Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The original arrest was in May, I believe May 11 or 12, and certainly in court it would have come out that he has his phone back.
Instead, what came out is she took it from her daughter as punishment.
Do you think she wouldn't have said and I gave it back to her first of June?
BTW, she has possession of the phone - it was there at the interview. I'm all over the map on my opinion of this case, but it does seem to me now that she took it because it was a gift from dad and she's not giving it back.
The daughter lives with her. The show probably asked her to have it for the taping. It doesn’t mean she never gave it back, she was probably a few feet off camera.
The daughter lives with her. The show probably asked her to have it for the taping. It doesn’t mean she never gave it back, she was probably a few feet off camera.
It was what they didn't say that was interesting. She didn't say, my daughter now has her phone back.
It was "the phone was taken away as punishment".
I can't really believe the theft case would still be going on if the daughter had her phone back.
Mom gave a somewhat lengthy statement. It would seem to me that she would say yes, I took it away for two weeks as punishment but she has it back.
But she didn't say that. And the court case moved forward.
In fact, the DA said at trial, since this was taken away as punishment, we're asking the theft charges be dropped.
The daughter lives with her. The show probably asked her to have it for the taping. It doesn’t mean she never gave it back, she was probably a few feet off camera.
Yes. I just watched the video interview with mom. She hasnt conceded to possesion of the phone.
I think you might want to google that, is what I'm saying. Parents actually are the owners of their children's property and money.
Apparently, a parent has all rights to the property of their minor child.
I didn't believe that before googling it.
I do understand what you are saying but I think it could also be argued that the mother had rights to the phone even though the father initially bought it, since the child had it with permission and was in her custody at the time. The law makes sense for a number of reasons but certainly could be abused if child earns or inherits a lot of money. Why many successful children have to become emancipated. As this case would attest, there are a lot of cruddy parents out there who don't put their children first as the law would assume of them.
I agree. Embarrassingly, I spent some time looking for his name and couldn't find it, which is really unusual for me because I can dig up dirt quickly when I try.
This story deserves a legal kickback. Why did the prosecutors actually take it to TRIAL, over a $200 phone, why was the exhusband able to create this chaos, and why was her lawyer completely ineffective in getting this dismissed immediately before there was any talk of an actual trial?
Misdemeanor theft is never taken to court trial. And it appears no one asked any questions at all.
What iphone costs $200? Haven't watched the video but read the articles. The ex needs to be charged. I do wonder if he has a relative cop
If we're to go by this article, stench of manure gets thicker.
Appears prosecution passed the buck to mom ? Wheres the critical thinking? If dads report said mom taking the phone as punishments a crime, prosecutors aware this was a parental discipline. Why would he need moms statement of the same in deputy report before adding to existing larceny charge, a larceny conversion charge on the day of trial?
Just before her bench trial was to start Tuesday before Ottawa County District Judge Judy Mulder, prosecutors added a second charge over the same alleged phone theft: larceny by conversion, also punishable by up to 93 days.
Then, minutes later, before any witnesses were called, prosecutors approached the judge with a new story.
I had an opportunity to discuss this case with the victim in this case, or at least the person we believed owned the property, Ottawa County Assistant Prosecutor Sarah Matwiejczyk told the judge.
May’s ex-husband claimed the phone belonged to him and said May’s punishment was a crime.
It turns out, she said, that the ex-husband didn't own the phone after all. The daughter did.
In an email to WOOD, Ottawa County Prosecutor Ronald Frantz said May never told the original investigating deputy that she had taken the phone to punish her daughter. In fact, nothing like that is mentioned in the report.
Taking away a childs cellphone as a matter of reasonable parental discipline, not only would we not charge, but the police would not request a charge, Frantz wrote in an email.
Mom should refer this father to Social Services, anyone who would have their child's parent arrested for such a ridiculous reason does not have that child's best interest at heart.
One of the worst things people can do imo is use their children as pawns to get back at their EX. You need to love your child more than you hate your EX.
I cannot even speak to the miscarriage of justice, if it is as it is being portrayed here....ludicrous.
Mom should refer this father to Social Services, anyone who would have their child's parent arrested for such a ridiculous reason does not have that child's best interest at heart.
One of the worst things people can do imo is use their children as pawns to get back at their EX. You need to love your child more than you hate your EX.
I cannot even speak to the miscarriage of justice, if it is as it is being portrayed here....ludicrous.
The whole thing is, we don't know.
As it's written, it's not believable and no one is coming forward to address the details.
It's simply not believable - to me - that Dad called the cops and said my ex wife stole my phone. Then, without any further ado, they arrested her and tossed her in the lockup for a couple hours til she could post bail. Then, months later there was a trial date set and she appeared and the trial started and the DA suddenly realized it was the daughter's phone and it was taken away as a temporary punishment so the DA asks the judge to dismiss charges.
And all the while, the mom never mentioned that at all, and intends to give the phone back to her daughter after the punishment was over, or to the father if she never intends to return the phone to the girl.
NOT BELIEVABLE. Since none of the sides (the DA, the mom or the dad or her lawyer or the arresting cop) is coming forward with details that would make this make sense, we're left to guess.
I googled can a parent legally steal from a child, and the answer was a pretty strong "the child has no property of his own, the parents own all the property and money and basically can entrust it to the child at will".
So. It appears legally, the father could certainly argue the phone was his since a 15 year old doesn't own her own property, and he bought it, and is paying foe the service.
I wonder if he wanted his phone back, and the mom refused to give it back? If he made a formal request for his phone back and she refused it?
And then in court the DA kind of realized how very silly this whole thing was to take up court time?
But anyway. I wonder if he just wanted the phone - that he is paying for - given back to him. Which is quite a reasonable request, IMHO.
That's incorrect at least in most states, or rather it's more nuanced. The differentiation is in ongoing support or gift. Personal property provided for ongoing support remains the property of the parent or guardian. Say your bedroom furniture. As a kid, that's your parents furniture most likely as it wasn't given as a gift. Likewise when you go shopping for school supplies or clothes. That gets a bit grey area but generally those would be seen as ongoing support rather than a gift. They're the parents.
Gifts or inheritance are different. They are the possession of the minor. If you give your child an iPhone for Christmas, you gave them the iPhone. Technically you no longer have any right to take away the phone just like you can't take away the the sweater you gave them for Christmas present. Those are technically the possession of the child.
In this case, the court's ruling was the phone was the property of the daughter as it was a gift which nullifies the issue. The father didn't own the phone so it's not like he can complain when it gets taken away. The daughter potential could. In practice, however, minors have very few rights. While the daughter could make a criminal complaint and would legally be in her right to do so, those rights are generally ignored by the legal system. But the daughter didn't make a criminal complaint about it so there's really nothing for them to do except drop the case. At most all they could really do is ask the daughter if she wants to file criminal charges. Maybe they did do that and she didn't. More likely they didn't as a minor's legal rights usually get ignored.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
