My toddler is good at pretending. This afternoon he kept the endless laps around our toy train track interesting by declaring things we would visit on the next lap. It was hard to recreate “Target” where we went to “buy” more toy trains, but when he said “zoo” I knew I could humor him with a few figures we had around the apartment. He insisted on including a reindeer and a moose in the zoo. I told him we don’t have those. He said we have to pretend. So I give you, the zoo: from left to right, “reindeer,” “moose,” zebra, elephant and lion.
A few laps later he said it was time to toast raisin bread. I said OK and waited for his lead, creative little fellow. Then he said: “I don’t want to pretend, I want real raisin bread.” Most parents would probably relocate to the table at this point, but I knew it was time to relocate to the couch. He eats on the couch while watching Thomas and Friends, Curious George, Sid the Science Kid and other hits. Sometimes I am invited as his guest, other times he tells me the food I’m eating doesn’t smell good—even though we’re eating the same food—so I have to “go over there.” Once my wife opened a gift package on the couch and left it. He commented that there was “too much stuff here” and systematically threw each item to the ground.
I haven’t put up much of a fight to counter his claim to the couch, and today I realized that I might have lost ownership of it for good. The doctrine of adverse possession is triggered when, say, I treat a piece of property as mine even though I don’t own it, and I go as far as assuming maintenance and controlling access and generally developing a reputation in the community as the owner, without having permission to do any of these things. A set period of time, typically seven to ten years, must elapse with those elements continuously being in place after which the true owner has lost out on the opportunity to reclaim the property. So it appears my son is adversely possessing my couch, behind my back right in front of my face. Then again, I’m pretty sure it hasn’t been seven to ten years since he isn’t three yet. In another year or two I’m definitely putting my foot down.
7 Comments
GR posted on February 11, 2010 at 10:35 am
Thanks for sharing this moment David. It seems that even in the everyday family structure the law is applicable. Not to say it never is in any other cases, yet it seems that the “little fellow” here, as we’ll call him, actually has an argument. Beyond the doctrine of adverse possession- his claim, is his right.
No matter what you have in place of ownership, your repeated allowance of give, give without clear boundaries creates the allusion, yet more so the gift of the couch for self gratification. If you do try and reclaim the property all things point to you actually having ownership, as i’m sure you can prove it. However, the other challenge would be ,whether or not under false pretense did you in some way hand over rights as he is your flesh and blood. I’d be interested in seeing how that plays out. Little Fellow vs. David, he may actually have a case. Can anyone say- Verbal contract?! (Sorry but this blog post will be used as evidence.)
Johanna S posted on February 11, 2010 at 5:58 pm
That kid is getting way too clever! He is brilliant! Get ready! I can’t wait to see you guys again and give him a big hug!
Johanna S posted on February 11, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Forgot to say… If you are looking to learn about a good way to deal with your beautiful child’s impishness, we love Love & Logic: Magic for Early Childhood. We would be happy to forward the audio files, if you are interested. As if you need one more thing to read!
Samantha Rex posted on February 11, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Ha ha, witty and wonderful 🙂
Jacqueline N. posted on February 11, 2010 at 11:00 pm
“So it appears my son is adversely possessing my couch, behind my back right in front of my face.”
Ha, ha! Great post David. This creatively sums up adverse possession and gives us a glimpse into your daily role as a parent :} He obviously likes his own space. Let him enjoy that year or two.
WL posted on February 26, 2010 at 10:54 am
You should adversely possess his imaginary “zoo” to retaliate.
kabuto posted on August 9, 2010 at 12:55 am
Thanks for sharing this moment David. It seems that even in the everyday family structure the law is applicable. Not to say it never is in any other cases, yet it seems that the “little fellow” here, as we’ll call him, actually has an argument. Beyond the doctrine of adverse possession- his claim, is his right