Man Arrested For Taking Daughters Cell Phone

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Original Recipe Sauce

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.

**Steve steveson**

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.

**feeder**

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?

**d-usa**

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."

**timetowaste85**

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.

**d-usa**

Good thing he wasn't on trial for being a parent then.

**Ouze**

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.

**Howard A Treesong**

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.

**Ouze**

Exactly right.

**KingCracker**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
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

**oldravenman3025**

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.

**insaniak**

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.

**dogma**

d-usa wrote:
Dad has every right to discipline his daughter however he sees fit, there is no disagreement about that for me.

No, he doesn't. He can't batter her, assault her, molest her, or rape her in any capacity. The same is true of non-female children.

**d-usa**

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.

**Mr. Burning**

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**

Divorces when they turn bitter and confrontational often end up using the children and even pets as weapons without proper regard for their wellbeing.

**Mr. Burning**

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.

**timetowaste85**

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?

**kronk**

insaniak wrote:
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.

**dogma**

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.

**Ensis Ferrae**

dogma wrote:
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.

**Wulfmar**

This is.... amazing.

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.

**Ahtman**

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.

**d-usa**

So he steals her phone, but she's the bitch?

**dogma**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

**kronk**

Paddle or open hand or belt or switch?

Diameter of the rod used?

Number of spanks?

Pants up or down?

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

Wulfmar wrote:
This is.... amazing.

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wulfmar wrote:
This is.... amazing.

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

**Wulfmar**

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.

**Ensis Ferrae**

dogma wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

**dogma**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

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.