Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[A father] has no title to the property of the child, nor is the capacity or right of the latter to take property or receive money by grant, gift or otherwise, except as a compensation for services, in any degree qualified or limited during minority. Whatever therefore an infant acquires which does not come to him as a compensation for services rendered, belongs absolutely to him, and his father cannot interpose any claim to it, either as against the child, or as against third persons who claim title or possession from or under the infant. Hoblyn v. Johnson, 55 P.3d 1219, 1228 (Wyo. 2002) (quoting Banks v. Conant, 96 Mass. 497 (1867)).
This case does not apply to the present situation as it states:
Despite the general rule, parents do retain property rights in certain items they provide their children for the purpose of support, maintenance, or education such as clothing and books. ? 1 Kramer, Legal Rights of Children, supra at §?8.12; ?67A C.J.S. Parent and Child, supra at §?119. ? It is uncontroverted the daughter's paternal grandfather?8 gave the horse to her as a gift, the horse was titled in her name, and it was not necessary for her support or maintenance. ? As a matter of law, the horse belonged to the daughter, and the parents had no implied authority over it simply because of their proprietary interest in the premises on which it was located.
The game system described by the OP was purchased from the child's earnings, which is explicitly listed as property that is owned by parents. If the horse had been purchased by the child through her earnings, the outcome would have been different.