Is emancipation an option for me to get out of an abusive home?
Full Question:
Answer:
The following is a potion of a leading KY case dealing with emancipation:
" What constitutes an emancipation is a question of law, but
whether an emancipation
Page 88
has occurred in a particular case is a question of fact. 67
C.J.S. Parent and Child § 90b, page 817.
The testimony as to the facts on the matter of emancipation
are as set out hereinbefore and they are undisputed; that is,
no one else testified on the subject on the trial or by
deposition except the three parties, Mary E. Carricato and
Frank Carricato as the parents and Mildred Louise Carricato as
the child.
Emancipation of a minor child is not presumed and the burden
of proof is on the one alleging same to establish it by clear,
cogent and convincing evidence either direct or circumstantial.
67 C.J.S. Parent and Child § 90, page 817.
In determining whether emancipation has occurred, the
intention of the parent governs and the intention may be
expressed either in writing or orally or it may be implied, and
it is the intention of the parent and not the child that
controls. 67 C.J.S. Parent and Child § 88b, page 812.
In Nichols v. Harvey & Hancock et al. (1924), 206 Ky. 112,
266 S.W. 870, it was quoted with approval as follows:
"Emancipation in turn may be classified as
express emancipation and implied emancipation.
Express emancipation results when the parent and
child voluntarily agree that the child, able to
take care of himself, may go out from his home and
make his own living, receive his own wages and
spend them as he pleases. An implied emancipation
grows out of the parent's acquiescence in his
child's working for others, receiving his pay
therefor and spending same as he pleases, thereby
impliedly consenting to same."
In the case of Rounds Bros. v. McDaniel (1909), 133 Ky. 669,
118 S.W. 956, the above principle of law was approved and it
was also stated therein as follows:
"The doctrine of 'emancipation', * * * is a
recognition of the right of the parent to
relinquish control and authority over his child to
whose custody and service he is entitled; or to
surrender, if he so elects and desires, to his
minor son, who is capable of making his own
living, the right to do so, and the privilege of
receiving the wages that he earns. * * * In other
words, when a child has been emancipated, he
occupies the same legal relation towards the
parent as if he has arrived at full age."
In the case of Thompson v. Thompson (1954), Ky.,
264 S.W.2d 667, it is set out that a parent can maintain a tort action
against a minor child who has been emancipated. In the Thompson
case the only witness testifying was the mother who sought the
damages and the court held in effect that the judge did not
have to believe her testimony as she was an interested witness
and she was the only witness.
In the case at bar, the daughter was twenty years and ten
months of age and not seventeen years; her father testified,
whereas in the Thompson case the father did not testify.
Actually the intention of the father controls as to an express
emancipation, and the father testified that she was emancipated
at the time of the collision and this was corroborated by his
wife, stating that there was a definite understanding that the
daughter would be on her own after graduation, and this was
corroborated by the daughter who stated she was emancipated.
There is no one to say that there was not an express
emancipation. It is difficult to conceive of a more complete
implied emancipation than in this case and about all that could
be lacking is that the young lady did not leave home and
continued to eat her meals there, but nowhere does any opinion
hold that it is required that they must leave home and not eat
at home.
We conclude that the sole cause of the collision was the
negligence of Mildred Louise Carricato and that the trial
Page 89
court correctly gave summary judgment for William E. Lange and
William E. Lange, Jr., and we also conclude that since the
automobile was actually owned by Mildred Louise Carricato, used
by her and maintained and controlled by her that the same was
not maintained by Frank Carricato for family purposes and that
the trial court correctly gave summary judgment for Frank
Carricato.
We further conclude that the trial court was in error in
awarding a summary judgment for Mildred Louise Carricato since
she was emancipated, and that part of the judgment should be
reversed."
Please see the information at the following links:
http://lawdigest.uslegal.com/family-laws/emancipation/7340/