Son Asking for Social Security Number

Post Reply New Topic

What exactly can be done with someone's social security number?
Make debts in their name?

I'm living in a different legal system so could someone explain it to me?

I see two separate issues here:
1. Teenage son vulnerable of being taken advantage of;
2. Parents dealing with it by exercising excessive control.

The two issues likely form a vicious cycle - the kid wants to escape control, it's a natural and healthy thing, but it makes him distrust his parents even if they warn him about real dangers, so the parents reinforce the control which the son is trying to escape.

If the feedback loop isn't broken, it likely ends that way: the son reaching 18 and escaping... right into predators

The question is: does OP want to break this feedback loop even if it required facing the demons of their own mistakes and insecurities?

Somebody could “steal” a person’s identity using another person’s SS#

Somebody could cause another person to become indebted in this way.

When that “somebody” leases a car, the “other person” has to pay for it because it was bought under the “other person’s” SS#, rather than that “somebody’s” SS#.

If the “other person” doesn’t pay for it, the “other person” is in debt, and will be cut out of the opportunity, say, to buy a house.

Classic Identity Theft.

All these based on a number? No document with photo or something?
How about e.g. clerks who get this information on applications, etc.? Parents making debts in the name of their children? No protection against such things?
Well, in that case, it's quite a dangerous thing.

There are “protections”—but they are inadequate if somebody really wants to commit identity theft.

No picture is required to obtain a credit card or take out a car loan online.

In person, a photo ID is required.

Parents have used their children’s SS#s.

Sounds like the system would benefit from some upgrades.

Anyway, I have described how I see the problem. In my opinion, it revolves around mutual lack of trust - the parents don't trust the child's decisions, the child doesn't trust the parents' intentions.
Possibly, mutual trust can be rebuilt (one-way trust won't work), but it would require a lot of courage, a lot of hard work and likely some professional help.

"Professional help" won't work. Family therapists are universally on the parents' side. So they'll help the OP manage their son, but they won't lift a finger to help the son. If anything, they'll drill learned helplessness into his head, to make him even more submissive and docile than he already is. The son's best bet is to wait until he turns 18, then get his own therapist. And maybe a lawyer too.

I know that from experience. My therapist always mocked me or pretended not to know what I'm talking about, whenever I told her about my conflicts with my parents. Which was a recipe for learned helplessness. Of course, there was a reason she did that: she was their ally, not mine.

Last edited by Aspie1 on 05 Dec 2019, 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

I agree with that.

The parents should treat him more like a person.

And the 17 year old should listen more to people who have experienced life.

It likely depends on the parents and their goals.
If the goal was to manage the kid according to the parents' wishes, then you're right.
If the parents' goal was to correct their mistakes, it may be different.

By consciously relinquishing it. Use Aspie1 as an example of what could happen if you DO NOT relinquish it. Not in a million years would I want my children to think or act like he does (sorry, Aspie 1, as I much as I like working with you on this board, you also know what I think of some of your views and opinions). KNOW, in your heart of hearts, that you HAVE to let go of control. It is our JOB to let go. We fail as parents if we cannot prepare our children for real life and to be as independent as possible.

When I found a counselor for my daughter, I agreed beforehand that the counselor would NOT report to me. I KNEW my daughter needed that level of privacy in order to open up to a counselor, and I knew I was in danger of losing her if counseling did not work for her. Remember what you really want: it is NOT to stay in control of your kids. It is to be proud of them and the job you did raising them. That feeling is worth so much more than control. It's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, to be able to look back with love and pride. Why risk that for the temporary comfort of control?

Once my kids turned 18 I let go of their decisions. Legally, the decisions are theirs whether I like it or not. As a practical matter, the decisions needed to be theirs and I can see that need in them. I do expect them to act as considerate roommates and relatives, letting me know when they expect to be home, not doing things that will leave me racked with worry, etc., but it is no longer my job to say "no" to anything they have the means to do (both have their own money saved in addition to the free room and board they get at our house). I'm careful about stating my opinions, and try to stick to advice they've specifically asked for. I love them and I want what is best for them, and what is best for them is for them to test their wings and LIVE their own lives. I state that to myself over and over whenever they fly in a direction I'm not comfortable with.

I want them to WANT to fly home for holidays after they've moved away (which I know they inevitably will).

I love that my 22 year old son will still walk up to me for a random hug, and that his girlfriend is comfortable sharing very personal issues with me.

I've never forgotten what our elementary school principal once said: it is the job of adults to raise kids to be independent by the time they are 18. If you don't, you haven't done your job. That day arrives quick. I realize that the developmental delays of ASD can shift that target for many, but picking a different "let go" point should be a last resort.

"Let go" doesn't mean "kick out." It means you relinquish the control. And REALLY relinquish it. We don't hold financial support over our children's heads as a persuasion device. We've agreed to get them through college without debt subject to a few budget constraints (pretty much equivalent to what it cost to get our son through), but what they do with it is up to them.

I've spent too much of my own life wondering what it would have been like if I hadn't caved to certain pressures from my dad. I don't want that for my kids. It broke my heart to realize that they had felt the pressure even as I felt I was careful to not provide it. Every little realization like that affirms how necessary it is to let go.

I realize I've got good, smart and capable kids, which makes it much, much easier. But I can't say I was always sure I had that. Two years ago we were seriously worried my NT daughter might never live to adulthood, or might need to be institutionalized because of her severe health issues. My son was, himself, terrified at 16 that he wouldn't be ready to live on his own in college. But in my experience people tend to rise up to challenges if you give them the freedom to do so, and whenever my reaction was to instinctively reach for control, it came back to bite me. Trying to control a teenager I learned was destined to make everything worse. It backfires. You can be there to try to catch them if they fall, but you can't force them to use a guide wire. Once you know that in your gut, you have what you need to let go.

We will never, ever stop worrying about our kids. We will cry for them even when they don't have any idea we know or care what happened. It comes with the job. One of the many things no one could have made us fully realize going in.

I think you've made a good summary of the issues.

I wish I knew a surefire way to break the loop. I do think counseling can be good provided it can be set up so the teen does not see it as another control tool of the parent, and the teen is REALLY LISTENED to.

I want to say to the OP: Please don't read this as me saying you are a bad parent. You are doing what your instinctive reactions tell you to. Just believe me when I say that I know from experience that you have to override those instinctive reactions. It may be the hardest thing you've ever done, but please try. Give yourself a quiet moment and put yourself in your son's shoes so you can realize how much he needs to take flight on his own for good or for bad. Your deep down, non-reactive instincts should be able to realize I'm right.

I will admit I did a little snooping when things were at my worst with my daughter. Snooping that she will never, ever know about and that I have worked hard to never act on. It was just that I had this driving need to KNOW, even though I also understood she had a driving need for privacy. I felt the only way to make peace with myself was to snoop without her knowing it. Having the information shattered my heart but also helped give me the power to let go. I don't know why I needed the information so badly, but I did. And it was for ME, not for her, despite my telling myself multiple times that knowing would help me help her. No, it was ME that needed it, for me. Accepting that is part of the process. I'm not proud of what I've confessed here (please don't rag on me for it everyone), but I've done it because if you have to make a quiet compromise so that you can live with relinquishing control, that is better than pushing hard to keep holding on, IMHO. Just ... be absolutely sure you can keep the bargain you are making with yourself (in my case, to not EVER act on or share what I found out).

Looking at this I'm going to have to say something. Even if I did the best I could with my child and did all sorts of things to attempt to raise them to be independent and they couldn't be independent I would be considered a failure. Even if doing all of the things that needed to be done would cost the child his physical/mental health I would be considered a failure.

If this is really, really the case I actually understand the whole mutual adoption center idea Aspie1 has. In otherwords, parenting is more of a popularity, competitive contest rather then doing things for the well being of the child. This would make me more likely go to his side.

This idea the principal has presumes that children are nothing but commodities and I as a parent is expected to make the best marketable brand out of them.

My child will never be a commodity.

Apparently, we read the same text and see different messages in it.
Children naturally grow to become independent adults and the parents' job is to guide it so once the child becomes an adult, they is ready for it. I would add that most people I know weren't really independent by 18 but at that age they were reasonable enough to take responsibilities for their own decisions about their own lifes.
Maybe we read different things to the term "independent" here: you may read it as "live independently", while I read it as "make independent decisions about one's own life".

If "what needed to be done" cost the child's mental health, then wrong things have been done.

I see no popularity contest in this task, the kids don't need to be "the best marketable brand", they need to be functional adults.

This is impossible with family therapists: they're parents' flying monkeys by their job title. "Family" is just a code word for "parents' helpers". Kids are never told that, and are given the illusion that the therapist is their friend. When in reality, he/she is basically a traitor. (In "Dante's Inferno", betrayal is located all the way in the 9th Circle of Hell.) The OP's son's best bet is to wait until he turns 18, then get HIS OWN therapist, whose job title specifically DOES NOT include the word "family".

Well, I'm glad I did a better job hiding things than your daughter. My parents were none the wiser about all sorts of scary, yet ingenious, **** [poop] I did as a teenager. From looking for girls online and making plans to meet them---one of which included taking Amtrak for 2 hours---to downloading pornography and hiding it in C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office, to buying cooking wine (from the Italian food aisle) and guzzling it in my room. And let's not forget having at with escorts (at their hotels) while still living at home as an adult; I just had to stop at a McDonald's somewhere to cool off afterwards, so I don't come home smiling like an idiot.

I later learned how stupid some of my plans were. The Amtrak station one girl lived near was a dingy shelter in an industrial area, miles away from public services which I later learned from Google Maps. Also, even Nokia cell phones didn't exist back then, let alone smartphones, so you can imagine what it'd be like if I actually took Amtrak there. But I gotta give myself credit for being willing to do it in the first place. Taking a cruise by myself is as close to that level of risk-taking as I get today, even though I fly across the country to get to my ship.

Close. The popularity/competition will be among parents. Conventional families don't respect good kids very much, because the kids are trapped in the home by the legal system and their own small size. But when there's a risk their their docile kid can move out at any moment, parents have an incentive to treat him better: as a real person, rather than a two-legged pet or a human Tamagotchi. Which is exactly what the OP is doing: they see their son as property, rather than a person. Conversely, the kid will have a choice to live in a most compatible (not necessarily least strict) environment, rather than making suicide plans at age 8, like I was.

I can't figure out how you got "commodity" from that. It's a statement about making sure you've given your child skills, not a statement about pushing them out or stopping to love and care for them.

Our society is competitive and capitalistic.

Our society expects parents to raise their children to function successfully within this construct.

If a parent(s) can't or don't they seen as failures by themselves and by others unless the child has visible disabilities that blatantly would make the child not be able to function in this system.

This system demands one goes to school until one reaches high school. (One can drop out at 16 but that's frowned upon). It demands one goes to college whether one is college material or not and/or go to trade school whether one has the motor coordination to do that or not.

This system demands one competes against others in going for a job by passing an interview and being this "professional" person whether that image fits the person or not while at the same time being encouraged by parents and others to be themselves even if the person is not capable of doing it.

It demands that one be moved out of one's parents house whether one can do that or not, have his or her household, pay his or her own bills, etc, etc, etc whether one can do this or not. Let's not forget going through the complexities of paying taxes and all the paperwork one has to keep up with.

Not only that but being able to maintain your house including one's lawn or being able to pay one's rent on time.

This is what American style of independence means.

If a child can't do this parents are seen as failures and so is this child. So, parents don't want to be seen as failures just like children want to be seen as "cool" in school. In other words parents want acceptance from their neighborhood and community. And, this need for acceptance from their community which is a sense of belonging according to maslow's hierarchy of needs seems to outweigh the child's physical and mental well being.

For that acceptance and power, children are not seen as human beings but commercial goods and commodities to be exploited to show others that "Hell Yeah I have the better model."

Now, if Aspie1 is right and I think he has some good points combine the need for power with the need for belonging the child's needs gets trumped upon.

This is what parents fail to do and I think it is bluntly time to say this.

A. Your child can't do everything he sets his mind to. Quit lying to them.

B. Every child has their strengths and weaknesses and strengths.

C. Now with every child having their strengths and weaknesses one has to take a look at the threats and opportunities that are out their for their child.

D. Parents for the most part hyperfocus on the child's strengths only without looking at the other three in a SWOT analysis.

E. The truth of the matter is your child could be intelligent but what happens when your child is in front of an interviewer trying to get a job. Who sets the criteria for the interviewer to look for when hiring? It is the employers. If the interviewer does not like your child and/or thinks your child is dumb he or she is less likely to get hired. If he or she does not have the social skills yet has the technical skills your child is less likely to get hired.

F. And, by trying to teach them these things and "correcting" their behavior all you're doing is teaching them to pretend to be something they're not. And, guess what who they really are will come out if they're accepted for the job and as the days pass when they're working.

G. And, just b/c one can do a particular job at home does not mean one can do that same work for employment as employment conditions are different then at home conditions.

H. And, as for running a business. That takes salesmanship/social skills and executive functioning to do as well even more so then regular employment.

With all this being said, sometimes you as a parent may have to accept your child is to disabled to employed at all including self-employment. And, you need to prepare for this somehow by having some trust fund or something or else you have no business having children.

Alright. It is a general statement that applies to the situation of most children and their parents. Of course a child can be too disabled to make it in the real world. Of course some children may have an invisible disability in which case others may judge them and their parents the same they would judge a non-disabled child which isn't entirely fair. Most people can grow up to be independent and in their case it is in their best interest if their parents help them do so. Most people want that independence eventually and it is not good for their emotional health, if they are kept from achieving it. Their parents may mean well by being overprotective or their parents may simply be lazy and not care, but preventing a child that has the potential to do so from reaching independence hurts the child's well-being. It can cause the child stress, it can harm their self-esteem, it can cause anxiety and depression and it can keep them from reaching job-, relationship- and other goals. A good parent should want their child to grow up to be a happy adult and for most people happiness is more easily reached if independence is also reached at an appropriate age.

If someone doesn't have the capability to teach a child with normal or a bit above normal difficulties in these areas to reach independence, one is not suited to have children.

One individual parent can not change society as a whole and society as a whole has to work. I'm not saying that this society is perfect or even good, but demanding nothing of anyone won't keep food on anyone's plate. Parents are raising their children in the context of the culture they live in. That doesn't mean that they have to teach their child that the culture is perfect or to follow every belief the culture holds, but the one that gets hurt if a child is not taught the required skills to live in that culture is the child and not society.

Of course selfish motivations can play a role in wanting one's child to reach independence. Yes, parents risk being seen as a failure if their child does not grow up to be independent. However, that does not exclude that there can be other motivations for wanting one's child to reach independence. Again, a good parent wants their child to grow into a happy adult. Not reaching independence would harm the emotional well-being of most, at least during their late teens and early twenties until they come to terms with the limits their life has. One has to take a different approach if one has a child that is not capable of reaching independence, but in the vast majority of cases teaching the child necessary skills is not at odds with their well-being but is almost a necessity not to make them fall into depression in their late teens or early twenties, especially if you have a child with some but not debilitating difficulties who is not easily able to teach themselves these skills.

Situations in which the child's needs get trumped upon for the sake of the parents desire for power or social status do exist, but the statement of that school principal does not automatically imply that this is what parents should aim for. Eventually independence will be a need of the child (in most cases) and not something that is at odds with their needs.

I agree with the points A to H you're making but can't help feeling like it is your own situation you're describing. You're seeing the principal's statement as something that has to apply to 100% of the cases of all humans or else is wrong. It is a generalization and he is spot on in the cases of most children and their parents. Who knows, maybe he is a bigot and would frown upon you and your parents or maybe he is a person who is able to see nuances and exceptions to the rule who merely didn't have an hour of time to list them all when he made a general statement.