phone call from a prison

[djones]

A little bit of background is in order first. My oldest son is in prison for having relations with a girl that was 16 when he turned 18. Long story short one of his friends asked him if he could write to his sister (my daughter) and with this guy being in for what he thought was car theft he gave him our address so he could have a pen pal. We had no idea that this was going on until we found a letter from this guy then we find out he called our house quite a few times running up a 257.00 phone bill as well. My daughter didn’t tell us about the calls because she thought she would get in trouble. We called the prison and found out that he was in for sexual battery on a minor. We informed the prison she was a minor and that we wanted all contact to stop and prosecute him if possible. We also called the phone company and informed them of what was going on with the phone bill and I didn’t think we should pay for a prisoner calling my minor daughter. They didn’t think so either and that was 11 months ago and we never had an interruption in phone service so we thought end of story.

Yesterday I get a bill from a debt collector for the 257.00 that I thought was already handled. My question is should I have to pay for phone calls that were against the law (the guy was not to have contact with minor girls). I fell like I am paying for him to commit a crime.

[charlesa6]

There is not much you can do with it; this debt can be verified that your daughter received those calls. It don’t matter whether this guy is a pedophilia or not, what does matter you daughter talk to this guy, and your daughter liable for accepting those calls from convict.

[Shoonra]

I had a slightly different experience when my elderly dad (now deceased) discovered his tenant/assistant was phoning Peru(!!) on a more than daily basis and running up a monthly phone bill in the high hundreds - and stealing the phone bill when it arrived in the mail (this crook was, first, simply using the extension of my father's phone, then had the phone company give him a separate number that was still on my father's bill). This crookedness was discovered only when the phone company pulled the plug on all phone service to the house.

The phone company absolutely refused to budge, nor even to give us a discount or compromise on the bill, even though the former tenant was now wanted by the cops. They played all kinds of games; their only "office" for negotiating these things turned out to be a bare room with a phone connecting them to some cretin a thousand miles away; the cretin refused to talk to anyone except my father, who at age 82 could hardly hear and couldn't keep up his end of the conversation. End result, we could sue but in the meantime my father's house would have no phone service, so we knuckled under. The phone company don't need no stinkin' badges.

So you have my sympathies but no useful advice.

---------
Oh, as a PS, there was a fuss some years ago when prisons started figuring out ways to screw inmates and their loved ones through the phone service, and the phone company was eager to participate (and maybe even concocted this scheme). Instead of the former payphone system, which was more or less what we're all accustomed to (keeping in mind that prison phones are monitored), the inmate phones all became Collect Call, and all at a Special rate something like ten times (or more) of the normal phone rate. Someone in the prison system was raking it in, but prisoners' families, and lawyers, were taking a beating - and they weren't the ones who committed a crime. Of course, a great many families had to start refusing to accept calls from a loved one who was locked away (the phone company graciously offered to block calls from the prison), and since a good many of prisoners and their friends and relations on the outside are less than literate, their contact with any sort of sympathetic person came to a crushing end.
The prison collect calls start with an automatic recording that This is collect call from Such-and-Such prison, if you accept the charges you cannot transfer or forward this call, etc., presumably some additional phone company security contrivance that they use to justify their brutal billing rates. But, as with normal collect calls, if someone at your house accepts, you are responsible for paying.

[David Merrill]

I was not aware my cell phone had a three-way calling feature. Apparently I pressed SEND instead of END and the phone was awaiting me to dial up the third party for hundreds of minutes. Interestingly I even received a phone call during that time. So it was an obvious technical engineering flaw - it should have timed out after 90 seconds in my opinion.

I noted the length of the call and that it had been subtracted from the minutes/plan so I called and was assured that though they could not remove the call from the bill, to simply call after I had the bill and they would adjust the overuse charge. John made a note.

When the time came (and I had gone overuse on the promise to correct things, meaning if I were watching my usage, I could have stayed on plan) the fellow on the other end just told me it was tough. He had nothing showing any problem; that I had made the call and that was tough. I wanted his supervisor and he would not transfer me so we hung up. I called back and got a helpful woman who noticed John's note and cheerfully made the adjustment.

Do you have statements during that year? The statements show the correction, right? You say you thought the calls were adjusted?

We also called the phone company and informed them of what was going on with the phone bill and I didn’t think we should pay for a prisoner calling my minor daughter. They didn’t think so either and that was 11 months ago and we never had an interruption in phone service so we thought end of story.

I suppose you might mean nobody looks at the phone bill or that continuous service is considered forgiveness...

Consider those 11 months of bills statements saying the collect calls had been forgiven. Contact the phone company and ask why they sold the forgiven debt to a collector? Also notify the collector the charges had been forgiven by showing the Statement from the phone company saying so.

And if you find somebody at the phone company who will not help you on your side, that the customer is always right, get their information and speak with their supervisor. If necessary, hang up and call back. If you find somebody sympathetic, you may get this matter cleared up within an hour or two.

Judge Judy thought she was clever by getting a Cad 19 year-old boyfriend to say he did not think a minor with a crush, giving him money whenever he needed it, deserved any of it back. Technically the girl deserved no money back because they were misguided gifts. Then she hit him with her being a minor unable to contract and hit him for the full amount owed. Shaky but good Judge Judy drama. That means fathers owe all those birthday and Father's Day gifts back to their children? Well maybe all gifts from children to adults who are not parents anyway...

The point being that you are responsible for your daughter's phone behavior. Actually anybody's on your phone line. You are responsible for control over the use of the phone. So if you have no bills showing the phone company forgave the charges, call and get customer service to recover that forgiveness and call off the collector. If it never happened, you just figured since they agreed the charge was unjust, but there it was for 11 months on the bills and you say, Because they did not disconnect the line, that means it was actually forgiven... then you need to understand how contracts work a little better.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[hooded50]

Originally Posted by charlesa6

There is not much you can do with it; this debt can be verified that your daughter received those calls. It don’t matter whether this guy is a pedophilia or not, what does matter you daughter talk to this guy, and your daughter liable for accepting those calls from convict.

I don't quite agree with this statement. Your minor daughter CANNOT be held liable for accepting those calls because she is a minor. Under current law, a minor does not have the legal capacity to contract.

Also, the phone was in YOUR name, and YOU did not authorize the calls. YOU did not authorize your minor daugter to use the phone in such a manner, and if you had known it was going on, you would certainly have stepped in to stop it.

You can contact your local prosecuting attorney, as well as send a letter to your phone company and the debt collector stating what the particulars of the situation are, and ask why they are condoning the behaviour of a sexual predator contacting your minor daughter.

Also, I'd imagine that if you contacted the FCC, they would more than likely step in.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by hooded50

I don't quite agree with this statement. Your minor daughter CANNOT be held liable for accepting those calls because she is a minor. Under current law, a minor does not have the legal capacity to contract.

Also, the phone was in YOUR name, and YOU did not authorize the calls. YOU did not authorize your minor daugter to use the phone in such a manner, and if you had known it was going on, you would certainly have stepped in to stop it.

You can contact your local prosecuting attorney, as well as send a letter to your phone company and the debt collector stating what the particulars of the situation are, and ask why they are condoning the behaviour of a sexual predator contacting your minor daughter.

Also, I'd imagine that if you contacted the FCC, they would more than likely step in.

I am of the opinion these agencies are simply too lazy to bother. And you overlook the idea that a parent is responsible for the daughter's decision to accept the call.

Breaking it down; I think it all depends on the bills during the 11 months after the debt was forgiven. Logically, if the phone company said the debt was forgiven and it showed up on the next bill, the phoneline owner should have called and requested the adjustment be made (again).

That is the question I wish to remain on the thread... Were those collect charges on the subsequent bills during those 11 months?

I think that djones was trying to hold the phone company to a sympathetic comment and ignoring what what was in front of him in black and white on the bills. Did the forgiveness the phone company expressed over the phone ever get adjusted on the bill? Djones' comment suggests that he considered interruption of service the critical factor when he has the monthly statements in his hand.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by hooded50

I don't quite agree with this statement. Your minor daughter CANNOT be held liable for accepting those calls because she is a minor. Under current law, a minor does not have the legal capacity to contract.

Also, the phone was in YOUR name, and YOU did not authorize the calls. YOU did not authorize your minor daugter to use the phone in such a manner, and if you had known it was going on, you would certainly have stepped in to stop it.

You can contact your local prosecuting attorney, as well as send a letter to your phone company and the debt collector stating what the particulars of the situation are, and ask why they are condoning the behaviour of a sexual predator contacting your minor daughter.

Also, I'd imagine that if you contacted the FCC, they would more than likely step in.

I am of the opinion these agencies are simply too lazy to bother.* And you overlook the idea that a parent is responsible for the daughter's decision to accept the call.

Breaking it down; I think it all depends on the bills during the 11 months after the debt was forgiven. Logically, if the phone company said the debt was forgiven and it showed up on the next bill, the phoneline owner should have called and requested the adjustment be made (again).

That is the question I wish to remain on the thread... Were those collect charges on the subsequent bills during those 11 months?

I think that the djones was trying to hold the phone company to a sympathetic comment and ignoring what what was in front of him in black and white on the bills. Did the forgiveness the phone company expressed over the phone ever get adjusted on the bill?



Regards,

David Merrill.


* The other night, I think Nightline showed a woman who left her phone/computer in a cab. A young woman adopted it and started using it and actually abusing the owner's identity a bit. It was easy to track down the new owner and even offer reward money for its return but the owner and her boyfriend had to launch quite an internet prosecution about the "finder's keepers" theft before law enforcement stepped in and made the new owner give the phone back.

In other words, for the tactic you describe to function, you have to work it into a political agenda.

[charlesa6]

Maybe this can shed some light to the poster. Expecially pay more attention to pg. 3.

Victims Resource Center page No. 3 Summer 1994
Parental Civil Liability for Crimes
Committed by Their Children
Victims of juvenile crime often
overlook the possibility of a civil action
against the juvenile or the juvenile's
parents. Crime victims (and some family
members of homicide victims) have the
right to bring a civil suit against the
perpetrator, regardless of whether the
perpetrator was an adult or a minor. As
a practical matter, however, a minor
generally has a limited ability to pay for
the victim's damages. Under such
circumstances, a civil suit against the
minor probably serves no useful purpose.
A victim of juvenile crime may also
look to the parents of the minor for
compensation. A parent who has
"custody and control" of his or her minor
child is liable for" any act of willful
misconduct" by the minor that results in
injury or death to another person or
damage to another person's property.
(Civil Code section 1714.1.) Parents'
liability under Section 1714.1 is limited to
$10,000 for each such act of willful
misconduct. In cases involving injury to
a person, liability is limited to medical,
dental and hospital expenses. (Civil
Code, section 1714.1, subd. (a).) In
cases involving defacement of property,
liability may include court costs and
attorney's fees incurred by the victim in
addition to the costs of the property
damage. (Civil Code, section 1714.1,
subd. (b).) There does not seem to be
any rational basis for authorizing the
recovery of court costs and attorney's fees
for property damage but not for injury or
death.
A juvenile crime involving the
discharge of firearms may increase
parental liability. A parent with custody
and control of a minor is liable for
damages if the parent permitted the minor
to have the firearm or left the firearm in
a place accessible to the minor. (Civil
Code, section 1714.3.) Parents' liability
under Section 1714.3 is limited to
$30,000 for each person killed or injured
as a result of "anyone occurrence" of the
discharge of a firearm by the minor up to
a maximum of $60,000 for the incident.
Thus, if three or more people are killed
as a result of the incident, all of the
victims' families could not recover the
$30,000 in damages available under
Section 1714.3, and the amount of
recovery would have to be reduced for at
least some of the victims' families.
A parent who has custody and control of
his or her minor child is liable for willful
misconduct by the minor that constitutes
petty theft from a merchant or library.
The parent is liable to the merchant or
library for the fair market value of any
merchandise stolen if it is not recovered
in a marketable condition. In addition,
the parent is liable for damages of not
less than $50 and not more than $500,
plus the court costs (not including
attorney's fees) to the victim for bringing
the civil suit. (Penal Code, § 490.5,
subd. (b).)
A "parent or guardian" of a minor is
liable for the minor's willful misconduct
that results in death, injury, or property
damages to any student, staff member or
volunteer performing duties for a public
or private school. Liability for property
damages includes any damage done to the
school itself. (Education Code, section
48904, subd. (a).) A parent or guardian's
maximum liability for such damages is
$10,000. In addition, if a school district
or private school offers a reward for
information leading to the apprehensionof
the person responsible for damaging
school property, the parent or guardian of
the minor responsible for the damage is
liable for the amount of any such reward,
up to a maximum of $10,000.
Education Code section 48904 is more
expansive than the other three statutory
provisions. Under Section 48904, a
parent or guardian is liable for the
minor's willful misconduct simply by
being the parent or guardian. On the
other hand, Civil Code sections 1714.1
and 1714.3 and Penal Code section 490.5
require that the parent have "custody and
control" of the minor to be found liable
for the minor's willful misconduct.
"Custody and control" of the minor has
been interpreted to mean that the parent
has both legal and physical custody of the
minor. (See Robertson V. Wentz (1986)
187 Cal.App.3d 1281.) Under the
"custody and control" standard, a parent
who does not live with his or her minor
child would probably not be liable for
damages arising from the minor's willful
misconduct. Conversely, that same
parent would be liable for his or her
child's willful misconduct that results in
the damages specified in Education Code
section 48904.
The parental liability imposed by Civil
Code sections 1714.1 and 1714.3 and
Penal Code section 490.5 is in addition to
other possible liabilities imposed by law.
Thus, a parent may be liable for a
minor's willful misconduct under more
than one statute. For example, a minor
who injures another person with a firearm
could create a parental liability under
Civil Code sections 1714.1 and 1714.3.
In addition to the liability imposed by
statute, parents may be liable for the
willful misconduct of a minor
child under legal principles that have
developed from appellate court decisions.
Suchlegal principles are typically referred
to as the "common law."
In the absence of a statute, a parent is
generally not liable for the willful
misconduct of his or her minor child.

Continued on the next post

[charlesa6]

(See Hagerty V. Powers (1885) 66 Cal.
368.) However, courts have recognized
an exception to this rule where the parent
knows or has reason to know that it is
necessary to control the child and fails to
exercise reasonable care to do so.
(Singer V. Marx (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d
637.) A parent who is aware of a child's
specific past misconduct but fails to take
steps to correct the misconduct or warn
others of the child's dangerous behavior
may be liable for the child's misconduct.
Continued Page 4
Victims Resource Center
- - n- - n ----
Page No.4 Summer 1994
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Assembly Bill 1850 (Nolan), Chapter 995. AmendsSections836 and 853.6 of the Penal Code, relating to
protective orders.
Allows peace officers to make a warrantless arrest of any violator of a domestic violence restraining order. PASSED.
Assembly Bill 224 (Speier), Chapter 1229. AmendsSections6240and 6256of the Family Code, and amends
Section 13700of the Penal Code, relating to domesticviolence.
Under existing law, a narrow category of peace officers can issue emergency protective orders which expire in two
court days. This bill allows more categories of peace officers to issue emergency protective orders, and specifies that
such orders shall expire in five court days, or no later than seven calendar days. PASSED.
Assembly Bill 2884 (Quackenbush), currently in the Senate Committeeon Judiciary.
Provides that a victim shall be entitled to be present and seated at all criminal proceedings at which the defendant, the
prosecuting attorney, and the general public are entitled to be present, except where the court finds that, in the interest
of justice, the victim should be excluded. In Committee.
Assembly Bill 935 (Rainey), Chapter 560. Amends Sections 1764.2, 1767, and 1761.1 of, and to repeal Sections
1767.8 and 1767.9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to youth.
Clarifies rights of specified persons to attend and make statements at parole hearings of wards under California Youth
Authority. It allows a victim or next of kin to designate a representative who may exercise the victim's right to appear
at the hearing and express the victim's views. PASSED.
Assembly Bill 3691 (Solis),currently in the Senate Committeeon Judiciary.
Requires the parent or guardian of the minor to pay the restitution fine and restitution to the victim if a court finds that
the minor is unable to pay the fine. In Committee.
Senate Bill 1330 (Calderon), currently in the AssemblyCommitteeon Public Safety.
Requires that proceeds from the sale of anything, sold or transferred, that is enhanced by the notoriety gained from the
commission of a felony for which the felon was convicted, be subject to a five-year involuntary trust from which the
victim of the crime may recover. Expands provisions to apply to the proceeds from the sale of anything sold or
transferred, including any right, the value of which is enhanced by the notoriety gained from the commission of the
crime. In Committee.
- D. Sherman
PARENTAL CIVIL. .. continued
(Ellis v. D'Angelo (1953) 116
Cal.App.2d 310.) In Ellis v. D'Angelo a
babysitter who was injured by a child
sued the parents of the child. The child's
mother was aware that the child habitually
attacked other people but did not warn the
babysitter of the child's violent
tendencies. The court held that the
babysitter was entitled to recover from the
mother for the damages caused by the
child.
Under the common law, the legal
standard used to determine a parent's
liability is much stricter than the standard
set forth in the four statutes discussed
above. The parent must have custody and
control of the child as well as a specific
knowledge of the child's past misconduct
in order to incur liability for the child's
misconduct. Although the common law
standard is stricter, the potential recovery
for the victim is much greater. Under the
common law, the victim's monetary

The rest on the next post

[charlesa6]

recovery will be based on his or her
damages and will not be subject to a
statutory limit.
- M. Aucutt and R. Ruderman
Victims Resource Center Page No.5 Summer 1994
California's Anti-Stalking Legislation
In 1989, actress Rebecca Schaeffer was
murdered by an obsessed fan. That same
year, five Orange County women were
killed within a month and a half of each
other by former husbands or boyfriends. In
each case, the victims had voiced concern or
fear to family, friends, or police that their
lives were in danger. In 1990, the
California legislature responded to these
types of incidents by enacting the nation's
first criminal anti-stalking law. Over 30
states now have anti-stalking laws similar to
California's statute. Connecticut recently
adopted a statute after publicity surrounding
the stalking of late night talk show host
David Letterman. Although media coverage
of stalking behavior often focuses on
celebrities, Detective Greg Boles of the Los
Angeles Police Department's Threat
Management Unit estimates that over 70%
of the stalking cases they handle involve
ordinary citizens. Stalking cases have also
arisen in the work place and are most
frequent in conjunction with domestic
violence cases.
California's statute, found in section
646.9 of the Penal Code, defines stalking as
willful, malicious, and repeated following or
harassment which presents a credible threat
with the intent to place the victim in
reasonable fear for his or her safety or the
safety of his or her immediate family.
Stalking behavior is expressed by a wide
range of conduct, including phone calls,
continual following, sending letters or gifts,
destruction of property or entering a victim's
house when no one is home and moving
things around or going through personal
belongings.
Prior to the enactment of §646.9, criminal
action against the offender was often limited
unless property damage or personal injury
occurred. Consequently, the harassing
behavior often escalated to a severe and
extreme magnitude, including death, prior to
effective preventive action being taken.
Section 646.9 now allows law enforcement
to take action and file criminal charges as a
direct result of the proscribed behavior,
despite the fact that the victim has not been
physically injured. Kate Killeen, supervisor
for the Sacramento District Attorney's
Domestic Violence Unit, believes
that the new laws are excellent in
allowing the District Attorney's
office to take action prior to the
occurrence of any physical assault
as well as in providing a better
safety net for the victim.
The statute addresses stalking in
terms of following or harassment.
Harassment is defined within
§646.9 as a "knowing and willful
course of conduct directed at a
specific person which seriously
alarms, annoys, torments, or
terrorizes the person, and which
serves no legitimate purpose. " In
addition, the conduct must cause a
reasonable person to suffer
emotional distress and must occur
repeatedly. This repeated" course
of conduct" must consist of a
pattern or "series of acts over a
period of time, however short,
evidencing a continuity of
purpose." In any case, the
proscribed conduct must occur
more than once. Detective Boles
encourages victims to document all
behavior which may constitute
stalking and believes that in order
to make the anti-stalking statute
effective and protect potential
victims from more dangerousharm,
"the police need to know and be
aware that the conduct is going
on. " Stalking victims are also
encouraged to obtain restraining
orders, both to serve as a deterrent
and as documentation of the
behavior.
Since 1990, the anti-stalking
statute has undergone several
amendments. Most significantly,
these changes have affected the
classification of stalking as either a
misdemeanor or felony. Earlier
versions defined stalking primarily
as a misdemeanor; however, if the
behavior was in violation of a
restraining order or occurred within
seven years of an earlier stalking
conviction, the offense could have
been classified either as a felony or