Dad Arrested for Taking Daughter’s Phone as Punishment.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

a 15 year old doesn't have the same property rights as an adult.

Here's the part that bothers me, from OP:

After just a two-day trial — in which Jackson’s daughter, now 15, testified — Dallas County Criminal Court Judge Lisa Green ordered the jury to find Jackson not guilty, citing insufficient evidence to prove a theft charge.

If there isn't enough evidence, why did the DA proceed with charges? And since when does a judge ORDER a jury to find a defendant guilty or not guilty? Why have a jury trial?

The whole thing is rotten. Wait, what, 4-5 months and arrest the father at 2:00am? Over a stupid phone???? Especially since it was an obvious domestic dispute.

If the world only had such petty problems to deal with. It does sound like the father and mother both had problems compromising and coming up with an amicable solution together. The Father should have turned the phone over to the mother immediately after confiscating it from his daughter. The mother should never have gotten the police involved.

a reply to: StoutBroux
The Judge obviously knew the policemen and DA overstepped there bounds.

Gooedness knows how much this rubbish cost the tax payer.


You can’t smack kids, you can’t take their phones. What’s next? Grounding false imprisonment? Stopping allowance slavery?

Someone needs a kick in the China dolls and it aint the father.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Good on him for not settling for a plea bargain. He meant to return the phone,it was temporarily confiscated as discipline/punishment. Talk about wasting the court's time with nonsense. Methinks the whole thing had more to do with bad blood between a divorced couple because the mother must have been perfectly aware that the phone Would be returned after a certain time.

a reply to: crazyewok

They are trying to tell parents now that grounding them impedes their social development, and I think it was Minnesota that actually tried to make raising your voice at your kids illegal. I think if the nanny state is going to raise our kids, they should be paying us child support so we can start stocking up on supplies for when western civilization collapses from lack of simple parenting skills.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I hate to say it, and yeah, it is tongue in cheek...but Eugenics does have at least some merit.

The father is well out of that particular family circle...he had a lucky escape, and i don't mean about the phone.

The cops involved, who were presumably doing the mother's cop boyfriend a favour, ought to be charged with wasting Police time and Public money.

Only in America.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Which is why the father can take it. The phone was the child's, not the mother's, as it was given as a gift. This gives the father every right to take it.

originally posted by: StoutBroux
Here's the part that bothers me, from OP:

After just a two-day trial — in which Jackson’s daughter, now 15, testified — Dallas County Criminal Court Judge Lisa Green ordered the jury to find Jackson not guilty, citing insufficient evidence to prove a theft charge.

If there isn't enough evidence, why did the DA proceed with charges? And since when does a judge ORDER a jury to find a defendant guilty or not guilty? Why have a jury trial?

The whole thing is rotten. Wait, what, 4-5 months and arrest the father at 2:00am? Over a stupid phone???? Especially since it was an obvious domestic dispute.

If the world only had such petty problems to deal with. It does sound like the father and mother both had problems compromising and coming up with an amicable solution together. The Father should have turned the phone over to the mother immediately after confiscating it from his daughter. The mother should never have gotten the police involved.

The Judge saw what was going on and put a stop to it, as he should have.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I agree completely. The phone wasn't his. He took it. That's theft. He should have thought a little more about how to punish his daughter and remain within the law.

And this is why people like you, the people who voted your post and the mother are taking us all down the tubes with you.
No, it was not theft. The Dad was trying to teach their daughter a lesson and the idiot mother should have realized that.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: gladtobehere

If the mother paid for the phone, then the mother owns the phone ...not the daughter, not the father. If, at the mother's request, the father did not return the phone to the legal owner of the phone (the mother), then that is absolutely theft.

However, I do agree with the father's actions and am glad to see that he took this to trial and got the case tossed.

No, she bought the phone and "gave" it to her daughter.
It was the Daughter's phone

originally posted by: acackohfcc

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: gladtobehere

If the mother paid for the phone, then the mother owns the phone ...not the daughter, not the father. If, at the mother's request, the father did not return the phone to the legal owner of the phone (the mother), then that is absolutely theft.

However, I do agree with the father's actions and am glad to see that he took this to trial and got the case tossed.

No, she bought the phone and "gave" it to her daughter.
It was the Daughter's phone

Who's name is on the contract?

a reply to: crazyewok

Careful what you "wish" for, we don't want to give these personalities any more ideas! I'm saying that only half jokingly..

Of course, if/when it gets that far, we will have plenty that will justify it. The programming has worked extraordinarily well.

Its ridiculous, really, that those planting these types of perspectives can't see a better way to go about it. Both for themselves and society.

A programmed, predictable response to triggers (or stimuli in general) could actually yield a better world for everyone, rather than.. "this." And at this point, I am relatively convinced the way forward requires utilizing methods that individuals have become dependent upon. At least until a superior foundation is laid for growth and self-sufficiency rather than the ages old divide and conquer.

Until that happens, initiated by either the 'conquerors' or the 'divided,' I think we might as well get used to this sort of thing as a baseline.. With the expectation of more egregious actions occurring with increasing frequency.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I agree completely. The phone wasn't his. He took it. That's theft. He should have thought a little more about how to punish his daughter and remain within the law.

Yes, absolutely!

Not always easy with split parenting - - but, laws are laws. He took property that was not his.

I know about staying in touch with a teenager via her phone. I'd be pissed too. The dad had no right. Basically he cut off contact between the mother and daughter.

Really! The father has equal rights in the upbringing of his child. If said phone posed a problem, he should have dealt with it like he did - with the exception of the phone itself. He should have gave whatever phone to whomever wanted it - excluding his daughter. People always assume that a child's phone is the ONLY connection between a mother and daughter...while most divorce documents will state otherwise. A house phone is legit. No laws requiring a mobile device for a kid...unless it is in the divorce documents.

I would have mailed it back to her mother. But if the phone is in the name of the child - then he had all right to do as he saw fit. No kid owns property until they are of legal age (dependent on state).

originally posted by: ChuckNasty

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I agree completely. The phone wasn't his. He took it. That's theft. He should have thought a little more about how to punish his daughter and remain within the law.

Yes, absolutely!

Not always easy with split parenting - - but, laws are laws. He took property that was not his.

I know about staying in touch with a teenager via her phone. I'd be pissed too. The dad had no right. Basically he cut off contact between the mother and daughter.

Really! The father has equal rights in the upbringing of his child. If said phone posed a problem, he should have dealt with it like he did - with the exception of the phone itself.

NO, he doesn't. I doubt he has custody.

He can try to work with the mom, but he can not steal her property.

My granddaughter's father is verbally abusive. Her phone is her lifeline if things get too bad.

There is no way in Hell we would allow him to take her phone. By doing so, he cuts communication to her custodial parent. That is never OK.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ChuckNasty

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I agree completely. The phone wasn't his. He took it. That's theft. He should have thought a little more about how to punish his daughter and remain within the law.

Yes, absolutely!

Not always easy with split parenting - - but, laws are laws. He took property that was not his.

I know about staying in touch with a teenager via her phone. I'd be pissed too. The dad had no right. Basically he cut off contact between the mother and daughter.

Really! The father has equal rights in the upbringing of his child. If said phone posed a problem, he should have dealt with it like he did - with the exception of the phone itself.

NO, he doesn't. I doubt he has custody.

He can try to work with the mom, but he can not steal her property.

My granddaughter's father is verbally abusive. Her phone is her lifeline if things get too bad.

There is no way in Hell we would allow him to take her phone. By doing so, he cuts communication to her custodial parent. That is never OK.

Ummm no custody?

Taking a phone away from anyone who wants to phone 911, for example, is a felony in most states.

Taking a phone away from a tardy/unrulely/disrepectful teen is another thing.

but from your response, your kid, an assumption, has many many issues. You seem to be projecting your own horrible experience with this one.

Good luck to you and your own.

originally posted by: ChuckNasty

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ChuckNasty

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I agree completely. The phone wasn't his. He took it. That's theft. He should have thought a little more about how to punish his daughter and remain within the law.

Yes, absolutely!

Not always easy with split parenting - - but, laws are laws. He took property that was not his.

I know about staying in touch with a teenager via her phone. I'd be pissed too. The dad had no right. Basically he cut off contact between the mother and daughter.

Really! The father has equal rights in the upbringing of his child. If said phone posed a problem, he should have dealt with it like he did - with the exception of the phone itself.

NO, he doesn't. I doubt he has custody.

He can try to work with the mom, but he can not steal her property.

My granddaughter's father is verbally abusive. Her phone is her lifeline if things get too bad.

There is no way in Hell we would allow him to take her phone. By doing so, he cuts communication to her custodial parent. That is never OK.

Ummm no custody?

Taking a phone away from anyone who wants to phone 911, for example, is a felony in most states.

Taking a phone away from a tardy/unrulely/disrepectful teen is another thing.

but from your response, your kid, an assumption, has many many issues. You seem to be projecting your own horrible experience with this one.

Good luck to you and your own.

The phone is the property of the mother.

You want to ignore law.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ChuckNasty

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ChuckNasty

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I agree completely. The phone wasn't his. He took it. That's theft. He should have thought a little more about how to punish his daughter and remain within the law.

Yes, absolutely!

Not always easy with split parenting - - but, laws are laws. He took property that was not his.

I know about staying in touch with a teenager via her phone. I'd be pissed too. The dad had no right. Basically he cut off contact between the mother and daughter.

Really! The father has equal rights in the upbringing of his child. If said phone posed a problem, he should have dealt with it like he did - with the exception of the phone itself.

NO, he doesn't. I doubt he has custody.

He can try to work with the mom, but he can not steal her property.

My granddaughter's father is verbally abusive. Her phone is her lifeline if things get too bad.

There is no way in Hell we would allow him to take her phone. By doing so, he cuts communication to her custodial parent. That is never OK.

Ummm no custody?

Taking a phone away from anyone who wants to phone 911, for example, is a felony in most states.

Taking a phone away from a tardy/unrulely/disrepectful teen is another thing.

but from your response, your kid, an assumption, has many many issues. You seem to be projecting your own horrible experience with this one.

Good luck to you and your own.

The phone is the property of the mother.

You want to ignore law.

You want to ignore the rights of a parent....

Good luck in your struggles. Thank you.

He wasn't arrested for taking his daughter's phone. He was probably initially arrested for being belligerent with police and refusing to follow their instructions.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: acackohfcc

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: gladtobehere

If the mother paid for the phone, then the mother owns the phone ...not the daughter, not the father. If, at the mother's request, the father did not return the phone to the legal owner of the phone (the mother), then that is absolutely theft.

However, I do agree with the father's actions and am glad to see that he took this to trial and got the case tossed.

No, she bought the phone and "gave" it to her daughter.
It was the Daughter's phone

Who's name is on the contract?

A minor owns nothing.