Adoption coercion on 16 and Pregnant

[currywurst]

If he kills someone in a car accident, I am liable even if I did not give him the car or allow him to drive.

That is totally not true.

[Guest Anonymous]

That is totally not true.

In the United States it is. If someone gets sued for wrongful death in that situation, it's going to be the teen's parents.

[currywurst]

currywurst wrote:

I think maybe I have not been clear: I am really not "judging" these girls. I am merely pointing out that they are what they are: children.

They are not children. They are part of a recently defined subgroup of young adults know as teens.

Okay, so they are young adults then? Well an adult is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Thus, all those on this board saying that the parents have to care for a minor until they are 18 are way off base. Thanks for the clarification!

Are you being deliberately dumb about this?

Sort of. I am pointing out the problem of saying on the one hand that the teen girl gets to make all her own decisions, but on the other hand she is still a minor, and therefore the parents must support her (and her decisions) until she turns 18. I personally see a big problem with this logic. Obviously no one else does though, so I guess I won't bring it up again.

[emmiedahl]

That is totally not true.

It is absolutely true in many, if not most, states in the US. Here is the text of California's law:

Any act of willful misconduct of a minor which results in injury or death to another person or in any injury to the property of another shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages, and the parent or guardian having custody and control shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the willful misconduct.

The state I currently live in also has this law, and I see parents sued on their children's behalf on various court shows almost every day.

[currywurst]

An act of "willful misconduct" is not a car accident. Like I said, totally not true.

[Guest Anonymous]

An act of "willful misconduct" is not a car accident. Like I said, totally not true.

You can sue for wrongful death in the case of a car accident. Who gets sued? The teenager's parents. It damned sure is true.

[currywurst]

No the defendant, i.e. the driver gets sued, unless it is the case that the parents loaned their own car to their minor child and knew or should have known that that child was a reckless driver. Wrongful death as the result of a car accident is not necessarily the result of "willful misconduct." BTW, it says that parents are "jointly and severally liable." That means that both the kid and the parents get sued, not just the parents.

[Guest Anonymous]

No the plaintiff, i.e. the driver gets sued, unless it is the case that the parents loaned their own car to their minor child and knew or should have known that that child was a reckless driver. Wrongful death as the result of a car accident is not necessarily the result of "willful misconduct." BTW, it says that parents are "jointly and severally liable." That means that both the kid and the parents get sued, not just the parents.

No one said the kid wasn't liable at all, and would suffer no consequences, only that the parents are liable.

**ETA: Why is it that when a noob rolls up in here and posts more than 50 times in 24 hours, it's always because they're being an ass about something? It never ends well. "Oooh! A shiny new forum! I'll just take a poop here, no one will mind!"

We mind.

[emmiedahl]

An act of "willful misconduct" is not a car accident. Like I said, totally not true.

Parents are responsible also for their children's torts.

[currywurst]

Parents can be liable, in some circumstances, under some laws. But as a parent you are not liable for every tort committed by you minor child. Absolutely not! If your minor child is driving negligently in their own car, and that causes an accident, then the parent is not liable. (with some narrow exceptions)

[currywurst]

Parents are responsible also for their children's torts.

Not all of them, no.

[kb2]

Who has money--parents of a teenager or a teenager? Of course parents are sued for things their children do.

[fundifugee]

Parents are responsible also for their children's torts.

mmmmmmm, tort[e]s.

[currywurst]

Someone can file the suit, but unless parental liability attaches under certain narrow exceptions, then the plaintiff is suing the wrong person, and the suit will be dismissed.

[kb2]

Someone can file the suit, but unless parental liability attaches under certain narrow exceptions, then the plaintiff is suing the wrong person, and the suit will be dismissed.

If the lawyer is getting a cut of the winnings, they're not going to waste their time taking on a case that can't target someone with money, for instance the parents.

ETA: I don't mean to bash all lawyers, I just don't associate the personal injury field with charity.

[Dhani_C]

You can sue for wrongful death in the case of a car accident. Who gets sued? The teenager's parents. It damned sure is true.

I checked my state's laws. As far as I can tell (and who knows if I read this correctly), you can't take action against a minor but you also can't outright sue their parents. You can ask for funeral expenses and medical bills, but nothing beyond that (there is also a cap set that the family can get and nothing more that is decided by a jury). A lot of it largely deals with blame. In my state, "blame" for an accident is shared by both parties.

[currywurst]

Well then that lawyer needs to show why that parent is the defendant in the case. I only know California law very well, but in California, a parent is generally not liable for their minor child's torts, except under certain circumstances. So unless a case falls under those circumstances, the parent would be able to easily show that the plaintiff is suing the wrong person. A lawyer way try and get away with that, but it would so easily be defeated that I sort of doubt most lawyers would try and pull that.

Sure, most minor children do not have money, but they might some day as adults, and they can start to pay off the judgment at that time.

[emmiedahl]

Parents can be liable, in some circumstances, under some laws. But as a parent you are not liable for every tort committed by you minor child. Absolutely not! If your minor child is driving negligently in their own car, and that causes an accident, then the parent is not liable. (with some narrow exceptions)

Actually, a quick Google search reveals that when you sign for your child's license (they require a parent signature for under-18), you are thereby assuming responsibility for damages they may cause while driving. You are also responsible for any damages they cause in a vehicle you allow them to use. If the child does not have a license or permission to use the car, then they are guilty of that willful misconduct I referenced earlier.

Oh, and I looked. A minor child who is living independently (a teen mother was used as an example) is entitled to child support from her parents. She is also entitled to child support from her baby's father, and from his own parents if he is unable to pay it.

[currywurst]

I checked my state's laws. As far as I can tell (and who knows if I read this correctly), you can't take action against a minor but you also can't outright sue their parents. You can ask for funeral expenses and medical bills, but nothing beyond that (there is also a cap set that the family can get and nothing more that is decided by a jury). A lot of it largely deals with blame. In my state, "blame" for an accident is shared by both parties.

Which state do you live in? I have never heard of a minor's complete exemption from tortious liability.

[currywurst]

Actually, a quick Google search reveals that when you sign for your child's license (they require a parent signature for under-18), you are thereby assuming responsibility for damages they may cause while driving. You are also responsible for any damages they cause in a vehicle you allow them to use. If the child does not have a license or permission to use the car, then they are guilty of that willful misconduct I referenced earlier.

Interesting...which state is this? I know in California there is a narrow exception for parent's liability with regard to minor's damage in a car accident (i.e. up to 30k). I am not too familiar with the phrase "willful misconduct." I guess I assumed that pertained to torts which the child committed intentionally. As far as I know, just borrowing a car without permission would not count.

I am seriously curious as to which state this is. To be liable for "any" damage a minor causes while driving a vehicle you allowed them to use sounds quite extreme. I sort of want to know this for my own personal sanity.

[kb2]

Well then that lawyer needs to show why that parent is the defendant in the case. I only know California law very well, but in California, a parent is generally not liable for their minor child's torts, except under certain circumstances. So unless a case falls under those circumstances, the parent would be able to easily show that the plaintiff is suing the wrong person. A lawyer way try and get away with that, but it would so easily be defeated that I sort of doubt most lawyers would try and pull that.

Sure, most minor children do not have money, but they might some day as adults, and they can start to pay off the judgment at that time.

Except in the case of "willful misconduct." So you claim they willfully made whatever traffic mistakes caused the accident, and you have a case.

ETA: Also, you would sue both the teenager and the parents. But that includes parents.

[currywurst]

Except in the case of "willful misconduct." So you claim they willfully made whatever traffic mistakes caused the accident, and you have a case.

Sure I suppose that is possible, but most traffic accidents are the result of negligence, or at worst, recklessness. Very rarely is a traffic accident the result of a willful act. I will concede that some traffic accidents are the result of someone running someone down, or something like that, but that is quite unusual. So I would give kudos to any lawyer who could make a good case for that, but it would be pretty hard to show.

[emmiedahl]

Interesting...which state is this? I know in California there is a narrow exception for parent's liability with regard to minor's damage in a car accident (i.e. up to 30k). I am not too familiar with the phrase "willful misconduct." I guess I assumed that pertained to torts which the child committed intentionally. As far as I know, just borrowing a car without permission would not count.

I am seriously curious as to which state this is. To be liable for "any" damage a minor causes while driving a vehicle you allowed them to use sounds quite extreme. I sort of want to know this for my own personal sanity.

The laws seem to vary, but all that I found require a parent signature for a minor driver's permit or license and this is seen as accepting liability for their car accidents. Here is a link to the CA statute regarding that http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d09/vc17707.htm and here is a CA statute that seems to be even stricter because it is if you allow them to drive at all http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d09/vc17708.htm

Personally, I was hit by a minor driver in California and her parents were forced to pay the damages not covered by her insurance. I had a relative in a similar circumstance except she was the parent, except the kid did not have a license or permission to drive so she was liable under the willful misconduct.

[Dhani_C]

Actually, a quick Google search reveals that when you sign for your child's license (they require a parent signature for under-18), you are thereby assuming responsibility for damages they may cause while driving. You are also responsible for any damages they cause in a vehicle you allow them to use. If the child does not have a license or permission to use the car, then they are guilty of that willful misconduct I referenced earlier.

Oh, and I looked. A minor child who is living independently (a teen mother was used as an example) is entitled to child support from her parents. She is also entitled to child support from her baby's father, and from his own parents if he is unable to pay it.

They have many laws against fathers that don't pay (jail time, license revocation, ect.) but I have never heard of parents forced to support their teen's child because the child is the dependent of the teen, not the grandparent. That's why Jenelle was unable to get more money when she turned in her FAFSA application on TM2, because Barbra was legally the guardian of Jace (thus, he was her dependent, not Jenelle's). While Barbra has to care for Jenelle (not any more that Jenelle is over 18), until Jenelle signed over custody of her son to Barbra she had no obligation to care for Jace whatsoever.

Then again, it could be my wacky state. I have just never heard of parents having to provide child support (as mandated by law) to their teen for their grandchild (though, I'm sure many, if not all, do willingly).

ETA: My bad, didn't realize you meant living independently. I thought you were referring to teens living with their parents and demanding child support while they were living with their parents and had a child.

[emmiedahl]

Sure I suppose that is possible, but most traffic accidents are the result of negligence, or at worst, recklessness. Very rarely is a traffic accident the result of a willful act. I will concede that some traffic accidents are the result of someone running someone down, or something like that, but that is quite unusual. So I would give kudos to any lawyer who could make a good case for that, but it would be pretty hard to show.

That statutes I quoted specifically include negligence.

It sucks being the parent of a teen. They have the capability to make some big, costly mistakes, and we as parents are indeed the ones left with the bill.