Canadian Judge takes away boy's Wii ...

[Slytovhand]

I'll stick to the faction that says 'If it works - great'.

Flyn, you mentioned that if it happened to you, you'd be pretty pissed. That's the idea!

Humans change only when they see sufficient reason to do so. Taking away this kid's Wii might be the sufficient reason. After all, nothing else seems to have worked (and, as we do know from the <cough> 'justice' system, lots of other punishments don't have much effect (re: habitual criminals).

Besides, think of the lack of effort and expense that needs to go into this one....

[suchislife2]

IF it works, and I mean a big IF. Then why not try it?

I mean for smaller offences I guess it's ok. But only IF it works.

Hell some kids will find ways around any punishment and the only real punishment is prison/boot camp.

At least we know the judge will go through with the punishment unlike some parents I know

[Flyndaran]

I don't believe it is right to take my possession away because my relative did something wrong. Yes, we may say it's right this time, but I don't like the precedent.

[Nyoibo]

Umm, the judge didn't, he took the kids Wii away, not the parents.

[Flyndaran]

Umm, the judge didn't, he took the kids Wii away, not the parents.

Children don't own squat. All property belongs to the parents.

[Nyoibo]

Children don't own squat. All property belongs to the parents.

Um... Bullshit.

[BroomJockey]

Um... Bullshit.

Quoted for emphasis. Parents simply have automatic ownership of everything if the kid dies. Before then, a child owns stuff. It's not like your parents magnanimously gift you everything the day you move out. Legally, if it was bought for you, or given as a gift, and you're the primary user for a certain period of time, then that thing is yours.

This also ignores the fact that many kids get an allowance sufficient to save up and purchase things on their own. I bought my own Game Boy all those years ago. I wasn't even 12, but it was most certainly mine.

[Boozy]

Children don't own squat. All property belongs to the parents.

Property can be owned by children of any age. For example, parents will open bank accounts in their children's names at birth. The money is usually held in trust, but it legally belongs to the child.

Proving ownership over a Wii might be a bit tricky since there are no records for things like that. If his guardian (his grandmother) decided to claim ownership over it, then the court would probably have to respect that and allow her to keep it.

However, it appears that the boy has been fully acknowledged to be the Wii's owner. The judge did not take the Wii outright; it's been promised as bond in case the boy breaks probation. So it's essentially being used as collateral to secure his freedom. Posting bond is perfectly legal, and this solution is perfectly age-appropriate.

[Flyndaran]

Just because most parents pretend does not make most properties used by kids theirs.

[Nyoibo]

Just because most parents pretend does not make most properties used by kids theirs.

By the time I was 16 I had bought and owned 2 horse, 2 computers, SNES, N64, TV, VCR and a car.

I owned my own horse, SNES and computer by the time I was 12, bought and paid for with my own money, my parents didn't own squat of it.

[BroomJockey]

Just because most parents pretend does not make most properties used by kids theirs.

You're stubborn, you know? We've been down this road before. Here's the legal precedent.

http://www.answers.com/topic/gifts-to-minors-act

The adult acts as trustee, but it still belongs to the child. Since that covers major things like land and stocks, I don't think a judge is likely to side with Mommy that the Game Boy belongs to her.

[DesignFox]

Hey, if this works and sets the kids straight, I'm all for it. What a simple and inexpensive solution to the problem.

We don't have any details on the story. So, perhaps Mom and Dad did try taking the Wii away. Maybe the kid kept getting it back when they weren't home or...something. I dunno. Sometimes parental intervention doesn't get the point across. The judge is not Mom and Dad, and the sentence laid down by the judge is legally binding. So the kid will have to hold up his end in order to get the Wii back. No ifs ands or buts.

If the kid is truly non-violent, this may be a much better solution than sending him to juvie where he may be picked on by much nastier types of kids. Or even worse, become influenced by them.

Who knows?

I think it's a creative solution.

[Boozy]

.
We don't have any details on the story.

Details can be found by following the links within the article.

As my post pointed out, his guardian is his grandmother. The boy still has his Wii, but it will be taken from him if he breaks his probation. So he has basically put it up as bond.

[DesignFox]

Ah. Thanks Boozy. My bad. I read the article, but managed to miss the links.

EDIT: I didn't read the links because I didn't realize the in text links were related to the story. Anyway, I still stand by my opinion. Nothing else has worked, so I see no reason not to give it a try.

[Flyndaran]

You're stubborn, you know? We've been down this road before. Here's the legal precedent.

http://www.answers.com/topic/gifts-to-minors-act

The adult acts as trustee, but it still belongs to the child. Since that covers major things like land and stocks, I don't think a judge is likely to side with Mommy that the Game Boy belongs to her.

How on earth do you prove that something belongs to a child when no legal authority has so ruled? I don't have to use something to own it, so why should a miscreant little kid's word get precedence over my own?
If it doesn't, then I can say that I merely let the little kid play with it.

Either way thread drift...