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.
However we want to parse this, the courts declared the phone the property of the daughter, therefore subject to be taken by the mother.
In this case, the significant thing and the reason they dropped charges had nothing to do with whether the mother could take it legally. The significant thing was that the phone did NOT belong to the father, as he had stated, so he had no legal right to make a police complaint regarding it's loss.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 11 days ago)
35,637 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassybluesy
SHE was a court appointed attorney. It seems like, to me, it might be relevant to know WHEN the court appointed attorney was assigned the case.
That would be interesting. But before you get to the point of trial, you have a pre-trial hearing where you decide whether you want to waive your right to trial and accept deferred adjudication, restitution, stuff like that. Then, if you refuse to waive your right to trial, the trial date is set, usually months in the future.
Then, the morning of trial the prosecutor goes back at it again, trying to get the case adjudicated before the expense and waste of time for a trial in the case of misdemeanor theft.
She would have had an attorney for both those procedures.
I don't know how this ball was dropped, and the ones who know aren't sayin'.
However we want to parse this, the courts declared the phone the property of the daughter, therefore subject to be taken by the mother.
Incorrect. They declared the phone the property of the daughter. Since there wasn't any claim from the person who owned the phone they did the only thing they could, dropped the case. The daughter potential could make a claim. Legally, she'd be within her rights to although the courts and law enforcement seldom pay attention to the rights of minors. It's exactly what happened in Hoblyn vs. Johnson though. But she didn't.
For example, I'd never have made a formal complaint. My relationship with my parents was not that bad. Even if it was, they'd just find some even worse way of punishing me and making my life miserable for whatever I'd done in the first place. That doesn't mean I wouldn't go whine at one or the other of them about how unfair it was. Teenagers are teenagers after all. There's nothing to say child can't consent to losing their property their parents may have no legal right to take away as a form of discipline, and with the absence of any complaint it what's any court is going to determine happened.
That's not true. There are pre-trial hearings and pre-trial filings before it gets all the way to trial which is the very, very last resort in a misdemeanor case.
Sad that I actually do know this for a fact.
The prosecutor could have dropped the charges. The defense attorney can't unilaterally dismiss them, only a judge can do that.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 11 days ago)
35,637 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Incorrect. They declared the phone the property of the daughter. Since there wasn't any claim from the person who owned the phone they did the only thing they could, dropped the case. The daughter potential could make a claim. Legally, she'd be within her rights to although the courts and law enforcement seldom pay attention to the rights of minors. It's exactly what happened in Hoblyn vs. Johnson though. But she didn't.
For example, I'd never have made a formal complaint. My relationship with my parents was not that bad. Even if it was, they'd just find some even worse way of punishing me and making my life miserable for whatever I'd done in the first place. That doesn't mean I wouldn't go whine at one or the other of them about how unfair it was. Teenagers are teenagers after all. There's nothing to say child can't consent to losing their property their parents may have no legal right to take away as a form of discipline, and with the absence of any complaint it what's any court is going to determine happened.
We have no idea how the father knew the mother had taken away the phone, or how the daughter felt about it, or whether the daughter complained about it at all.
The daughter didn't claim the mother stole her phone - the ex claimed that.
It could very well be that the dad was texting the daughter, and the mom texted back you can stop texting her, I've taken the phone away.
We have no idea how the father knew the mother had taken away the phone, or how the daughter felt about it, or whether the daughter complained about it at all.
The daughter didn't claim the mother stole her phone - the ex claimed that.
It could very well be that the dad was texting the daughter, and the mom texted back you can stop texting her, I've taken the phone away.
We just don't know.
Yup. The only thing we know, or at least form the reporting, is that the father filed a complaint for something he had no rights to. Thus it was dropped. Now, if the phone wasn't a gift but was his property that his daughter was allowed to use it would still be his property and he could make a claim. But according to the article it was a Christmas gift so the court found it was a gift and not ongoing support. Therefore the phone belongs to the daughter. Her mom has no legal right to take it but absent a complaint from the wronged party nothing for the court to do.
I do have empathy for the father - he now had no way to contact his daughter.
Uhhh, you do realize we managed to contact each other before cell phones were invented. Right? Landline phones still exist, and if they don't have one, I'm sure the mother has her own cell phone they can use.
Uhhh, you do realize we managed to contact each other before cell phones were invented. Right? Landline phones still exist, and if they don't have one, I'm sure the mother has her own cell phone they can use.
Not sticking up for the dad here; I really don't care, but not that many people have landlines anymore. And with the amount of animosity between the parents, the mom's cell phone might not be an option. As a parent, I can see how this could be a hassle.
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.
