Is it illegal for an adult to contact a minor if the minor&#39;s parents have instructed the adult not to do so? I am 17 yrs old and my parents have told my boyfriend and his parents not to contact me (and have told me not to contact them) because they disapprove and believe their family is causing me harm mentally and trying to turn me against my parents. However, my parents are misinterpreting and assume said family has malicious intentions, which is not true (their intentions are innocent and they genuinely intend to do no harm). They told his parents not to contact me, but I reached out to the parents and let them know that I would be willing to have a phone call with them so they could check in on how I was doing, which we have done once. Is it illegal for them to contact me if my parents told them not to, even though I initiated the contact and they were really just talking to me because they care to see how I am doing? Thanks.
Your parents have authority over you, and not other people. The courts, however, have authority over everyone, so your parents could petition the courts to order either the parents or the boyfriend to not contact you until you are 18. The courts would probably grant the petition, if the judge feels that it is in your best interest (based on the totality of facts). If a no-contact order is issued, then contact would be illegal.
Sometimes running away is a juvenile offense, but it is not an offense for which an adult aged eighteen or over would be arrested or punished. An adult would not be returned home.
Citizens Advice in the UK has some great advice pages on dealing with harassment, but your options are limited - you can't actually stop someone from contacting you, but you can make their actions have consequences. Try contacting the police, who may speak to the individual in question and that may be enough to stop the harassment, or you can try applying for an injunction against the person in court (commonly called a restraining order). If the person breaches the injunction, then it can become a criminal matter.
Adults are bound to contracts with minors The technical term is that a contract with a minor is that it is voidable by the minor unless it is subject to the exemptions - a contract for necessities or a contract of benefit to the minor (e.g. a reasonable mobile phone contract). Until the minor chooses to void it, it is binding on everyone involved. They can do this anytime before they reach majority or within a reasonable time after that providing the contract is not complete. That means, for one and done transactions, the contract cannot effectively be voided because the contract is complete - think of a child buying an ice cream, riding a bus or going to the movies. If it is voided, the minor is obliged to return whatever consideration they received and that is still in their possession. So, for the mobile phone contract, if it included a handset, they must return that providing they still have it.
NJ Rev Stat §9:6-1 may be the source of the rumor (since it was in the news), but that law prohibits "the habitual use by the parent or by a person having the custody and control of a child, in the hearing of such child, of profane, indecent or obscene language". The NJ Supreme Court recently declined a First Amendment argument for overturning the law. Otherwise, a candidate is disorderly contact, NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-2(b), A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present. N.J. v. Burkett somewhat tests this law, though the specific acts (which were found to be puerile yet legal) are not adequately described to test the limit on this ban on profanity (as a subcase of coarse language). The statute still stands, but seems not to have been otherwise prosecuted.
Police officers can lie to you He asked to search your car. He’s allowed to do this. You said no. You’re allowed to do this. He lied to you when he said he would get the K9 to search the car - this would not be legal. But he’s allowed to tell you lies. You made an admission of criminal activity. He now has probable cause to search. He legally searched, confirmed your admission and booked you. Seems legit to me.
There does seem to be a meme in the UAE of people threatening legal action for negative reviews, as a form of defamation. The police will simply tell them that this is not a crime, go hire a lawyer if you want to sue them. If you block them, perhaps they don't have any other way to contact you (seems that was the point of blocking them), which means that you cannot receive their offer &quot;If you pay us AED 1,000 we will not sue you&quot;, which could be a problem if they win their court case. Still, it is perfectly legal to ignore or block them, up to the point that you are actually served with legal papers. When they actually sue you, &quot;blocking&quot; is irrelevant, they will hire a process server to hand you the legal papers that command you to appear in court.
In Texas, sex offenses are defined in Texas Penal Code § 21.01, et seq., and rape and kindred offenses are defined as sexual assault § 22.011 and aggravated sexual assault § 22.021. None of those laws prohibit the conduct described (assuming adults who are not in a teacher-student relationship with full mental capacity), nor do they prohibit the video as long as there is no intent or threat to disclose it. Of course, not recognizing that it is the same person both times in an in person meeting when they have sex is highly implausible.