Mom puts 16YO son's truck up for sale

[crashhelmet]

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.

So if the kid had his phone taken away at school, because he was breaking the rules there, and she took it away or instituted the turn it in before you go to school rule as a result, it would be OK and not controlling?

Is it only non-controlling if he gets in trouble first for breaking a rule he should know about?

[TheHuckster]

(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.)

Drinking and driving already has some serious consequences that should deter anyone from doing so. They can get your license revoked, bump up your insurance premiums seriously hard for many years, result in a criminal record, and that's on top of the preexisting obvious and well-known risk of killing yourself or other people.

Anyone who had taken driving school in the US, anyway, (which AFAIK is a requirement in every state to obtain a license) they spend a lot of time talking about the risks of drinking and driving. There's simply no excuse for it.

Are you seriously suggesting the reasons above weren't discouraging enough from getting him to drink and drive, but the explicit threat of getting his truck sold might have actually made a difference? Get real.

[Rageaholic]

No because drunk driving is actually serious and doesn't need a huge list of rules to enforce. That mother didn't show any signs of controlling behavior. She reacted to her teenager doing something really fucking stupid.

It was clear that the Iphone mother only gave the Iphone as a "gift" as something to control him with.

[smileyeagle1021]

It was clear that the Iphone mother only gave the Iphone as a "gift" as something to control him with.

Especially since the rules were such that several were contradictory, that to obey one you'd have to disobey another. Ayn Rand once said you cannot control an innocent man, it is only through guilt that you can control someone, and this mother knows that.

[Greenday]

Especially since the rules were such that several were contradictory, that to obey one you'd have to disobey another.

Dear God in Heaven, no there were not. Saying that you have to answer your phone if it's your parents but never to answer the phone while at the movies is NOT contradictory. His parents will never call during a movie unless he lies to his parents about where he is.

[bex1218]

Back on point:

I am shocked when I was 17 my parents didn't take my car away. But they mostly did it cause they needed me to have one. I stopped drinking and driving after the first time. How nerve racking that was. I wonder how many times the kid did it before the ticket.

[smileyeagle1021]

His parents will never call during a movie unless he lies to his parents about where he is.

Because, you know, there could never be a misunderstanding like telling his parents that he is getting out of the movie at 3:30 because, well it started at 1:30 and is 2 hours long, and completely forgets about the 20 minutes of commercials and his parents call at 3:31 and get pissed because he "lied" to them about when he was getting out of the movie and where he was going to be and for violating the not answering the phone rule.
A sensible rule would be, do not ignore our calls, if you can't answer, call back as soon as you are able, if you know in advance you won't be available, let us know. But, as I said, the way the rules were presented seemed a lot like trying to make them as difficult as possible to follow because guilt is a very powerful tool for controlling people.

Personal opinions aside for either the phone or the truck, when it comes down to it, parents are legally responsible for the actions of their child. In Wyoming there is a zero tolerance policy for DUI, this kid's license was suspended for a minimum of 90 days under Wyoming's laws and potentially, depending on how high his BAC was, will be required to have an interlock device on any car he drives for an additional 6 months after that. If his parents allow him to violate those rules, they will be held liable as well. Given those circumstances, I can't say I blame them for saying (assuming it was his parents who bought the car in the first place), we don't want to take the chance that you are going to screw up again and have us on the hook for it (the minimum fine for a second offense is $250 and can go up to $750, and also has a minimum jail time of 7 days, which would be for the kid and not the parents, but I know from unfortunate first hand experience, will have consequences on the parents as well).

[Rapscallion]

So, how much did the vehicle go for?

Rapscallion

[Sarah Valentine]

It would've been kinda funny if she did it like that urban legend about the sports car for $1.00.

[protege]

It wouldn't surprise me if she actually got $1.00 for it. Most 20-year-old Ford pickups look like they've been through WWIII

[Panacea]

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.

Ownership and registration laws probably vary by state. Usually, minors can own real property, but it is controlled by their legal parent or guardian until they turn 18.

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)

Problem I have with this is, the kid knew it was ILLEGAL to drive drunk when he got his license. Mom doesn't need to make a separate rule, the kid has to follow the law. In some states, the vehicle is seized, so the kid got off lucky IMHO.

So, how much did the vehicle go for?

Rapscallion

Mom was asking $3500 OBO. Article doesn't say if she got it.

I think Mom is very sensible. She reminds me of my mother dealing with my brother after he drove home drunk from a party as a teen. She went to his room, held out her hand, and he dropped in the keys.

Brother: How long?
Our Mom: This time, two weeks. Next time, forever.

She meant it. He never did it again.

[Greenday]

Ownership and registration laws probably vary by state. Usually, minors can own real property, but it is controlled by their legal parent or guardian until they turn 18.

In New Jersey, you have to be 18 to register AND own a car. I paid for my first car myself and everything, but it all had to go under my mom's name.

[s_stabeler]

Problem I have with this is, the kid knew it was ILLEGAL to drive drunk when he got his license. Mom doesn't need to make a separate rule, the kid has to follow the law. In some states, the vehicle is seized, so the kid got off lucky IMHO.

Mom shouldn't need to make a seperate rule. Some kids do, however, need the extra motivation.

on the other hand, I don't think the kid got off lucky, since I doubt it makes much difference to the kid if it's his mother who takes the ruck or the state. He's still down 1 truck.

[Panacea]

on the other hand, I don't think the kid got off lucky, since I doubt it makes much difference to the kid if it's his mother who takes the ruck or the state. He's still down 1 truck.

He could be doing jail time.

[s_stabeler]

a) if it's a first offence, you rarely get jail time. IIRC, it's usually a fine and/or community service. This is probably the kid's first offence.
b) I doubt the kid would be thinking about the possibility of being jailed. he'd care more about losing his truck.