Slashdot Mirror


Son Sues Mother Over Facebook Posts

Most kids hate having their parents join in on a discussion on Facebook, but one 16-year-old in Arkansas hates it so much he has filed suit against his mother, charging her with harassment. From the article: "An Arkadelphia mother is charged with harassment for making entries on her son's Facebook page. Denise New's 16-year-old son filed charges against her last month and requested a no-contact order after he claims she posted slanderous entries about him on the social networking site. New says she was just trying to monitor what he was posting." Seems like he could just unfriend her.

26 of 428 comments (clear)

  1. The real question by ari_j · · Score: 5, Funny

    The real question I have is how someone from Arkadelphia learned to get on Facebook in the first place, much less two of them.

    1. Re:The real question by WCguru42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The place I see "racism" is in the very idea of the assumption that anyone from the south deserves to be denigrated and disrespected automatically

      First, that assumption would be correct. Second, the word you're looking for is douche-baggery, not racism.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
  2. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by quantumplacet · · Score: 4, Informative

    RTFA, his grandparents have custodial rights, not his mother.

  3. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bah, missed that part. Stupid job, distracting me from what's important.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  4. NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions! by Millennium · · Score: 5, Informative

    So at first I felt like the kid was overreacting. Parents (or those in loco parentis, which I'll get to in a moment) have a legitimate need-to-know when it comes to what's going on in their kids' lives.

    However, according to the article, this kid's mom doesn't have custody. The grandparents do, and so this doesn't seem to be due to divorce or other "ordinary" situations that would cause a parent to lose custody of their own kids. In other words, something is seriously messed up here, and so while the fact that this is a mother/son thing is good for grabbing ratings, it's not really all that relevant to the matter at hand.

    Moral of the story: RTFA.

  5. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 4, Funny

    so you're point is moot.

    I don't think that word means what you think it means.

  6. from the article; she cracked his pw by random+coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to the article; she isn't his costodian, and she didn't just post on his wall; she stole his password and posted to his wall as him. So identity theft much? Computer crime much?

    The fact that a Judge granted the restraining order against a women on behalf of a 16yo male(son) also should be a good indication of the situation.

  7. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    But I was thinking the other day with reference to this in general.

    Do parents "really" have any power over their kids today? I mean, if they whack them...the kid can call child services on them. Heck, if kid really wants to fsck their parents, just claim something sexual....and the parent is then pretty much branded for life, even if they did nothing wrong but try to discipline their child.

    A child that realizes this power and is willing to wield it....what could a parent really do?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  8. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

    I mean, if they whack them...the kid can call child services on them.

    That doesn't mean child services will do anything about it. It's legal here in New York State (hardly a bastion of cultural conservatism) to hit your kids:

    35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:

    1. A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one or an incompetent person, and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one for a special purpose, may use physical force, but not deadly physical force, upon such person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such person.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  9. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yup, thats the danger of working from home. Have to double check that I have pants on before I go out to lunch.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  10. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Skye16 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think you underestimate how much you have to beat a kid to get child services on you. Not even after my mother had my 12 year old brother drive her home from the bar (because she was drunk), then beat him so badly he was in the hospital for 3 days would the courts award my father custody. It took all of that plus a few failed drug tests before she finally gave up custody of him. Who knows what the courts would have decided, but it takes a hell of a lot to get your child taken away from you. A whole hell of a lot.

  11. Stupid woman by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Half of the comments on that article are by Ms. New herself. Obviously she hasn't hired a lawyer yet, because the first thing a lawyer would do is tell her to STFU... she isn't making herself look like any more fit a parent by showing her ass in public in all these postings... and they're probably admissible in court as evidence that she is continuing to harass and slander her son!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  12. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by bhamlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    And look at you now. You don't even have a name...

  13. Re:Alternatives by Davey+McDave · · Score: 4, Informative

    A case of RTFA in this case, a careless untruthful comment on the summary.

    "In a document from the Clark County prosecutor, he alleges she hacked his account, changed his password and posted things that involve slander about his personal life."

    The posts weren't from her account on his statuses or whatever, it sounds like she actually went onto HIS account and posted slanderous things in his name (or at least, that is what is being accused). Sounds a little more serious now.

    --
    I've got the spirit, lose the feeling.
  14. Re:No contact. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or do you think that all the less worthwhile people should just die already to make more room for the rest of us?

    Yes. And I work for a human services agency. Come work here and see what some people are capable of and then get back to me about how "very few people are truly worthless". I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that would put her drug habit and boyfriend ahead of her kids. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that prostituted her 11 year old out to repay a drug debt. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that uses lame ass excuses like "I can't afford gas" (particularly when my agency GIVES THEM GAS MONEY) to avoid having to see their kids.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  15. Re:No contact. by SmackTheIgnorant · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You said, "Either the kid's worthless or the mom is" Very few people are truly worthless, and if they are, we as a society need to figure out if we let them down in some way.

    Society isn't to blame for a person's mistakes, or a person's actions. Some successful people have risen from being poor and destitute, others have had life handed to them on a silver platter and threw it all away. We make choices, our own choices, and no one is to blame but us for the choices we make. Society isn't responsible for why this teen feels the urge to sue his mother - society has simply shown that it's possible... the individual is making it his own choice to sue. Others have felt the urge to communicate with their parents and work out a resolution to stop them from doing these things - was he not given the ability to talk with her? To Unfriend her? To mark his profile as private? These are HIS choices - not ours.

    Very few people are held in a position where they HAVE to smoke, drink, do drugs, steal - maybe peer pressure pushes them to doing things once, but it's up to them to either stop or continue doing so. The choice is ultimately theirs. The choice this individual made, in this instance for this issue, was to sue.

    Don't blame "Society" for his mistakes... "We" didn't let him down. He did it all by himself.

  16. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well if ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et cetera are censoring the news by ignoring these stories, then you have to turn to alternate sources.

    Do you have any proof that the story you referred to is being censored by those news outlets? Do you have any citation to any public records to show that this incident actually happened? I've read the story both on infowars and prisonplanet and neither of them have any details. They make vague claims about a "couple in texas" that had their kid taken away. Considering these websites long track record of posting bullshit and phoney stories, you'd have to be a nutjob to believe it.

  17. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Umm, left out the part about the illegal drugs being found in their residence and the fact that their anti-government views were but ONE of the claims levied against them.

    Mind you, I don't think marijuana should be illegal but it rather changes your story when you discover that the parents were arrested on drug charges before CPS got involved. You shouldn't have left that detail out.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  18. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by uberjack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If a child's willing to go that far, it's probably a safe bet that their family's already pretty fucked up.

  19. Inquiring minds want to know... by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Funny

    If he is emancipated from his mom, are they still considered brother and sister?

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  20. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Funny

    That we require pants out in public? Yes.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  21. Re:No contact. by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't blame "Society" for his mistakes... "We" didn't let him down. He did it all by himself.

    Nature versus nurture, my friend.

    It is easy to blame them when they're despicable people. But your emotional satisfaction doesn't obviate the observation that different situations can lead to different results under otherwise similar circumstances.

  22. Re:No contact. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

    Stop being so selfish, and let someone called to this line of work have your position.

    I didn't say I was direct care. I'm the IT person at my particular agency. You couldn't pay me enough to work in a direct care role. If I did work in such a role I would have been arrested a long time ago for beating the shit out of some "parent" that abused one of my clients.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  23. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by donaggie03 · · Score: 5, Funny

    there welcome to there new life

    Really? That's just sad.

    --
    Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
  24. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It takes a hell of a lot to get your child taken away from you if you are female. If the situation were reversed, the father would have lost custody in an instant.

  25. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by WCguru42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It takes a hell of a lot to get your child taken away from you if you are female. If the situation were reversed, the father would have lost custody in an instant.

    plus alimony, plus child support, plus jail time, plus...

    --
    "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau