Do I have the right to enter into someone house without permission if my child is in there? Here's the situation Main persons: my daughter Maria, 16 years old my daughter's friend Mario, over 18 years old My daughter was asked by her friend Mario to hang out at someone's house. At 1:00 am, while I and her oldest brother (20 years old) were already resting, someone knocked on my door and said that Mario (already drunk) was getting my daughter to hangout at someone's house. So I woke up her oldest brother to go into that house to get his sister. When we arrived at the house, while we were knocking we heard a noise of singing and like partying, but it suddenly stopped when they heard us. My son looked into the window and saw his sister, he felt angry and without thinking, he jumped through the window to get in, he opened the door for me and let me in. When we were inside the house, we found people were already gone except for Mario and my daughter. Mario faked sleeping, while my daughter was sitting next to him. So my son woke up Mario and said "If I saw you there, outside, I'm gonna punch the hell your face". By the way, the parents of the child (owner of the house where the incident happened) were not at home, and the child of the owner is under age of 16. So, me and my son were trespassing and threatened someone. Do we have the right to do that? When my son says "I'm gonna punch your face when I saw you there" is that considered a threat? PS: This is for educational purpose only, and the situation happened in real life. I'm not in the situation, but due to curiosity I wanted to know what my rights are when this kind of things happen to me, considering I am the father of Maria. UPDATE Thanks for commenting and those who wrote an answer. After reading those comment and answer I realize that I had a mistake for not clarifying my question. WHICH COUNTRY These situation happened in Philippines, but I would like to know if the situation also happen in US and India, so three countries.(US and India is optional, I'm just curious). THE PARTY It wasn't a party after all, it's just a hang out leading by MARIO. THE WINDOW The window is not something like a glass, it's an open window, not lock at all. WHY DO I ASKED THESE QUESTION IF I ALREADY KNOW THAT THE FATHER AND SON IS TRESPASS I think this is about protecting the child. Well, I'm currently not in the age of having a son/daughter or family, but you you know, if I we're in the situation maybe because of wanting to protect my daughter/sister, I will do the same(I'm not sure at all). In addition, I would like to know the possible defense that I can make when this kind of situation happen to me. Anyway, sorry for bad English. So, what I actually want to know is 1: That thing could be consider as a threat? 2: What are the possible defense can I have in these kind of situation?
So, in England and Wales your son assaulted Mario. (From Wikipedia: "Assault is committed if one intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence". I expect Mario expected your son was going to thump him, and that would certainly be unlawful.) You were both trespassers on the property; however it sounds like there was nobody there who could require you to leave, so that probably doesn't matter. Both of these would be true whatever the age of your daughter. Finally, in England and Wales, if you had forced your 16-year old daughter to come with you against her will, you would both have been guilty of kidnapping. (16 is the age at which children become independent in terms of deciding where to go.) She can choose to leave home and live with her boyfriend, and there is nothing you can do to stop her. Edit: The question did not originally mention a jurisdiction. This is an area where the legal situation is likely to be very jurisdiction dependent.
Your wife has no say at all. This is as it should be. He decided who should have the power to make decisions for him and your wife wasn't someone he trusted to do that. Her competent mother does have the power to make decisions for him and should do so. Your wife shouldn't try to interfere with, or involve herself, in decision making related to him. If her mother at some point in the future ceases to be competent herself and can no longer make decisions for her husband, then that will be a problem for her brothers to deal with and not one for your wife to deal with.
If you wrote for example "I had thoughts about taking the axe from my garage and decapitating my neighbour", and your neighbour read that, he would reasonably be worried and contact the police. I would take that as a death threat, and the death threat is by itself illegal. There would be some range where I could claim that you were making a death threat and making excuses to avoid legal responsibility. You can have all the thoughs you like, you can write them into your private diary where nobody can read them, but as soon as you publish it, it becomes "speech" and some speech is illegal.
Standing requirements are different in state and federal courts, and from one state to the next. A random individual would not have standing to object to a stranger's abortion in federal court, and likely not in any state court, under normal circumstances, as they are not injured in any meaningful way by the abortion. I don't know what the normal rules of standing are in Texas, but it is likely perfectly acceptable for the Legislature to wave its wand to grant standing to whomever it wants regarding any violation of the law it sees for. That seems to be what is happening here.
The part about "If I'm the owner of the content, surely I have the right to request its deletion" is the problem. Sure, you have the right to request, but you can't legally compel. You have an agreement with them, according to which you got something, and they got something. You can't then take back the thing that you gave them, which is permission to use. You didn't give them the IP itself, which you still hold. Here's an analogy. You may own a car, and can give a person permission to use the car (let's say "if you bring me back a pound of cheese from the store"). You cannot later change your mind (especially after you've gotten the cheese) a say that you retract that permission and therefore they actually stole your car. When permission to use is given, as long as the conditions for granting permission are satisfied, you can't un-give permission.
Being misunderstood is not a crime. You could concoct scenarios where any number of statements could be a crime if interpreted unfairly. "I went to Georgia last weekend." "I choose to believe you mean the country instead of the state, and you don't have a passport, therefore you admitted that you went to a foreign country illegally!" The police would be free to investigate, but they wouldn't be able to get a warrant or arrest him based just on an ambiguous statement, let alone obtain a conviction. Of course, if the younger sister decided to accuse him, and the older sister decided to lie about having a relationship with him, that puts the statement in a whole other context - but if someone is falsely accusing you and someone else corroborates their story, you're probably in trouble no matter how exactly that came about.
Abandonment is not the legal concept to be concerned with (though the situation might fall within the ambit of a law that uses the word "abandon"), instead the question should be about the legal obligations of a parent. California Family Code is what you want to look at. Though a look at the criminal act of "child abandonment" can be informative: section 271 and following indicate that there are some penalties for abandonment-like actions for children between 14 and 18, but the acts would have to be "willful" and "without lawful excuse" (which probably includes "inability to perform"). In the Family Code, section 7822 states when proceedings can be brought. For example, if (2) The child has been left by both parents or the sole parent in the care and custody of another person for a period of six months without any provision for the child's support, or without communication from the parent or parents, with the intent on the part of the parent or parents to abandon the child. Section 3900-3901 says that the father and mother of a minor child have an equal responsibility to support their child in the manner suitable to the child's circumstances. The duty of support imposed by Section 3900 continues as to an unmarried child who has attained the age of 18 years, is a full-time high school student, and who is not self-supporting, until the time the child completes the 12th grade or attains the age of 19 years, whichever occurs first. Nothing in this section limits a parent's ability to agree to provide additional support or the court's power to inquire whether an agreement to provide additional support has been made. There seems to be a formula for computing expectations of support: but the law won't require a person to pay money that they do not have. The law also will not compel a third party to take in an guest, nor will it compel the mother to become homeless (i.e. order the third party to take in the child or eject the mother). The courts could easily require the mother to take financial responsibility for the child.
Yes, they still have to go through the normal eviction process and must still provide the minimum number of days required by their local jurisdiction in order to vacate the property. By moving in and establishing residency, the tenant and landlord form an implied lease - the tenant does not need anything in writing in order to establish their legal rights to tenancy. More information: No written lease--Am I in trouble?