My son's paycheck

[kaizen]

Thanks, Quincy. That's exactly what I was looking for. I knew I'd seen it somewhere, yet when I searched yesterday I didn't have the correct words plugged into google.

I found Act 293 of 1968 that answers my question.

As far as the conversation of control, I'm not sure what place it has on this legal board. That being said, I'll say that I doubt anyone has control over a 17 year old. I can't put the spackle in his hand and make him apply it. I can't make him sand, paint, etc.

So I do what I do to control what I can. I start taking away things until he's made good on his promise. Yes, he did have control (shh...don't tell him, but I had veto power at any time) when we made the deal over how and when the repairs would be made. We give our kids control at age/stage appropriate levels all the time. Once he made that deal under his own control, I do what I can do to enforce it.

So again to OG's comment specifically which started this whole non-relevant discussion (You get the paycheck you think you control your son.), nope. Even when I get the paycheck, I don't control son. He can, if he chooses, come to me ready to do the work. Once it's done, I'll give him the balance of his pay. The things I can control... my reactions, my boundaries and giving him his money when the job is done or holding on to if it never gets done. Actually, I know I don't control him sooo much that I think it's entirely likely he'll never do the repair and just not mention his money. And I won't either - doesn't matter to me. His choice. He is welcome to his money at (almost) any time.

 

[kaizen]

But even when it is, that is a matter between the parent and the child, NOT the parent and the employer.

Actually cbg, the law says:
The earnings of an employed unemancipated minor may be paid directly to him unless his parents or his guardian give notice to the employer that future payments should be made to the parents or guardian.

 

[Proserpina]

Actually cbg, the law says:
The earnings of an employed unemancipated minor may be paid directly to him unless his parents or his guardian give notice to the employer that future payments should be made to the parents or guardian.

Yeap, that's correct.

It doesn't do much for the parent-child relationship, but it is correct nonetheless.

 

[justalayman]

Actually cbg, the law says:
The earnings of an employed unemancipated minor may be paid directly to him unless his parents or his guardian give notice to the employer that future payments should be made to the parents or guardian.

I think you are putting more into what you read than what is there.

First, not seeing anything controlling as far as the employer is concerned. It says they payment can be paid to the minor unless the parents give notice the future payments SHOULD (and in the legal world, there is a HUGE difference between should and must) be made to the parents or guardian.

That doesn't say it has to be made to the parent nor does it say the employer is required to release the paycheck to the parent/guardian.



Since the federal and state laws require an employer to pay an employee, I'm thinking a smart and conscientious employer is going to hand the paycheck to the kid.

Until you have some case law to support your position, I don't think the law is clear enough to stand on it as you are. I know if I were his employer there would be no way I would give you his paycheck without approval from the kid or a courts order.

 

[justalayman]

I really haven't researched this for Michigan yet (and I suppose I could, if necessary) but I do know offhand that, under many states' laws, parents are entitled to the earnings of their minor child(ren). The employment income of a child legally belongs to the parents and the parent can have the employer direct the funds to the parent.

there is a difference between a parent's rights to the earnings of their minor child and an employers obligation to render payment to a specific party. The money is the parents; the paycheck is the kids.


Gee, I wonder how mom is going to cash a paycheck in her son's name.

 

[cbg]

And if that's from 1968 I wouldn't be all that certain that it's still good law.

 

[quincy]

And if that's from 1968 I wouldn't be all that certain that it's still good law.

Here is a link to the law: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(olt51j45union1dosxqj31q45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-Act-293-of-1968

The popular name for the law is Emancipation of Minors Act. The sections that seem to apply to kaizen's question are sections 722.2 and 722.5.

Other states have similar laws (for example, see California's Family Code section 7500 et seq).

I don't quite understand the reason for the law, or what is required of a parent or an employer, and I could find no pertinent case law with a brief look. Perhaps I can spend time later and see what I can find.

 

[cbg]

I strongly suspect that if our poster attempts to enforce that with Junior's employer, Junior will not have a job any more and there will be no paycheck for her to take. And I still want to know how she plans to endorse Junior's paycheck?

 

[Proserpina]

I strongly suspect that if our poster attempts to enforce that with Junior's employer, Junior will not have a job any more and there will be no paycheck for her to take. And I still want to know how she plans to endorse Junior's paycheck?

Who is our other Michigan expert? I know gam is, but it's not gam I'm thinking of.

There is (or at least was) a regular who would have agreed with kaizen based upon their experience.

Naturally - and I'm blaming this on the SuperBowl - I can't for the life of me remember who it was.

 

[davew128]

Please do not tell me what I think.

I don't NEED to tell you what you think. It's painfully obvious that what you think is a whole number between -1 and 1.

 

[quincy]

I strongly suspect that if our poster attempts to enforce that with Junior's employer, Junior will not have a job any more and there will be no paycheck for her to take. And I still want to know how she plans to endorse Junior's paycheck?

A direct deposit into a checking account is possible (in fact, many employers are now going paperless and prefer the direct deposits). The checking account could potentially be opened in both the child/employee and parent's names. I am not sure that this is a situation where an employer would (or could) take action against the child, because the law allows for a parent to have control over the earnings. The child, however, might want to quit the job, defeating kaizen's attempts to gain access to her son's money - there would be no money for her to gain access to.

Apparently the reasons for the laws in the states that have them is to give parent control over money that may otherwise be misspent by a child who cannot manage money on his/her own, and/or so that a parent can use the minor's earnings to assist with the costs of supporting the child (as opposed to having the child use the money earned for "toys").

I have not, as a note, read all of kaizen's postings to this forum.

Proserpina, is it Tinkerbelle who you are thinking of? I think she used to live in Michigan.