Replies

While it’s unfortunate what happened, a 14 year old is unable to enter into binding or legal contracts. They are not able to obtain or use credit accounts. They are not able to rent property (this illustrates why nicely) and the parents were unawares.

Mom & Dad need to tell them to get bent. She is not blameless and should be required to make restitution, but that is a different matter.

Here is the issue as I see it. If the parents refuse to press chargers of fraud and identity theft they essentially are saying they authorized the charges. They could either pay the bill, or press charges and have the court order restitution which would also fall on the parents.

"While it’s unfortunate what happened, a 14 year old is unable to enter into binding or legal contracts... Mom & Dad need to tell them to get bent."

The child's legal ability to enter a contract does not necessarily neutralize the parents' legal obligation to make restitution for the damages. If the child was walking down the road and threw a rock through the house's window no contract would have been in play but the parents may still be liable for the damage the child caused.

Under English Common Law parents were held responsible for their child's actions if they knew of the child's actions or predilection to action and themselves took no action to stop or prevent them. If these parents knew their little girl was a wild child and still allowed her to run wild they could easily be on the hook for damages here.

Some people think English Common Law is a bit too old fashioned, so here for the more modern minded - under Ohio law: [link]

"Parents may be liable if the child causes damages or injuries that were reasonably foreseeable, or where the minor was acting as the agent of the parent, or where the parent was negligent in supervising the minor, or in entrusting the minor with the instrument that caused damage or injury. "

Last I heard Vancouver was not in Ohio, but if their laws are similar to Ohio's I see a problem with the kid using the parents' credit card...

You sound like a Democrat. The kid stole money, probably rented the house on her parents account via AirBnb, and you think she should be let off the hook. The owners did nothing wrong; they were defrauded.

She’s a brat, and her parents should be held accountable.

A rental of real estate is not actually “real property” in and of itself, therefore it doesn’t have the level of contractual law of buying real estate.

Kid’s enter into contracts all the time—by buying things (and this is enforceable, through the parents)—and if this kid bought the rent of the house by fraudulently using her parent’s credit card—than yes, the parents—being responsible for their child’s actions—are responsible to pay—both for the rental fee, and damages (specified in the contract).

The situation is more like a kid buying tickets to a concert—by using their parents credit card without permission than it is to someone buying real-estate (which no minor can do). Assuming they attend the concert—or never get a refund for the ticket—the parents are still liable for the bill.

Just because a child uses fraud in using her parents’ credit-card—does not relieve their responsibility over whatever she bought. Now if a stranger had stolen the credit card—that would be a different issue—as credit card companies don’t hold you liable for that.

Now for the last couple of weeks the MSM has been telling me that TEENAGERS are so knowledgeable and wise when it comes to responsibility and safety for the kids, why isn’t she being held personally responsible for her actions?