Chapter 5

Plan D involved a visit to Melody Hartwig, who was a family law attorney I knew. I'd done a couple of surveillance jobs for her and we had chatted about the law on an informal basis. I gave her my discounted fee both times. She worked in a rough part of town and was a do-gooder. I knew she didn't gouge her clients, but I also knew that whatever I charged her would be passed on to the client. I have a little do-gooder in me, too, though I try hard to control that impulse.

Melody welcomed me and then laughed when I told her what my newest job entailed. She stopped laughing when I told her some of how things had gone thus far. It was easier telling her what a wimp I had been, since another woman already knew. Odd how that can be, huh? Then I asked her if she could give me some advice on how to get a judge to order Madeline to turn over the skates.

"That's complicated," she said frowning.

"What you mean is that it would take too much time to do for free," I suggested.

"No, I mean I may NOT be able to answer the question."

"It can't be THAT complicated," I said. "Surely children have property rights."

"Think about it, Bob. Up until about a hundred years ago children WERE property. Their parents had the right to sell them into indentured service and things like that. Children had no rights at all."

"OK," I said. "I get that, but that's all changed. Don't tell me the bleeding heart liberals haven't changed the laws by now."

"SOME of it has changed," she said, ignoring my barb about bleeding heart liberals. She was one and we both knew it. But she also knew I was just using a euphemism. "There's been legislation regarding children, but it's been piecemeal. There's law on what children CAN'T own, but I don't know of anything that says what they CAN own. I'm not sure there's any overreaching law on that particular issue. My guess is that it's still based on custom and common law."

"What do you mean custom?" I said. "That's stupid."

"No it's not," she said. "Parents have wide latitude in what they can give and withhold from their children." I opened my mouth but she held up a finger to stop me. "Parents buy things for their kids, right?" I nodded. "Maybe it's a Christmas present, or a birthday present, or just because the child begs for it. But the fact is that nobody would say that the parent can't then withhold whatever that was if the situation changes. Like for punishment. You get your kid an IPod because he got good grades. Then his grades dip and you take it away from him. No judge is going to say that was a violation of the child's property rights."

"OK," I said. "But this isn't like that. She used the skates for years. When she moved out, she didn't think to take them with her. They're still hers, right?"

"Parents throw old toys away all the time," said Melody. "They sell old toys at garage sales. They donate them to the Salvation Army. Nobody says that's wrong. Imagine what it would be like if a child could bring legal action against a parent for throwing a toy away. It would be madness." She frowned again. "I think you're barking up the wrong tree here."

"You said something about common law," I said.

"Sure. Say a bully at school takes that IPod we were talking about away from your kid. Common law is going to recognize that IPod as being your kid's property, and will view the incident as theft or robbery or whatever. But if the parent takes that IPod, it's not the same thing. The parent can also make an argument for ultimate ownership. The only time I'd say it wouldn't work that way was if the kid earns the money and goes out and buys the IPod herself. And it would have to be with her own money - not allowance - but money she got independent of the parents. See what I mean by how complicated it can get?"

Now I was the one frowning.

"OK, but when she moved out she was an adult. She took her clothes with her, and other things. Wouldn't the skates be in the same category?"

"Maybe if she had taken them then," said Melody. "But if she left them there, then her mother could say she abandoned them, or something like that. And technically, I'm not sure an adult child could really make the argument that the parent even owed them any clothing, once they decide to leave the nest. I mean, most parents wouldn't stop their offspring from taking clothing, but I don't know of any law that says they HAVE to let them take anything at all. There must be some kind of bad blood between them for this to be happening."

"Yeah, you could say that," I said.

"Then that makes it a civil matter," said Melody. "Between two adults. I suspect the fact that they're related doesn't really make that much difference."

"Can you make a call or two and see how the wind might blow if I approached a judge?"

"Sure," she said. "But even that won't mean much, because any lawyer or judge I talk to will base his opinion on Illinois law. Didn't you say this woman lives in Ohio?"