A satirical publication devoted to a single, underserved corner of domestic life: the small, technically-actionable grievances that accumulate between parents and their minor children, and the economics that make none of them worth suing over.
The Journal's recurring departments are narrow by necessity and broad by household — covering every known variety of juvenile civil wrong, and several we have invented for editorial purposes.
Unfulfilled promises to empty the dishwasher, walk the dog, or "be in bed by ten" constitute actionable non-performance — at least in theory, which is what this publication concerns itself with. We catalogue the reasonable market value of uncompensated parental labor, in some cases stretching back to 2019.
When the Gatorade, the Oreos, and the last slice of pizza disappear without consent, a parent has theoretical standing. We have documented snack inventories exceeding four figures per adolescent per annum, with interest compounding nightly. We have not, it must be said, recovered any of them.
A phone charger is not a public utility. A pair of AirPods is not a lending library. The Journal reports on the doctrine of replevin as applied — or rather, as theatrically invoked — for the unauthorized borrowing of personal property left innocently on the kitchen counter.
The right to quiet enjoyment of one's own home extends, we argue, to the hours of 6 AM through bedtime. This Journal has entertained the proposition that the words "but why?" uttered twenty-seven times in succession constitute a continuing and compensable interference.
You cleaned the garage on the express promise that they would "probably help later." They did not help later. The Journal documents the damages — in hours, in lumbar strain, and in the particular heartbreak of being quoted back one's own reasonable expectations.
Eighteen years of housing, pediatric orthodontia, unlimited Wi-Fi, and rides to practices you were not invited to attend. Arguably, a debt. Certainly, a topic worth a column or two, preferably written late at night and circulated only within the household of origin.
The following are representative dispatches, lightly fictionalized for confidentiality and heavily fictionalized for everything else.
The subject sought damages arising from the disappearance of one (1) container of pad thai clearly labelled DO NOT EAT in permanent marker. Opposing party asserted the defense of ambiguity.
Petitioner sought return of a grey hoodie last seen in 2022 and subsequently observed on social media being worn by respondent at a friend's house. Chain of custody contested.
The subject contended that the family vehicle was returned repeatedly at an eighth of a tank, in violation of an express oral covenant. Defendant countered that "gas goes down naturally."
I came to this publication seeking damages. I left understanding that I am, in every meaningful financial sense, both plaintiff and defendant — and that my twelve-year-old is, in every meaningful financial sense, a wholly-owned subsidiary of me. It was the most expensive therapy I have ever received, and I didn't even have to pay for it.A Satisfied Reader (Name withheld · Jurisdiction withheld · Child grounded)
Our most common inquiries, answered with the candor one expects from a publication nobody has asked for.
In keeping with our duty of candor, a small clarification.
This is a humor publication, not a law firm. No attorneys are involved in its production. No retainers are collected. No consultations are offered. No legal services of any kind are available here. The "Departments," "Case Notes," and "Journal" pieces on this site are works of comic writing.
The Journal exists to dramatize, for comedic purposes, a legal theory that is as technically available as it is financially self-defeating: the civil action brought by a parent against their own minor child. In substantially every jurisdiction in the United States, minors lack the capacity to own meaningful assets, and their parents remain legally and economically responsible for their welfare, their debts, and — frequently — the damage they cause. Any judgment you "won" against your own minor child would, as a practical matter, be satisfied out of your own household, if it could be satisfied at all. The lawsuit you win is the lawsuit you pay for. That is the joke, and it is also the point.
If you have arrived here searching for actual legal guidance about a dispute involving a family member — a custody matter, a tort committed by a child against a third party, a question of emancipation, or anything in the neighborhood — please consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. This publication is neither a source of legal information nor a substitute for one.
Nothing published on this site should be relied upon as legal advice, legal opinion, or legal anything, in any jurisdiction, for any purpose, at any time. Reading this page does not establish any relationship beyond the one you already had with your own sense of humor.
We do, however, continue to publish. Read on — it is, at minimum, cheaper than therapy, and about as useful.
Read the Journal