"The Supreme Court ruled that Christensen still had the benefit of owning the vehicle, even if he didn't have access to it, and so was still responsible."

I disagree with the ruling and the basis for it. I can't think of any benefit of owning a vehicle if you don't have access to it. :?

Hate to equate kids to cars.... but how many times do we see NCP's who's kids are withheld from them for YEARS are still liable for supporting them? No contact, no parental input, nothing...

Not saying I'm against CS, because I'm not...

WOW!!!! That is insane!! I can't believe what this country has come to...

This is exactly why the car that I drive (and paid for) is in my name and my husband's car is in his name. My old car is our spare and is in my name but DH only drives it if he has to (his car in the shop, for example). All the cars are titled TOD (transfer on death) to the other person.

I purposely put Mr. Guilty Daddy on his OWN car insurance despite the higher cost as he is prone to road rage and has had several incidents that he's surprisingly gotten away with.

After the last incident where he punched the hood of an out of state BMW for "tailgating" him in his WORK truck and dented the crap out of it, I immediately took him off my auto policy. It's only a matter of time.