Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 12, 2019 at 11:53 comment added Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні @alephzero: while the UK may have better protections for minors in respect to banking laws, this question is tagged "utah" and "united-states".
Aug 12, 2019 at 8:17 comment added Magisch @TomTom this does happen frequently and is a primary reason why inheritances are often structured as trusts that only become available when the inheritor turns 18.
Aug 11, 2019 at 20:36 comment added Dimitri Vulis Operationally, removing someone from a joint account may be hard for a bank, even if everyone comes to a branch and asks for it. Banks prefer that you close the old joint account and open a new one. It makes little practical difference (you'd just have a new account).
Aug 10, 2019 at 14:16 comment added Joshua @Mazura: No forfeit unless they're stupid enough to offer a checking account.
Aug 10, 2019 at 12:15 comment added vsz @R.. : it does not "normalize" anything. It just states a fact of life, instead of giving the OP false hope (which might make the OP waste a lot of money on a lawyer and lose the case, both losing the money and making the relationship with the mother even worse). You find that fact of life abhorrent? So do many of us. But it's still a fact of real life, and making the OP aware of it isn't "normalizing" it.
Aug 10, 2019 at 2:35 comment added Mazura "You may get lucky and find one that will" offer a contract to an unemancipated minor? That would be illegal. And quite possibly forfeit.
Aug 10, 2019 at 1:55 comment added Ben Miller @TomTom and others: The words I chose, “not exactly illegal,” does not imply that it is entirely legal either. But unless there are large amounts involved, you probably won’t find a prosecutor that thinks he could prove criminal theft. There are too many outs for the parent, who could claim to be buying something for the child, or claim that it was a loan or gift. My answer simply acknowledges that seeking legal action is most likely a dead end, and that the best course of action is to find a way to protect the money before it is taken, rather than trying to recover it later.
Aug 10, 2019 at 0:47 comment added R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE This answer would be good except for that one sentence that's normalizing theft by parents. Even if it were true, it would be much better as "the law doesn't protect you from..." or similar.
Aug 9, 2019 at 21:02 comment added alephzero The rest of the world isn't always like the USA. In the UK some banks offer personal accounts from age 11, and from age 16 you can also get overdraft facilities. The only action a parent can perform on their own is to pay money INTO the account. From age 16, you don't even need parental involvement to open an account, if you can prove your identity (and being in paid employment is a good way to do that). These accounts have all the basic facilities - wages paid in automatically, a debit card to use ATMs for cash and pay for goods, standing order payments, electronic banking, etc.
Aug 9, 2019 at 13:42 comment added HAEM @TomTom that is exactly what happened to Jackie Coogan, and the law passed after that apparently only protects child actors from Coogan's fate.
Aug 9, 2019 at 12:59 comment added TomTom "First, it is not exactly illegal for your mother to take your money." - actually it is. The parents ALSO are responsible for the living expenses of the child. They can take a "reasonable" amount from income, but they do not have free reign on the account. The term for "robbing" the child's account is theft, and appropriate laws apply. Otherwise if the child makes a HUGH inheritance, the parents could take it and leave the child without money, you know.
Aug 9, 2019 at 11:39 history answered Ben Miller CC BY-SA 4.0