Quick Question

[JakeR]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

Ok, now i have read up on some other forum posts, and i have noticed that some of the members here like to be harsh. I'm going to say that im just hear doing some research on some stuff that ive found, and it would be nice to have some nice responces. Now my question is about this supposed "loophole", i saw on an earlier post from 2005 that there is a legal loophole that says that the police do not, without a court order, or crime being committed have return a "child" that is of the age of 17 to the parent. Now i have googled this same information, and some people say its not true, others say its there. I just want to know if this "loophole" is still there if it ever was...

Thanks in advanced.

P.S. im not some snobby teenager that hates my life and parents because things dont go my way... so please dont interpret this as that. thanks.

 

[stealth2]

P.S. im not some snobby teenager that hates my life and parents because things dont go my way... so please dont interpret this as that. thanks.

Okay, we won't.

 

[JakeR]

Anybody at all.... ?

 

[Antigone*]

Anybody at all.... ?

We don't do homework. And we don't answer questions when ridiculous conditions have been placed.

 

[CdwJava]

I am not going to look up this "loophole" but as I recall it has to do with the way the law was written in TX and one or two other states that allows the police to take into custody minors UNDER 17. Thus, the exclusionary language inadvertently left out any legal means by which the police can forcibly return a 17-year-old home if they are a runaway in a couple of states.

I seem to recall, however, that TX was crafting a new statute that would close this loophole ... I do not know the status of the legislation or even if it was introduced.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

There's no loophole that is just the law in Texas. The applicable law is family code 51.(b)(3) which states that it is an act of delinquent conduct for a "child" to leave their parent's home for a substantial amount of time or with the intent to not return. But child is defined in the family code (for purposes of juvenile offenses) under 51.02(2)(A) as someone under the age of 17. The reason an officer can forcibly take custody of a child who has run away is because an officer can detain a juvenile for any offense considered delinquent conduct. But once you turn 17 you are no longer a child and no longer subject to prosecution by a juvenile court, and there is no other "runaway" law that applies to adults at any age.

There is one exception if the 17-18 year old is on probation for some juvenile offense and then runs away. That act is a violation of probation and additionally is considered an act of delinquent conduct itself because being on probation as a juvenile extends the juvenile court's jurisdiction over you until the age of 18 and therefore you are still legally considered a "child" and are still criminally responsible under section 51.02(2)(A).

Now if a 17-18 ran away the officer could not force them to return home but the parents still have a duty to support that child (food, clothing, shelter, other specific necessities.) If the parent is unable to do so, whether it is the parent's fault or the child's fault for running away, then the State can step in the same as with any other child not adequately being supervised. I honestly don't know how far that could go and whether a court order could be obtained to force the child to do anything. That's not an area of the law that I am familiar with.

I am fairly well certain there is no effort in the works to change the definition of child in the juvenile code or otherwise make the act of running away apply to persons who are older than 17. As stated before there really is no loophole to close. The only changes in this regard have occurred over the years as the age of "child" has increased in the juvenile code, but that hasn't happened in a long time and I doubt it will happen again anytime soon, if ever.

 

[CdwJava]

That law has long seemed silly to me because it imposes a duty upon a parent yet makes it impossible for them to control or supervise the 17 year old. It would seem that if they do not wish to compel a 17 year old to return home they should make that the age of majority in the state - or at least remove the civil responsibility for the child when that child is voluntarily out of their parents' control. It simply does not seem fair to hold a parent responsible for a child they are unable to legally control.

 

[lovemygirls2]

That law has long seemed silly to me because it imposes a duty upon a parent yet makes it impossible for them to control or supervise the 17 year old. It would seem that if they do not wish to compel a 17 year old to return home they should make that the age of majority in the state - or at least remove the civil responsibility for the child when that child is voluntarily out of their parents' control. It simply does not seem fair to hold a parent responsible for a child they are unable to legally control.

That is exactly the worst problem with the law in this matter. Unfortunately, myself and other parents that I know have been stuck with being unable to get any assistance to force our children to come home after they turn 17. We are still considered responsible for those same children, over whom we have NO CONTROL. Another problem with this is that the children have become wise to the fact that they can do this, so when they turn 17 if they get mad at the parent(s) they just leave...

Anyway, this really had no place here since it's just a rant, but I am seeing it fresh again today with another close friend and his 17 year old daughter.

 

[CdwJava]

It is a frustration you have that is shared by many. On these forums and others I have seen it repeated time and time again and it seems to be absolutely unfair. To hold a parent responsible for a child that the law prohibits him or her from exercising control over is a disaster.

And there was a movement afoot to change the law, but apparently it never got enacted ... I can't imagine why. It seems common sense to me.

 

[CdwJava]

It is a frustration you have that is shared by many. On these forums and others I have seen it repeated time and time again and it seems to be absolutely unfair. To hold a parent responsible for a child that the law prohibits him or her from exercising control over is a disaster.

And there was a movement afoot to change the law, but apparently it never got enacted ... I can't imagine why. It seems common sense to me. Currently, as long as the child is not engaging in delinquent conduct, he or she can remain out of the home. I guess that's one good thing as it means the child must be minding his or her P's and Q's to some degree, anyway.

 

[cbg]

So what's wrong with the parents themselves hauling the delinquent's ass back home? Just because the cops can't/won't do it doesn't mean that the parents can't.

 

[Zigner]

So what's wrong with the parents themselves hauling the delinquent's ass back home? Just because the cops can't/won't do it doesn't mean that the parents can't.

Because then you start getting in to charges of child abuse or domestic violence. Seriously, if the 17 year old "child" puts up a fight, what is the parent to do in this situation?

 

[lovemygirls2]

Really? Ever tried to physically force a 17 year old to do anything? Not happening once they have their minds made up, guaranteed.

 

[lovemygirls2]

Oh, and assuming you get them home by force... They will just leave again. It really is a no win situation without the law to back you up.