If you are on probation, it is highly unlikely that you can become emancipated. (You can't seem to stay out of trouble, and that is really critical when it comes to granting an emancipation request.)
Ok, maybe not rent per se. But perhaps the cost of maintaining his probation? I do believe that some jurisdictions do charge the parents for the services of the probation officer. Reimbursement for bail and attorney fees incurred for this child's offenses?
Why? My parents charged me rent starting at age 16. It was a small fee but my parents were attempting to help me learn how to budget my money. Trust me, the lesson was learned.
That's what was in my mind, as well.
I just didn't understand the problem. I've heard some parents did that then saved the money and gave it back to the child as a bonus at the age of emancipation. Some parents (like mine) felt the need to teach the child. And yet other children go out and get jobs on their own to help a struggling parent.
I understand the intent and your position on it. My only point is: a parent is legally required to provide the necessities of life for their child. Granted, whether dad calls it rent or a fine for being stupid and getting caught committing a crime is merely semantics but I think dad would be questioned less if he called it a fine. If not, next thing you know dad is going to be charging OP for meals
. Yes, that's a good point, but I'm not sure the IRS would have a leg to stand on unless there is written documentation of the transfer.I understand the intent and your position on it. My only point is: a parent is legally required to provide the necessities of life for their child. Granted, whether dad calls it rent or a fine for being stupid and getting caught committing a crime is merely semantics but I think dad would be questioned less if he called it a fine. If not, next thing you know dad is going to be charging OP for meals
I'm curious how the money is being taken out of the check. I would think dad is the payee as the guardian of his minor son but OP makes it sound so official.
The other thing dad needs to be careful with: if he charges rent, it is income to him. OP could be a jerk about it and make a call to the IRS about it. I would love to see the ensuing conversation between dad and the IRS:
IRS; well mr OPdad, I see you collected $3240 in rent last year but you have not included that as income on your 1040. Care to explain?
mr. OPdad: it wasn't really rent. I was trying to teach my son a little responsibility. In fact, I actually put the money in a separate account and intended on giving it to OPson when he is off probation and moves out. It was simply a means to force him to save some money.
IRS: well, that's all good and well and we understand and even respect your intent but the fact is; you did consider it rent which is taxable income. So, now you owe us $642 in taxes plus $1000 penalty fee. You good with that?
from the IRS, it would appear that survivor's benefits paid to the child are considered income for the child:
there is a benefit that is payable to the caretaker of a child but from what I read, that ceases when the child is 16 so I believe that is not the benefit in question here.
You're right. I guess I was speculating. While it is true that some benefits are paid directly to the child, I'm wondering why it was set up that way. It's up to the remaining parent to provide for the child, so I'm curious what the logic was for sending the money to the child rather than the parent.
I was under the impression that survivor's benefits for children were paid to their parent as their "rep payee" until they are 18 (or 19 if still in high school). My understanding is that the benefits that end at age 16, are the additional benefits that are paid to the caretaker of the child.