Mom puts 16YO son's truck up for sale

[Racket_Man]

after he gets busted driving drunk

http://living.msn.com/family-parenti...3-8e821302a97b

Finally a parent who actually gets it.

[TheHuckster]

The image of the for-sale ad was making its rounds in Facebook a week or two ago. I totally support the mother, and frankly saying she's the "meanest mother" is horrendously inaccurate. Being a mean mother would be to do something like this if he were caught speeding or something less atrocious than drunk driving. She's simply being a good mother.

I'm sure he will learn from this and never drink and drive for the rest of his life.

[Nyoibo]

I whole heartedly support this and can't think of a single reason why anyone wouldn't.

[Rageaholic]

She's probably going to need the money from the car to pay for the court costs.

She was in the right, kid screwed up.

[Andara Bledin]

... and frankly saying she's the "meanest mother" is horrendously inaccurate.

She actually calls herself that in the ad.

As far as I saw, pretty much everyone supported her actions as right and proper and a good example of how consequences follow actions.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Seems like a fair deal. $20 says she paid for it in the first place and since he's under 18, the car is under her name anyway. If you can't be responsible with your vehicle, be prepared to lose said vehicle.

[s_stabeler]

Assuming the mother paid for the truck, and warned the kid not to drive drunk or he'd lose the truck, I have no problem with this. (why the warning? because fairly often, the risk of losing the truck would make the kid think twice about driving drunk in the first place.)

If the kid did pay for it himself, though, then it may or may not be unfair. (in short, if the kid gets back anything he paid for the truck, it's fair. If not, it's arguably unfair)

[crashhelmet]

Assuming the mother paid for the truck, and warned the kid not to drive drunk or he'd lose the truck, I have no problem with this. (why the warning? because fairly often, the risk of losing the truck would make the kid think twice about driving drunk in the first place.)

If the kid did pay for it himself, though, then it may or may not be unfair. (in short, if the kid gets back anything he paid for the truck, it's fair. If not, it's arguably unfair)

The mother shouldn't have to warn the son about driving drunk. She shouldn't have to warn him about not drinking either. He's 16 years old. He knows he's not allowed to drink, let alone drive drunk.

If he paid for it himself, I could see the unfairness. It would actually border on illegal. I say border because I don't know how legal possessions of a minor are considered in court. It could be the parents' community property or it could be theft.

Not to rehash an old thread, but some of you praising the mother in this thread bashed the mother in the iPhone thread. Why is one great parenting and the other controlling?

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not certain, but I'd surmise that all possessions belonging to a minor are legally the property of their guardians until they turn 18 or become emancipated.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Not to rehash an old thread, but some of you praising the mother in this thread bashed the mother in the iPhone thread. Why is one great parenting and the other controlling?

The irony certainly isn't lost on me.

[s_stabeler]

The mother shouldn't have to warn the son about driving drunk. She shouldn't have to warn him about not drinking either. He's 16 years old. He knows he's not allowed to drink, let alone drive drunk.

Yes, the kid shouldn't drive drunk ANYWAY, I'm merely suggesting that you make the truck explicitly conditional on obeying certain rules of the road rather than the kid not knowing there were conditions on his ownership of the truck.

If he paid for it himself, I could see the unfairness. It would actually border on illegal. I say border because I don't know how legal possessions of a minor are considered in court. It could be the parents' community property or it could be theft.

IIRC, if it's legal for the kid to own, it's the kid's property. a 16- year old, which is the age of the kid in question, certainly CAN own a vehicle in their own right.

Not to rehash an old thread, but some of you praising the mother in this thread bashed the mother in the iPhone thread. Why is one great parenting and the other controlling?

it was the level of conditions on the iPhone, not the presence or absence of conditions. Not to mention at least two of the conditions contradicted each other ( you must answer the phone, and you cannot use it in a movie- that phone could get confiscated no matter what) plus, the contract has a clause that outright said the phone WOULD get yanked at some point.
As for the truck, the known conditions aren't onerous (don't drink and drive) and as far as we know, the mother never expected to ed up selling the truck.

[Greenday]

it was the level of conditions on the iPhone, not the presence or absence of conditions. Not to mention at least two of the conditions contradicted each other ( you must answer the phone, and you cannot use it in a movie- that phone could get confiscated no matter what)

I already blew that argument well out of the water as a beyond ridiculous argument.

[smileyeagle1021]

s
As for the truck, the known conditions aren't onerous (don't drink and drive) and as far as we know, the mother never expected to ed up selling the truck.

Not only that, but the kid did something that could very well result in him losing his license and not being able to use the truck anyway. There is no law that says if you don't answer your phone when certain people call that you legally won't be allowed to operate a phone, there is a law that says that if you drive drunk your license to operate a vehicle can be suspended or revoked. At least in Nevada an underage DUI is an automatic suspension until you turn 18.

[crashhelmet]

I've been trying to find laws specific to Wyoming about something like this. I've been unsuccessful thus far. I did find where it's prohibited in Washington for a minor to own a car.

[Rageaholic]

Not to rehash an old thread, but some of you praising the mother in this thread bashed the mother in the iPhone thread. Why is one great parenting and the other controlling?

Because they're different situations.

The car kid actually did something wrong (drunk driving).

The iphone kid didn't, but the mother still proved to be controlling by making a list of specific and unnecessary rules.