just makes you look entitled.
If we're roommates and If you own a $200 chromebook, I pay $60 a month for internet access, do I own your netbook after 4 months? After all, the Chromebook functionally can't do anything without internet access since pretty much everything on it is cloud based.
You can throw around words like entitled to muddy the water but the bottom line is you made a really, really terrible argument and I don't think you're going to be able to spackle it back together. We're not misunderstanding your argument, we're not making strawmen arguments in response - it was simply a really bad argument. If my mom gets my sister a puppy and I pay for the food, it's not my dog, if my mom gets my sister a car and I pay for the gas, it's not my car, if my mom gets my sister a fridge and I buy food, I don't own the fridge... there really isn't an analogy that's going to make this work.
As a side note, I do use one of my old cell phones that no longer has a plan all the time, I gave it to my stepson to play Clash of Clans via wifi.
Ouze wrote: If we're roommates and If you own a $200 chromebook, I pay $60 a month for internet access, do I own your netbook after 4 months? After all, the Chromebook functionally can't do anything without internet access since pretty much everything on it is cloud based.
You can throw around words like entitled to muddy the water but the bottom line is you made a really, really terrible argument and I don't think you're going to be able to spackle it back together. We're not misunderstanding your argument, we're not making strawmen arguments in response - it was simply a really bad argument. If my mom gets my sister a puppy and I pay for the food, it's not my dog, if my mom gets my sister a car and I pay for the gas, it's not my car, if my mom gets my sister a fridge and I buy food, I don't own the fridge... there really isn't an analogy that's going to make this work.
As a side note, I do use one of my old cell phones that no longer has a plan all the time, I gave it to my stepson to play Clash of Clans via wifi.
While not disagreeing that's its a bad argument, divorce laws. may, actually have an impact on the ownership of a item. For example, a spouse owns a house, but the other pays all the upkeep and bills on it. Under various precedents set the spouse paying the bills does have a legal entitlement to reparation for the funds spent.
The purpose of divorce laws is to ensure a fair provision to support the financially weaker ex-partner and children, not to establish a kind of legal precedent for the justification of invasion of privacy.
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of divorce laws is to ensure a fair provision to support the financially weaker ex-partner and children, not to establish a kind of legal precedent for the justification of invasion of privacy.
A misunderstanding here, the info above was in response to the statement that the one who pays the bills has no rights over the item that the bills cover. It is not a precedent in the manner you describe. Being a parent is all the precedent needed.
This mostly depends on how the phone was given to the daughter. If her mother bought it as a gift for her, then it's the daughter's phone, not the mother's and she has no right to claim theft. Gifting something to someone legal-wise is nothing but transfering ownership from one person to another.
Honestly, I've given up arguing with you guys. The argument, and you guys, aren't worth getting me frustrated enough to take a small holiday. We clearly won't agree. I find your argument bad, you find mine bad. Good. We're at an impass. So I'm calling it a day. Carry on.
timetowaste85 wrote: Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.
You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.
Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.
I thought that consoles these days were all solar powered and generated their own internet signal? Surely you don't have to actually pay for other things in order to use it?
A console is nothing like a phone.
For a console you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to run it, internet to play online, and games/accessories
For a phone you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to charge it, data plan to use it, and cases/accessories.
I fail to see how those are in any way similar.
You're both aware that a console doesn't need Internet access, aka upkeep costs, to run, right? A phone DOES need a data plan of some sort to be a phone (now, anyway. It wasn't always this way). You can play Xbox without having Live. You can't use a phone to text or make calls (you know, the main things that make a phone a phone) without some form of data plan. You CHOOSE to enhance your Xbox experience (or wii, as the example was) by connecting online, but you can still play a lot of games offline. You can't make a phone call without a plan. Except 911. Which totally exists outside of the rules anyway.
Honestly, the argument from both of you just makes you look entitled.
You do not require a data plan to send text messages, as text messages (SMS) do not utilize data functions. It will, however, require a voice plan. However, a cellphone can be switched from one carrier to another (assuming both carriers utilize the same technological foundation, GSM or CDMA). This has, literally, nothing to do with the legal ownership of the phone.
