moral dilema, should i borrow off my 5year old?

chattychappy

ElkyElky wrote: »

Who cares whether its moral or not. He's certainly not going to miss the money any time soon, so enjoy the money and make sure you don't get back in to this situation again. As long as it's repaid by the time he is 18 (I assume he'll be getting it when he's 18??) that's all that matters.

As for telling him when he's all grown up.. b***ocks. Do you think he'll care in the slightest that his mother took a few hundred from his money pot many years ago to help her get out of a bad situation then later repaid it? If it's repaid plus interest, there will be nothing to tell him and he certainly wouldn't be affected by it.

Love it! Perhaps it will run in the family. When he grows old he'll borrow a tenner out of his mum's handbag on the basis she'll never know and he'll pay it back.

Since I'm in a minority of 1 I won't argue the moral point any further.

paulmcerlean wrote: »

Breach of trust my !!!!.

Well... the law is an !!!! sometimes.

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

Not sure of the legal aspects of using "your son's" money in this way.

Even with the intention to repay it is "against" the law - ie with potential civil and criminal liability. But the OP would likely "get away with it".

I agree with the earlier comment implying that the risk is greater with monies originally received from others.

ElkyElky

chattychappy wrote: »

Love it! Perhaps it will run in the family. When he grows old he'll borrow a tenner out of his mum's handbag on the basis she'll never know and he'll pay it back.

Well if she doesn't tell him, she can never be accused of teaching her son that borrowing money without asking is alright.

chattychappy

ElkyElky wrote: »

Well if she doesn't tell him, she can never be accused of teaching her son that borrowing money without asking is alright.

Even better!

ElkyElky

chattychappy wrote: »

Even better!

I wouldn't go as far as to say it is against the law. Murder is against the law, borrowing money from the pot you plan to give to your child on their 18th birthday then repaying it is nothing.

She is borrowing her own money.

hermum

The boy isn't going to be given the money until he's 18. That gives the OP 13 years if needed to repay it, with interest.
Mum using that money could mean that if it relieves her of the stress that being in debt can bring, then she'll be able to be better a Mum, rather than worrying herself sick over the repayments each month.
The boy will get more than if it was just in his account.
A win win situation really, except for the credit card company who won't get as much interest from the OP. I'm sure that they'll cope though.

chattychappy

ElkyElky wrote: »

I wouldn't go as far as to say it is against the law. Murder is against the law, borrowing money from the pot you plan to give to your child on their 18th birthday then repaying it is nothing.

She is borrowing her own money.

It wasn't clear to me from the OP. I agree - "borrowing money from the pot you PLAN to give to your child..." - no problem there. It's an "imperfect gift", so, as you say, that's borrowing her own money.

But she said: "My son (5yrs old) has £1500 in his savings account, ...
Do you think it would be wrong of me to take the cash out of my sons account"

That suggests to me that the money is already her son's or already for his benefit.

But then she does say "I was keeping it all to just hand over to him when he hits 18yrs."

If by "keeping it" she meant it was just a plan that one day she would give the money to her son, then no problem. But if she "disposed" of her money, ie there was a distinct point where she decided I'm putting this money into this account for my son and it is now for his benefit, then there is a (self-declared) trust. The case is stronger where others made gifts to her son which she is holding.

Trust law is based on holding stuff for other people's benefit. Once a trust is set up, then that's it. It's quite possible to have a trust where you hold property for someone but don't plan to hand it over until someone reaches 18. It doesn't mean it's yours until then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_v_Constance is a case which shows how simple the setting up a trust can be - no formalities required. But for borrowing from the trust I can't remember a specific case off hand. I think there were some charity cases where collectors had borrowed money out of collection buckets. It was never disputed that they intended to return the money.

But even the courts get their knickers in a twist over whether something is an "imperfect gift" (ie they are holding something they intend to give) - or a "self-declared trust" (ie they are holding something for someone's benefit) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Choithram_International_SA_v_Pagarani (a lot more money involved)

Degenerate

chattychappy wrote: »

If by "keeping it" she meant it was just a plan that one day she would give the money to her son, then no problem. But if she "disposed" of her money, ie there was a distinct point where she decided I'm putting this money into this account for my son and it is now for his benefit, then there is a (self-declared) trust. The case is stronger where others made gifts to her son which she is holding.

You're over-analysing the legal implications. Unless there are very significant sums involved, then the separation of children's assets is effectively a matter of parental discretion. £1500 could quite rapidly be used up simply by the parent billing their child for food, clothing, and a share of housing costs. Parents only have a duty to ensure these things are provided for their children, not that they get them for free - so if the child has their own money, they can pay their own way.

Curt.

chattychappy wrote: »

Since I'm in a minority of 1 I won't argue the moral point any further.

Nah the issue seems resolved anyway so we may as well go ahead and wax philosophical on the morality of it all - i'll even side with you in this case if you like, save you becomming public enemy number 1 and all..;)

Soubrette

doodledoodle24 wrote: »

Hi all,
Im in such a dilema, a have a vanquis cc, balance standing at £1300 and paying on average between £46-£50 per month in interest.

My son (5yrs old) has £1500 in his savings account, i am currently repaying vanquis at £100 per month on DD, but obviously only 50 is coming off the actual debt!

Do you think it would be wrong of me to take the cash out of my sons account, pay off the CC and set up the £100 per month back into his account?

His money is not used for anything, i think he is too young to know about it, i was keeping it all to just hand over to him when he hits 18yrs.

I feel so awful for even considering it, but i am paying so much in interest!

Any answers would be helpful.

xx

What are you like with money? If you have made serious inroads into your debts and do not intend to get into any more debts than the rational decision is to borrow your sons money and repay it back.

However, I have a friend who has borrowed her children's nest egg when they were young and now they are 14 and 16 is in no position to pay it back, in fact she is deeper in debt than ever.

So I would say it depends on an honest self appraisal of how you are with money now and in the future.

Sou

CapJ

Degenerate wrote: »

You're over-analysing the legal implications. Unless there are very significant sums involved, then the separation of children's assets is effectively a matter of parental discretion. £1500 could quite rapidly be used up simply by the parent billing their child for food, clothing, and a share of housing costs. Parents only have a duty to ensure these things are provided for their children, not that they get them for free - so if the child has their own money, they can pay their own way.

What a terrible thing to say. And it is also wrong. Parents can't charge their children for things like food, clothing and housing costs.

I'm sorry I completely disagree with most posters on this thread. OP - This money is quite clearly set aside for your son. It includes money given as gifts to him, not for you to clear your debts. It isn't your money. It's your son's money. It isn't your money. You are holding it in trust for your son. It isn't your money.

As for paying it back. I doubt you planned to run up huge debts, but it happened. What if something happens in 3 months and you need the £100 for something else? What if you do manage to save the money but you have an emergency and need to borrow the £1500 again - no problems because you will pay it back right? WRONG!

And if you want to see into the future to get an idea for what your son will think of you when he finds out then read this thread:

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2223251