Baby’s First Mortgage: Why Parent-Perpetrated Child Identity Theft Goes Unrecognized and Unremedied

By: Julia Drey

Introduction

In horror, Ana Ramirez discovered she had been a delinquent homeowner since the age of ten.[1] After the rejection of a mortgage application with her husband, Ramirez learned that her credit history had already shown a defaulted mortgage. Ramirez’s mother had taken out a mortgage in her name, which her mother subsequently failed to pay.[2] Ramirez was faced with two unpalatable options. The first, file a police report against her mother to begin the process of repairing her credit. The second, protect her mother and live with the compromised credit history.[3] Ramirez is one example of the options children are left to navigate.

Child[4] identity theft occurs when an individual uses a child’s personal information to obtain services or benefits, or to commit fraud.[5] Personal information includes the child’s Social Security number, name and address, or date of birth.[6] Children are uniquely vulnerable to identity theft because children have spotless credit history, lack the knowledge of responsibility to monitor credit, are unlikely to discover fraudulent credit activity until adulthood,[7] and are dependent on their parents they trust emphatically. Those children don’t make the discovery until adulthood, when applying for a loan, housing, or another opportunity requiring a credit check.[8] 

Most child victims know the responsible bad actor. When that bad actor proves to be a parent, the problem intensifies. Too often, perpetrators of child identity theft are parents, but data on this classification is limited.[9] Parent-perpetrated identity theft creates a particularly difficult legal problem, because the culpable party exploiting a child is one of the only people authorized and trusted with a child’s identifying information. Compounding the problem, that blameworthy parent is also one of the only people expected by the law to protect their child from identity theft. The scope of this Article is limited to child identity theft perpetrated by parents and does not encompass identity theft committed by strangers.

Currently, identity theft is illegal both federally and at the state level. Identity theft is clearly defined by statutory law and a clear priority for current proposed legislation. However, the existing law contains a substantial deficiency. Criminal statutes protect a child only if an individual discovers, reports, and acts on the theft before the statute of limitations expires. Civil remedies depend on reporting and timing problems. To have fraudulent information blocked from a credit report, the child must provide an identity theft report filed with a law enforcement agency, which in application means reporting the child’s own parent. If a child pursues a claim against a consumer reporting agency (CRA) or creditor under the FCRA, the child will be subject to potentially infeasible restrictions under statute of limitations. Ultimately, when the perpetrator is a parent, the legal system fails to protect the child, both criminally and civilly.

This Article argues that parent-perpetrated child identity theft is an underrecognized form of abuse and financial exploitation that existing identity-theft and family law frameworks are lacking the necessary mechanisms to redress. Considering children often cannot discover, report, or remedy the misuse of their identities until adulthood, especially when the perpetrator is their parent, the law should not treat parent-perpetrated child identity theft as confined to ordinary financial fraud, but as a distinct form of exploitation and abuse requiring greater prevention, detection, and legal protection.

Despite the detrimental and long-lasting effects, parent-perpetrated identity theft remains remarkably understudied. Research on financial exploitation within families has focused mostly on adult children who victimize their parents, or on children victimized by someone they know. Until 2020, no studies had focused specifically on parents who steal their children’s identities.[10] 

            Section I explains what child identity theft is and how it happens, why thieves target children, and the cost of delayed discovery. Section II explains why parent-perpetrated child identity theft is vastly different from general identity theft and discusses the scarcity of available research on the topic. Section III surveys the existing legal framework: the federal and state criminal laws, credit-reporting protections, civil claims, and Social Security safeguards. Section IV examines where the current framework fails to address parent-perpetrated child identity theft. The analysis indicates that the framework’s protections depend on the parents, the remedies require formal accusations of the parents, statute of limitations may expire before the child discovers the theft, and more. Section V analyzes why the law is drafted this way. The analysis establishes that although legislatures have clearly worked to protect children’s identities, constitutional doctrine presumes that parents act in their children’s best interest. Consequently, lawmakers have limited reason to treat parents as a threat in this context. Section VI explores the boundaries where legitimate parental use of a child’s identity ends and where exploitation begins. Section VII considers opportunities for legislative improvement. The conclusion argues that the law’s response to parent-perpetrated identity theft is, at best, reactive rather than preventative. While the failure of the legislature to proactively respond to this issue is understandable given the underreported nature of misconduct, lawmakers nevertheless have an opportunity to strengthen existing protections.

I.              Understanding Child Identity Theft

a.     What Child Identity Theft Is and How It Happens

Child identity theft occurs when someone uses a minor’s personal identification, such as Social Security numbers, to commit fraud or receive benefits to which the parent is not legally entitled.[11] Between July 2021 and July 2022, child identity fraud amounted to a loss of $688 million nationwide.[12] In 2017, more than one million children were reported as victims of identity theft.[13] That number increased in 2021, when 1.25 million children were victimized, amounting to a ratio of approximately 1 in 50.[14] In 2022, 915,000 children were affected, or 1 in 80.[15] In three out of every four cases, the wrongdoer was an individual the child was familiar with.[16] Children 6 years old or younger are the most common victims of identity theft and fraud.[17]

Common forms of benefits or services wrongfully obtained by opportunistic wrongdoers include, but are not limited to, government benefits, bank accounts, credit cards, loans, utility services, or pre-approval for rental agreements.[18] Additionally, the wrongdoer could use a child’s information to file fraudulent tax returns or improperly obtain employment.[19]

A child’s information can be stolen through data breaches, online scams, phishing, or social media.[20] In the context of data breaches, entities such as schools, pediatric officers, or camps maintain records of children’s identifying information, but often fail to put in the necessary procedures to safeguard the children from hackers or data breaches.[21] Notably, PowerSchool[22] had a data breach in 2024 that exposed 60 million students and teachers to the risk of identity theft.[23] Due to the large quantity of information stolen through data breaches, these breaches are the fastest-growing source of child identity exposure.[24] Regarding online scams and social media, children are often more trusting or naïve, and can fall victim to fake emails and direct messages.[25] However, responsible parents should be mindful about the use of social media in connection to their children. A child’s full name, date of birth, school name, and hometown are enough information for a fraudster to compromise a child’s identity.[26]

b.    Why Thieves Target Children

Child identity theft is easier to commit, and much harder to detect. A child’s credit history is usually nonexistent, or a “clean slate.”[27] A child, usually, has no payment history, no debt, no existing accounts: nothing to raise a red flag to creditors.[28] Particularly advantageous to perpetrators is the fact that creditors do not verify the age of applicants.[29] The lack of circumstances that raise a red flag to creditors is highly appealing to identity thieves. This appeal is evidenced by the fact that children are fifty times more likely than adults to have their identity stolen, presumably due to the likelihood that such misconduct will remain undetected for years.[30] 

Delayed discovery is a substantial factor in an exploitative individual’s desire to target young children. Adults who had their identity stolen usually discover and report unauthorized transactions within a few months, while the theft of a child’s identity may go undetected for years; the culpable parties recognize this vulnerability.[31] For years, or potentially decades, not a single person (especially the child) may ever look at the child’s credit report.[32] Therefore, a child may not discover the theft of their identity until they apply for their first job, or get denied for a student loan.[33]

c.     The Cost of Delayed Discovery

Child identity theft is quietly devastating and secretly chips away at a child’s future success. The tragedy lies in the fact that its consequences often go unnoticed and compound for years. Since children do not monitor credit files like adults, identity theft may remain undetected until that child reaches adulthood and attempts to establish or utilize their own credit. That child may then find themselves confronted with seemingly insurmountable walls of legal, ethical, and moral complexities.[34] The impact is variable. Falsely obtained credit in a young adult’s name could range from one unpaid bill to a foreclosed mortgage.[35]

Damaged credit may leave victims with insurmountable complexities to resolve, such as difficulty obtaining credit, rental housing, employment, cell phone service, or student loans, and can force the victims to pay higher insurance premiums and larger deposits for housing and utilities.[36]

Delayed discovery has the consequence of complex physical and psychological harm. Physically, victims can experience stress, insomnia, anxiety, stomach ailments, and adult sexual dysfunction.[37] Psychologically, victims often experience loss of trust, feelings of betrayal, frustration, confusion, and guilt, along with pressure not to report the crime and fear of harming the family. These reactions reflect a normal grieving process, and the intensity may fluctuate with time.[38] Furthermore, victims experience a negative impact on upward economic mobility, and have higher rates of absenteeism in employment driven by a profound sense of despair.[39] Child identity theft is a unique crime that blurs the line between justice for criminal wrongdoing and loyalty to family.[40] That blurred line undeniably makes recovery slower and more emotionally difficult in comparison to criminal wrongdoing by a stranger.[41]

The resultant consequences are neither hypothetical nor theoretical. The following cases illustrate the devastating reality faced by children whose identities have been exploited by those who were supposed to protect them:

·      Close-to-home. While applying for college, Thomas and Alisha Cash’s son discovered his credit rating had been destroyed by unpaid utility bills and credit card debt.[42] Using the identities of their son and his two siblings while they were minors, Thomas and Alisha Cash had racked up $10,000 in unpaid utility bills. The debts went to collections, and caused extensive damage to their son’s credit history, as well as his sibling’s. Thomas and Alisha Cash were arrested in Madison County, Alabama, but face charges in New York.

·      “By the time I was 10-years old I was not only a convicted felon, but I had outstanding debt in the neighborhood of $250,000.”[43] Randy Waldron was a victim of identity theft fraud for most of his 24-year old life. The fraud went undetected for almost 24 years, and he only discovered the exploitation of his credit when he went to get his first credit card. The total debt in his name amounted to $2 million dollars.

·      She had been a delinquent homeowner on paper since she was 10 years old.[44] When Ramirez decided to apply for a mortgage, she discovered she was not only a homeowner, but her mother’s failure to make timely payments on a mortgage she took out in her daughter’s name resulted in a delinquent home owner report on her daughter’s credit report. Ramirez was left with the heartbreaking decision of filing a police report and repairing her credit, or refrain from reporting the fraud and allow her mother to elude legal consequences. Now, feeling helpless and frustrated, her damaged credit is preventing Ramirez and her husband from purchasing a home.

·      “It still haunts me to this day.”[45] Chip St. Clair has spent over a decade working to remove the fraudulent charges while paying interest rates on his loans because of his poor credit. When Chip was 15, his parents stole his identity, and took out $50,000 in student loans, utilities, leases, and car loans over just three years. Chip didn’t find out until he was 22. Chip’s father had used his Social Security number to create a new identity after being convicted as a child killer.

II.            Why Parent-Perpetrated Identity Theft is Different

a.     The Scope of Familial Fraud

Parent-perpetrated child identity theft is distinguishable from general child identity theft, because parents have access to the necessary information. Moreover, a parent can exploit their children with relative ease. Regarding general identity theft, common ways to gather the paperwork necessary are digging through dumpsters, using spyware, installing malware, stealing outgoing mail, or stealing employment files at work.[46] Parents are in a unique position to have access to their children’s personal information while being given a monopoly of control over that information by default.[47] Due to the nature of the parent-child relationship, a parent may assert the conduct was only temporary, or necessary to pay family bills.[48] Furthermore, a parent may allege the theft was intended to build the child’s credit.[49] Regardless of motive, identity theft may occur if the account was opened without the child’s informed consent and debts are left unpaid.[50]

Currently, proposed legislature prioritizes protecting children from identity theft by suggesting safeguards against exploitation by strangers. Senator Schumer, of New York, proposed a bill that automatically freezes a child’s credit until a parent unfreezes it.[51] The motivation behind the proposal is to protect the minors’ identities and credit until their family is ready for them to start building credit.[52] However, legislative efforts of this nature often overlook one critical detail: What happens when the threat comes not from a stranger, but the very parent responsible for protecting the child? This Article will explore this legislative oversight and its implications in Section III.

b.    Why Parent-Perpetrated Theft is Hard to Measure

As of 2020, there was no research that specifically focused on parental perpetrators of child  identity theft.[53] In the general discussion of child identity theft, articles tend to advise parents, by teaching steps a parent can take to safeguard their child, or educate the parents on signs of identity theft and how to remedy theft.[54] Furthermore, in the discussion with parents regarding how child identity theft happens and how to prevent theft, articles focus on factors such as social media exposure, cyberbullying, or susceptibility due to household income.[55] 

Research typically divides identity theft into five categories: financial, medical, criminal, child, and familial.  Familial theft is defined as a family member using the personal identifying information of another family member without consent to obtain something of value.[56] Thus, parent-perpetrated theft is a subcategory of familial theft. Parent-perpetrated child identity theft falls where there is an overlap of child and familial identity theft, while narrower than either. Research provides simple statistics of familial and child theft, but the data does not include any data specifically discussing the subset of parent-perpetrated child identity theft.[57] For example, according to one research group, in households affected by child identity fraud, 67% of the time the victimized household knew the perpetrator.[58] Of the 67%  who knew the perpetrator, 28% were a partner/spouse/step parent, 27% were a family friend, 8% were a child’s sibling, and 5% were a child’s relative.[59] Notably absent from these categories is the child’s own parent, which leaves parent-perpetrated child identity theft largely invisible.  It is not clear why this research group did not specifically focus on parents, although it could be due to their research methodology. 

In addition to lack of reporting for other unknown reasons, underreporting of parent-perpetrated identity theft plays substantial role in the data gap.[60] A victim may contemplate factors relevant to reporting misconduct such as financial dependence on a perpetrator, desire to avoid family conflict, or consideration of the perpetrator acting out of desperation to feed the family.[61] Out of 55 victims of parent-perpetrated theft, 24% said they did not feel right filing a police report, 13% reported the family was ashamed and in denial, and 9% reported certainty or fear of the family turning against the victim if they reported it.[62] On some occasions, police may refuse to take a report when the perpetrator was the parent, because the police classify it as a civil domestic matter.[63]

III.          The Existing Legal Framework

a.     Federal and State Criminal Law

Federal identity theft is primarily governed by 18 U.S.C. § 1028, which criminalizes various forms of fraud involving identification documents and personal identifying information. For example, § 1028(a)(7)  defines one form of identity theft as including whoever, under certain circumstances, “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law.”[64] Violations of § 1028(a)(7) may result in fines or imprisonment for up to five years, with a maximum sentence of fifteen years when the offender obtains anything of value totaling $1,000 or more during a one-year period as a result of the offense.[65] Separately, § 1028A(a)(1), addressing aggravated identity theft, imposes an additional mandatory two-year term of imprisonment when an individual knowingly uses, transfers, or possesses another person’s means of identification without lawful authority during and in relation to certain enumerated federal felonies.[66] The language in the § 1028(A), “without lawful authority” is important because case law has held that an individual may have lawful access to identifying information, but lawful access is not lawful authority to use the information.[67] The discrepancy between lawful access and lawful authority translates to the context of identification materials in a parents possession. The parents have lawful access to possess the child’s Social Security Number or other identification, but that lawful access does not always give parents the lawful authority to use the information. Additionally, courts have held that even when an individual consents to another person’s use of their Social Security number on their behalf, such consent does not constitute lawful authority if the number is subsequently used for fraudulent purposes.[68] 

Applied concurrently with § 1028 or § 1028A, 42 U.S.C.A. § 408 criminalizes the false representation of a Social Security number.[69] Section § 408(b) allows a federal court the discretion to make the defendant pay restitution to the victim.[70]

Alabama’s statute does not expressly reference children. Alabama state law classifies identity theft as a Class B felony and prohibits an individual from using a victim’s information to receive financial resources, benefits of the victims, goods or services, or obtain employment or identification documents in the victim’s name.[71]

Florida is the only state whose statutory language expressly addresses both minors under the age of eighteen and parents.[72] Under Florida law, a person who willfully and without authorization fraudulently uses personal identification information concerning an individual who is younger than 18 years of age without obtaining the consent of that individual commits a felony in the second degree.[73] Additionally, Florida law states any person in the relationship of parent who willfully and fraudulently uses personal identification information of that individual commits a felony in the second degree.[74]

b.    Credit Reporting

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 allows a protected consumer’s representative (parent or legal guardian) to request a nationwide consumer reporting agency to place a security freeze on the minor’s credit file, or to create a file (if none exists), free of charge.[75] This act was created for the purpose of preventing a child’s credit file from being established fraudulently in a child’s name, since children typically do not start out with an existing credit file.[76] The freeze can only occur upon direct request of the parent or guardian, for children who are under 16 years old.[77] 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a federal consumer protection statute that regulates the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer credit information.[78] The FCRA provides a comprehensive framework of rights and remedies that assist victims of identity theft.[79] Congress enacted the FCRA to force consumer reporting agencies to adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer.[80]

Section 605B of the FCRA provides one of the strongest statutory mechanisms for repairing an identity theft victim’s credit by requiring credit reporting agencies to block information resulting from identity theft.[81] A credit bureau must block the information within four business days after receiving a valid request.[82] A valid request consists of appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer, a copy of an identity theft report, the identification of such information by the consumer, and a statement by the consumer that the information is not related to any transaction by the consumer.[83]

A second option under the Fair Credit Reporting Process is the general dispute process.[84] If a customer tells a credit bureau that an item on their report is inaccurate, the bureau must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, generally within 30 days, free of charge.[85] Information that is inaccurate or cannot be verified must be deleted or corrected.[86] If the bureau or creditor fails to investigate reasonably, the consumer can sue for willful[87] or negligent[88] violations.

The FCRA does not provide victims with a federal private cause of action against the individuals who perpetrate identity theft.[89] Moreover, Alabama has no state-level equivalent to the FCRA.[90] Consequently, the FCRA provides a mechanism for victims to correct fraudulent information in their credit reports and pursue remedies against entities that violate its provisions, but it does not provide a direct cause of action against the parent who misuses their child’s identifying information.

c.     Civil Claims

On the state level, Alabama provides a civil action for violation of Chapter 8, which governs theft.[91] So long as the victim can prove criminal violation of this article, and suffered loss as a result thereof, the victim may seek to recover the greater of $5,000 for each incident or three times the actual damages, plus attorney’s fees and costs.[92] 

Alternatively, a victim may explore various causes of action under contract or tort law. Under contract law, a victim may seek a judicial determination that contracts fraudulently entered in their name are unenforceable against them because contract formation requires mutual assent. Although on paper these agreements may bear the victim’s name and identifying information, the victim never assented to any terms. In substance, the parent-perpetrator was the actor assenting to a contract such as a utility service, loan, or Social Security benefit.

d.    Social Security Administration

Similarly, the Social Security Administration (SSA) attempts to protect children but, once again, fails to address parent-perpetrated identity theft. In the context of a representative payee obtaining benefits on behalf of a minor, there is a general rule the representative payee must file an annual report pertaining to payment, as a form of accountability monitoring that ensures payments are being used properly.[93] However, custodial parents who reside with the child are explicitly exempt from the reporting requirements applicable to other representatives.[94] But, the SSA reserves the discretion to require a report if the SSA has reason to believe the payee is misusing benefits.[95]

Furthermore, the SSA must assess an individual’s suitability to serve as a representative payee.[96] Payee applicants are expected to gather, document, and address information about the nature of criminal convictions or related criminal matters.[97] The SSA shall obtain information disclosing the applicants involvement crimes or misconduct, but relevant to this paper, the SSA specifically looks for conviction felony crimes including but not limited to abuse, neglect, identity theft or fraud, or theft of government funds.[98] If an applicant is found to have been convicted of a crime such as the aforementioned offenses, as found in 42 U.S.C. §405(j)(2)(B)(iv), the applicant is automatically barred from approval.[99] 

IV.          Criticizing the Legal Framework & Issues That Arise Therefrom

What Happens When the Person the Legal System Expects to Protect the Child’s Financial Identity is the Person Abusing it?

a.     The Blind Spot: Safeguards Rely on the Parent

As mentioned previously in the paper, the lawmakers desire to prioritize protecting children and their identities is unmistakable, as evidenced by enacted, pending, and proposed legislation. However, each attempt at protection shares a common issue: it places protection in a parent’s hands.

The Credit Freeze for Kids Act would simplify the existing process for proactively freezing a child’s credit by allowing parents to contact a single bureau, rather than all three as currently required.[100] The contacted bureau would then bear the responsibility of notifying the remaining two bureaus.[101] Only the parent, not the child, has the authority to place the freeze until the child turns 16 years old.[102] This proposed amendment to current credit-freezing procedures changes only how a parent requests a freeze, not who may request the freeze. The Act offers no mechanism for a child to shield her credit when the perpetrator is the parent.

The Social Security Child Protection Act of 2025 proposes requiring the SSA to issue a new SSN to child under age 14 when their original card has been lost or stolen from the mail.[103] This Act similarly presumes the threat is coming from outside the home and represents deficiencies in the context of a parent-perpetrator. Consider how the Act would apply in the following hypothetical:

Suppose a parent has been misusing their 16-year-old daughter’s Social Security number for several years while concealing the physical card from the daughter. When the daughter prepares to get her first driver’s license or fill out her W-4 at her first job, she requests her Social Security card from her parent. Fearing that the daughter may discover the identity theft, particularly when she later applies for student loans or other forms of credit, the parent falsely claims that the card has been lost and offers to request a replacement. Even assuming the parent successfully demonstrates that the card was stolen during transmission, the Act’s protections would remain unavailable because the daughter is over fourteen years old.

Now suppose the daughter is instead under fourteen years old, and her parents have already accumulated substantial debt through the fraudulent use of her Social Security number. The parent fears creditors may soon begin questioning the accounts associated with the daughter’s identity and their conduct will soon be discovered. Thus, assume the parent successfully obtains a new Social Security number under the Act by falsely reporting that the original card was lost or stolen during transmission. Although the SSA issued a new number, the child remains under the care of the same parent who previously exploited her identity. Assuming the replacement card is delivered to the same household and received by the parent, the perpetrator once again possesses the information necessary to misuse their daughter’s identity. The Act therefore provides a new Social Security number without necessarily addressing the circumstances that permitted the initial exploitation.

Given the Act’s potential inapplicability, particularly for minors above fourteen years old, a critical question remains: How is a child expected to seek relief when they neither know their Social Security number, nor the location of the physical card? What remedies are available to the minors? At what age do they possess the legal authority to pursue remedies independently?

b.    Delayed Discovery and Limited Remedies

A unique issue of parent-perpetrated child identity theft is the potential delay in discovery. Signs of a minor’s stolen identity include mail addressed to the minor from a bank, credit card company, debt collector, or an IRS notice.[104] In context of parent-perpetrated identity theft, the culpable party may be the person facilitating the delayed notice. A parent may hide all mail giving notice of delinquencies or thefts from the child. The simple act of hiding mail prevents the child from finding out for years. Another instance of delayed notice would be rejections and credit application issues once the child reaches adulthood and begins seeking a line of credit.[105] Denial of a credit card, student loan, or apartment lease may signal theft from 20 years prior.

c.     Delayed Discovery Causes Statutes of Limitation to Run

Under the FCRA, the recovery is quite reasonable. Anyone who willfully violates the Act is liable to the harmed consumer for actual losses and, at the court’s discretion, punitive damages. Furthermore, if an individual obtains someone’s credit report under false pretenses or without a legitimate reason, the consumer can recover the greater of actual damages or $1,000. With particular emphasis, section (a) only refers to willful violations of the Act, and (b) only refers to a report received under false pretenses or for no permissible purpose.

The prescribed timeframe to file an action is not forgiving to child victims. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681(p), an action must be brought by the earlier of (1) two years after the date the plaintiff discovers or (2) five years after the date the violation occurred. Accordingly, if it takes five or more years for a child-victim to discover their parents’ horrid theft, they can no longer recover under § 1681(p). Although the potential recovery is written to cover actual loss suffered by the victim, the risk of delayed discovery may effectively bar recovery altogether. Furthermore, this remedy acts only against the businesses regulated by the FCRA, such as credit bureaus and the creditors who report to them, but not the perpetrator. Even if a child somehow prevails, the recovery may not cover the lasting cost of a damaged credit score, like higher interest rates a victim may pay for years as a result, particularly because the financial harm that has not yet materialized is difficult to quantify, even when it is a direct consequence of the theft.

Prosecutions under §§ 1028 and 1028A are subject to a five-year statute of limitations for the government to indict after the offense is committed. The clock runs from the offense, not the discovery. For child identity theft, this timing is potentially fatal to prosecution. If a parent opens an account in a child’s name when a child is four, the five-year period expires by the time the child is nine.

Congress recognizes that crimes against children may warrant an exception to the default statute of limitation periods, but that recognition only extends to certain harms. For offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse, or the kidnapping, of a child under eighteen, no statute of limitations bars prosecution during the child’s lifetime or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer.[106]   Financial exploitation isn’t on that list. For limitations purposes, federal law does not recognize a parent’s theft of their child’s identity as abuse. Federal law thus gives prosecutors life of the child when a parent physically abuses their child, but not when a parent financial exploits the child.

Alabama’s criminal statute has the same timing flaw as its federal counterpart. Identity theft is a Class B felony in Alabama, and prosecution must begin within seven years after the offense is committed.[107] Like the federal clock, Alabama’s runs from the offense, not from discovery.[108] If a parent opens an account in a child’s name when the child is four, the State loses the ability to prosecute when the child is eleven, eight years before the age of majority in Alabama.

d.    The Infancy Doctrine Blind Spot

A person may instinctually opine that minors have substantial remedies for identity theft specifically and solely because they are minors, like the infancy doctrine. In Alabama, the general rule is contracts entered into by a minor are voidable.[109] Minors are awarded this protection because “the Alabama legislature has deemed it important to protect person under the age of 19 from the consequences of certain acts, include the making of contracts.”[110] Identity theft intertwines with contract law fairly consistently. Consider the breadth of contractual relationships established through the unauthorized use of another person’s identity: mortgages, credit cards, utility services, loans, etc. Although this Article does not explore the application of this doctrine, it is plausible the doctrine fails as a remedy for child identity theft because the child is not the one entering the contract that needs to be voided; their parents are. Although the infancy doctrine is designed to protect minors, in the context of a child seeking remedial measures to repair their compromised credit, the child must look elsewhere for relief.

e.     Social Security Representative Payees – The Parental Exemption

The safeguards to screen representative payees drastically loosens for parents. Generally, the SSA bars anyone convicted of crimes such as theft, fraud, or theft of government funds from serving as a payee. But it clearly carves out a narrow exception: the SSA may exempt a custodial parent with a disqualifying conviction if it determines the parent’s service is in the child’s best interest.[111] Thus for a parent specifically, rather than another applicant, specific prior convictions is not a bar but merely one factor is deciding suitability, an echo of the law’s broader presumption that parents act in their child’s best interest. What, then, qualifies as the child’s “best interest”?

The screening itself has shortcomings. To find disqualifying history, the applicant is expected to self-disclose any prior convictions.[112] If a payee applicant does not self-disclose a barred crime, the SSA may review the Prisoner Update Processing System and Fugitive Felon record to see if the applicant has a history of imprisonment or outstanding fugitive felony warrants.[113] Additionally, the SSA employee may review any information in their Electronic Representative Payee System for prior misuse of SSA benefits, revoked payee status, or poor performance as a payee.[114] If an applicant is a custodial parent, and the parent does not self-disclose any prior crimes or convictions, the SSA is explicitly instructed to not run a criminal background check.[115] Thus, a parent with prior convictions, potentially including identity theft without imprisonment, and who does not disclose the conviction, may therefore fly under the radar.

This section does not suggest that parents who misuse their children’s identities necessarily have related convictions. However, of all identity theft offenders, about 50% had prior criminal history in Category II-VI.[116] This statistic makes it ironic that custodial parents, the applicants with the easiest access to a child’s identification information, are among those the SSA exempts from the very conviction bar meant to screen out perpetrators of identity theft. A best-interest determination made without the parent’s criminal history, let alone a prior financial criminal history, cannot meaningfully weigh in favor of the child’s financial interest, which is the very interest the payee system exists to protect.

f.      Remedies a Child Can Neither Collect Nor Control

Alabama gives victims a cause of action tailored to identity theft: a victim may recover the greater of $5,000 per incident or three times actual damages, plus attorney’s fees and costs.[117] Yet even this remedy breaks down when the perpetrator is a parent. A parent who stole their child’s identity out of desperation may be judgment proof, because the same financial distress that drove the theft leaves no assets to collect. A judgment the child cannot collect does nothing to repair their credit or pay off their outstanding debts.

The remedies that do not depend on the parent’s net worth depend on a criminal conviction instead. In Alabama, upon conviction and at the victim’s request, the sentencing court must issue any orders necessary to correct records that contain false information as a result of the theft.[118]

Federal law offers restitution, which is mandatory for certain crimes, but of course contains its own limits. It requires both a federal conviction and covers actual losses. Any remedy past actual damages, such as time spent unraveling this mess, is instead discretionary restitution.[119]

Regarding the statutes that set conviction as a prerequisite, only a prosecutor can bring criminal charges. Child can report the crime, but whether to charge, offer a plea deal, or drop the case is the prosecutor’s call.[120] 

g.     Equitable Tolling: Diligence a Child Cannot Show

Equitable tolling allows a court to extend a filing deadline when fairness justifies it, but courts reserve it for exceptional cases. The Second Circuit declared it a rare remedy to be applied in unusual circumstances.[121] It applies only if a plaintiff can show that extraordinary circumstances prevented them from timely performing within a required period, and that the plaintiff acted with reasonable diligence throughout the period the plaintiff sought to toll.[122] In Lindor, the plaintiff alleged that a judgment on her credit report resulted from identity theft, but TransUnion refused to remove it, and her FCRA claim was time-barred under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p.[123] This framing poses a problem for child victims: What is the standard of reasonable diligence for a victim of child identity theft?

A child victim’s strongest argument rests on their parent’s conduct. A statute of limitations exists to protect defendants from stale claims but shouldn’t become a sword for a defendant whose own misconduct caused the deadline to pass.[124] Absent a showing of intentional inducement or trickery by the defendant, tolling is to be applied sparingly, and plaintiff must show the defendant’s misconduct contributed to the delay.[125] A parent who hides collection notices from the child arguably engages in misconduct that contributed to the delayed discovery. Is parent-perpetrator’s misconduct in this context appropriately classified as trickery? Moreover, how is a child to prove their parent was hiding evidence, such as mail, if the discovery was years later through a different avenue? In Bernoskie, the court stated it may be unjust to compel a defendant “to defend a lawsuit long after the injury has occurred, when memories have faded, witnesses have died and evidence has been lost.”[126] What about when the circumstances that gave rise to a lawsuit involve a victim who has no recollection of the events, cannot substantiate their parents’ misconduct, and possess no evidence beyond the information reflected in their credit report?

Other courts toll the deadline even without fault by the defendant, when an irremediable lack of information prevents the plaintiff from suing.[127] The clock starts once that barrier is removed.[128] Regarding either fault of the defendant or no fault, both require a measure of diligence in context of a reasonable person. What is expected of a child when exercising diligence? No reported decision appears to have applied equitable tolling to child identity theft. In the meantime, a child’s ability to sue her parent may depend on a doctrine a court is already hesitant to apply.

h.    When the Parent’s Word Outweighs the Child’s

After Suluki moved to college and was rejected from an apartment application, she discovered that her mother had used her identity to fraudulently open and max out several credit card accounts in Suluki’s name without Suluki’s permission.[129] Suluki discovered the fraud and reported it to the three national credit reporting agencies.[130] Credit One investigated Suluki’s claim multiple times.[131] Its investigators concluded the account was legitimate and that is belonged to Suluki.[132] In fact, Credit One sent Suluki a letter on September 17, 2019, advising her that she was deemed responsible for the account.[133] 

The court ruled for summary judgment in Credit One’s favor because no reasonable jury could find that any reasonable investigation would have led Credit One to determine the account was fraudulent or unverifiable.[134] Additionally, Suluki failed to present evidence that would prove Credit One willfully or negligently violated the FCRA.[135]

Capital One reached out the Suluki’s mother, Khadijah, and Khadijah told the Credit One representative the account was not fraudulent, and the two opened the account together with the understanding Khadijah would assist in building Suluki’s credit.[136]

The court explicitly stated, “even assuming, however, that Khadijah opened the account in Suluki’s name without her daughter’s permission, we conclude that no reasonable investigation into Suluki’s claim would have led Credit One to a different conclusion.”[137] 

The bank determined the account was legitimate, as the bank relied on Suluki’s childhood home address, payments from an account Suluki shared with her mother, and on-time payments.[138] The banks fraud detection is built to catch strangers, but when the parent is the perpetrator, the indicators of fraud look exactly like the identification of the real customer. Besides the bank using direct evidence to determine the account was legitimate, they also sided with Suluki’s mother, over Suluki, whose credit was at risk. The evidence of a bank choosing to believe a parent’s good-faith assertion over a daughters deliberate claims of unauthorized accounts, is a testament to how parent-perpetration goes underrecognized and unremedied.

i.      The Remedy Requires Something a Child Victim Cannot or Will Not Do

Identity theft remedies assume the victim is willing to formally accuse whoever stole his or her identity. When the thief is a parent, the child must make the gut-wrenching decision of deciding to report or accuse their mother or father.

Under the FCRA, identity theft is defined as a means of fraud committed or attempted using the identifying information of another person without authority.[139] However, parents generally possess legitimate access to their children’s identifying information, which raises questions about the scope of that authority: Does a parent’s authority to possess a child’s identifying information extend to its use? More importantly, at what point does that use become unauthorized? These questions are particularly significant in cases of parent-perpetrated identity theft, where the perpetrator’s legitimate access to the information may obscure its fraudulent use. Suluki demonstrates where this blurry distinction is currently drawn, and why it is drawn in the wrong place: because neither the bank nor the courts questioned the mother’s claim that the account was opened jointly, her possession of her daughter’s information ultimately served as authority to use it.[140] 

When pursuing credit blocking, the victim must send proof of identity and submit an identity theft report.[141] The identity theft report must contain as much specificity as the consumer can provide.[142] For example, a copy of an official, valid report filed by the consumer with a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, and any known information about the perpetrator.[143] 

Furthermore, a victim must also identify the items to be blocked, produce a statement that none of the transactions were authorized by the consumer, and the report filed subjects the person filing the report to criminal penalties for false information.

Victims of coerced debt, such as identity theft, face unique and nuanced challenges due to the language of remedial law. For example, CRA’s can refuse to block information resulting from identity theft if the consumer obtained possession of goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction or transactions.[144] In application to child identity theft, there is a potential argument, albeit a cruel argument, that CRA’s may refuse to block information as a result of a child benefitting from the mortgage, utilities, loans, or credit cards their parents took out in their name. Consider a parent who, out of financial desperation, uses their child’s identifying information to keep the household’s utilities running or buy the child food. Would the child be deemed to have “obtained possession of…services” as a result? If so, a consumer reporting agency could decline to block the resulting information, leaving the child to bear debts incurred in the child’s name for the child’s own basic needs.

Assume a child cannot bring themselves to file a police report against their parent, as happened in Ramirez’s case.[145] Experts say, without a police report, it is nearly impossible to restore a victim’s good credit.[146]

Thus, a victim’s strongest remedy, credit blocking, in attempt to clean up their credit, turns from: fix your credit to formally accuse and expose your parents. The burden may be intimidating, and the weight of courage must be profound.

An absence of a police report adds challenges. Betz-Hamilton opines that statistics of identity theft is likely skewed lower than accurate, as cases are often not reported to appropriate authorities.[147] The lack of reporting to appropriate authorities is explained through a number of factors: victims unaware they have been victimized, some may not know how and/or where to report the crime, financial dependence on the perpetrator, manipulation by the parent to not file, and/or a desire to avoid family conflict.[148] It is estimated that 24% of identity theft victims do not feel comfortable filing a police report on a family member.[149] 

Suluki went to her local precinct to file a police report, but officers told her she could not file a report without specific paperwork from Credit One.[150] After “back and forth,” Suluki was discouraged by her attempt to obtain a police report and quit trying.[151]

Some jurisdictions may not take a police report. Linda Foley of the Identity Theft Resource Center described a father whose ex-wife was using their child’s Social Security number, and the police wouldn’t take a police report.[152] The police department stated it was none of their business, and everyone told him to go to family court.[153] 33% of people report being given the runaround, with no one believing them, even with a police report.[154]

V.            Why the Law is Framed This Way

The failures identified in Section IV are not accidents or oversights. These shortcomings reflect how the law has historically treated children, how legal recognition of children has changed over time, and the possibility that lawmakers therefore purposefully omitted protections against parent-perpetrated identity theft because, under the eyes of the law, there is no need for such protections.

Some characterize the early common law as treating children as the property of the father.[155] The view shifted in the 19th century, when the state took on greater decision-making power over children in response to public concern for their best interests.[156] Currently, the law related to parent-child decision making rests on the presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions.[157] The state justified this interference by viewing children as innocent, dependent beings in need of special protection and care, while keeping a strong commitment to parental rights.[158]

Even though the modern trend leans toward state interference, it nevertheless remains the law’s view that children are fundamentally dependent beings in need of adult supervision and control.[159] The Supreme Court routinely affirms the constitutional right of parents to control their children is one of the oldest fundamental liberty interests recognized by this court. This fundamental liberty interest is reinforced by the legal presumption that a parent acts in the best interests of their children.[160] More importantly, historically, the law has recognized that natural bonds of affection are what lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.[161] 

This presumption can obviously fail, and it does. Experience and reality may rebut what the law accepts as a starting point, such as in cases of child neglect and abuse.[162] Nevertheless, the Parham Court cautioned against placing children and their parents in adversarial positions, recognizing that doing so would undermine the presumption that parents act in their child’s best interests.[163] Instead, the Court recognized the importance of an independent decision-maker in circumstances where parental judgment may conflict with a child’s interests.[164] This raises an important question: Who serves as the independent decision-maker when the parent entrusted with protecting their child’s credit is also the culpable party?

The doctrine of parens patriae justifies the state’s power to override parental authority to protect a child’s welfare.[165] Nevertheless, the government cannot be permitted to override parental authority merely because sometimes a parents does not act within their child’s best interests.[166] There is no reason for the state to inject itself into the private realm of the family, so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children.[167] Furthermore, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated the Due Process Clause does not permit a state to interfere with the fundamental right of parents make childrearing decisions simply because the state judge believes a better decision could be made.[168]

The view that children are fundamentally dependent beings that need supervision and control is not entirely consistent. This inconsistency is evident in the varying ways the law evaluates a child’s maturity and decision-making capacity. In the juvenile justice system, children are considered less culpable and therefore less deserving of punishment because of their developmental immaturity.[169] Yet, the law imposes bright-line age restrictions on a child’s ability to exercise certain rights and make consequential decisions, such as voting, marrying, or driving.  Yet, while the law imposes bright-line age restrictions on numerous rights and privileges, it establishes no minimum age at which a female may become pregnant, give birth, and assume the responsibility of motherhood. The blurry criteria raise a fundamental question: At what point does the law consider a minor sufficiently mature to exercise independent judgment and make decisions affecting their own financial interests?

Thus, lawmakers’ choice to not acknowledge or address parent-perpetrated child identity theft could arguably constitute “in itself a form of regulation,” and not a neutral non-intervention.[170] At what point does the exercise of parental authority exceed its permissible scope? Is a parent stealing their child’s identity financial abuse that warrants state intervention? Or is it simply something the parent “could have done better”? The challenge is to write laws that respect parental authority without leaving a child’s identity unprotected: a task made harder by a legal system that treats children as immature and mature at the same time.

VI.          Drawing the Line Between Help and Harm

Not every parental use of a child’s Social Security number is exploitation. Parents may lawfully use their children’s identifying information to manage things like health coverage, open custodial savings accounts, or claim the child on their tax returns.[171] Some parents may add a child as an authorized user on their own credit card, to give their child the gift of a robust credit history and ideal credit score. An authorized user may use the card, but the liability remains with the parent. The child gains credit history without risk of being liable for any debt. However, should a parent choose not to pay, or fail to pay the credit card bill, the child’s credit will be negatively affected.

Not every parental use of a child’s Social Security number is helpful to the child. Being the parent is not proof that a particular use was authorized on in a child’s best interest. As discussed in Suluki, Credit One relied partly on the mother’s supposed good-faith assertion that she had opened the account to help her daughter build credit, and the Second Circuit upheld the investigations conclusion that the account was legitimate, and Suluki was responsible. The mother’s explanation appears on its face to be a beneficial authorized-user agreement, but it describes the inverse—the parent receives the benefit, and the child gets the damage credit and debt obligations.

In practice, one end of the sliding scale represents strategic parents that use the child’s Social Security number to benefit their child and cost the child nothing, whereas the other end accounts for selfish parents that reap substantial benefit from the Social Security number and leave their child with devastating debt obligations and compromised credit. Between them lies a range of circumstances, like a parent using their child’s Social Security number out of desperation for utility bills or rent in times of financial hardship. Where those cases fall depends largely on an unanswered question: Where is the line drawn for authorized use, and what weight is the consent or explicit absence of consent given to the child? As seen in Suluki, the line is sometimes erroneously drawn on the apparently untruthful assertions of the parent whose conduct is in question.

VII.        What the Law Could Do Better

This Article does not propose a definitive solution but rather aims to highlight factors that lawmakers should consider when adjusting current law or wholly creating new laws to make child victims whole. Drafting law and regulatory framework that support child victims while sufficiently preventing future acts of parent-perpetrated identity theft is likely challenging, as each case has a unique set of facts and circumstances that may sway a court’s decision. Circumstances include duration and number of acts of theft, the child’s age when the theft occurred versus when it was discovered, the gravity of the damage, and the parents motive – greed, addiction, or innocent financial desperation. Any reform or new framework must account for legitimate authorized use of the child’s information. No child victim fits the same mold as the next.

Simultaneously, lawmakers should be careful not to create any new loopholes for perpetrators to go undetected and underreported, overextend government authority, or compromise family privacy by excessively giving control over a child’s identity to people too far removed from the nuclear family. In that light, the current legal framework is less a failure or deliberate avoidance, than a reasonable, but inherently imperfect, effort to protect children without displacing their parent’s recognized authority.

The ultimate question is: Considering maturity level and responsibilities that should or should not be assigned to a child, who should carry the burden of preventing and/or catching the theft? Right now, the law leaves most, if not all, remedial measures in the hands of the perpetrator, or the chance of timing. Does legislature really want to burden a legal minor with the critical obligation of monitoring their credit, before they can legally vote?

CONCLUSION

The law’s response to parent-perpetrated child identity theft is, at best, reactive rather than preventative. Its protections take effect only after the theft is discovered but are still subject to gaps as a result of delayed discovery or status as a minor. That is less a failure of the legislature than a consequence of how rarely the issue is reported. How can law drafters be expected to address something that is so grossly unreported and thus goes unrecognized as a relevant issue? Still, public policy likely does not favor a child entering adulthood already burdened by debt he or she never incurred. The transition to adulthood is intimidating and challenging enough. A young adult signing their first lease, living on their own for the first time, or rushing a sorority in their first semester of college should not also discover their credit was ruined before they were learning how to read. Nor should the answer be to shift the burden onto children or teenagers themselves, who deserve to enjoy their youth rather than police their parents’ opportunistic financial decisions. The existing framework is almost there. Criminal statues prohibit the conduct, credit freezes exist, and federal law recognizes, at least in the elder context, that a caregiver may be financially exploiting and abusing them. The focus must now shift toward closing the gap between existing legal protections and the children who desperately need them the most.

[1] Gerry Smith, Family Secrets: Parents Prey on Children’s Identities as Victims Stay Silent, HuffPost (Nov. 11, 2011), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/child-identity-theft-parents-credit-fraud-debt_n_1010093.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] This Article uses the terms “child” and “minor” interchangeably and in their colloquial sense to describe a person under eighteen years of age, unless otherwise noted. The legal definition varies by jurisdiction and by statute.

[5] Fed. Trade Comm’n, How to Protect Your Child from Identity Theft, Consumer Advice (Oct. 2024), https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-protect-your-child-identity-theft.

[6] Id.

[7] Identity Theft Res. Ctr., Learn the Warning Signs of Child Identity Theft, https://www.idtheftcenter.org/post/warning-signs-of-child-identity-theft/.

[8] N.Y. Dep’t of State, What You Should Know About Child Identity Theft, https://dos.ny.gov/what-you-should-know-about-child-identity-theft; Identity Theft Res. Ctr., Learn the Warning Signs of Child Identity Theft, https://www.idtheftcenter.org/post/warning-signs-of-child-identity-theft/.

[9] Axton Betz-Hamilton, A Phenomenological Study on Parental Perpetrators of Child Identity Theft, 31 J. Fin. Counseling & Plan. 219 (2020).

[10] Id.

[11] Identity Theft Res. Ctr., Learn the Warning Signs of Child Identity Theft, https://www.idtheftcenter.org/post/warning-signs-of-child-identity-theft/.

[12] Tracy Kitten, Javelin Strategy & Rsch., Child Identity Fraud: The Perils of Too Many Screens and Social Media (2022), https://javelinstrategy.com/sites/default/files/files/reports/22-5012J-FM-2022%20Child%20Identity%20Fraud%20Study.pdf.

[13] Axton Betz-Hamilton, A Phenomenological Study on Parental Perpetrators of Child Identity Theft, 31 J. Fin. Counseling & Plan. 219 (2020).

[14] Tracy Kitten, Javelin Strategy & Rsch., Child Identity Fraud: The Perils of Too Many Screens and Social Media (2022), https://javelinstrategy.com/sites/default/files/files/reports/22-5012J-FM-2022%20Child%20Identity%20Fraud%20Study.pdf.

[15] Id.

[16] Identity Theft Res. Ctr., Learn the Warning Signs of Child Identity Theft, https://www.idtheftcenter.org/post/warning-signs-of-child-identity-theft/.

[17] Tracy Kitten, Javelin Strategy & Rsch., Child Identity Fraud: The Perils of Too Many Screens and Social Media (2022), https://javelinstrategy.com/sites/default/files/files/reports/22-5012J-FM-2022%20Child%20Identity%20Fraud%20Study.pdf.

[18] Fed. Trade Comm’n, How to Protect Your Child from Identity Theft, Consumer Advice (Oct. 2024), https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-protect-your-child-identity-theft.

[19] Identity Theft Res. Ctr., Learn the Warning Signs of Child Identity Theft, https://www.idtheftcenter.org/post/warning-signs-of-child-identity-theft/.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] PowerSchool is a cloud-based software platform designed for K-12 education, serving as a hub that manages administrative, academic, and operational data for schools, districts, and families; https://www.powerschool.com/about/.

[23] Identity Theft Res. Ctr., Learn the Warning Signs of Child Identity Theft, https://www.idtheftcenter.org/post/warning-signs-of-child-identity-theft/.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

[29] N.Y. Dep’t of State, What You Should Know About Child Identity Theft, https://dos.ny.gov/what-you-should-know-about-child-identity-theft.

[30] Identity Theft Res. Ctr., Learn the Warning Signs of Child Identity Theft, https://www.idtheftcenter.org/post/warning-signs-of-child-identity-theft/.

[31] Id.

[32] Id.

[33] Tracy Kitten, Javelin Strategy & Rsch., Child Identity Fraud: The Perils of Too Many Screens and Social Media (2022), https://javelinstrategy.com/sites/default/files/files/reports/22-5012J-FM-2022%20Child%20Identity%20Fraud%20Study.pdf.

[34] Nat’l Youth Rights Ass’n, Parental Identity Theft, https://www.youthrights.org/issues/parental-oppression/parental-identity-theft/; N.Y. Dep’t of State, What You Should Know About Child Identity Theft, https://dos.ny.gov/what-you-should-know-about-child-identity-theft.

[35] N.Y. Dep’t of State, What You Should Know About Child Identity Theft, https://dos.ny.gov/what-you-should-know-about-child-identity-theft.

[36] Axton Betz-Hamilton, A Phenomenological Study on Parental Perpetrators of Child Identity Theft, 31 J. Fin. Counseling & Plan. 219 (2020); Nat’l Youth Rights Ass’n, Parental Identity Theft, https://www.youthrights.org/issues/parental-oppression/parental-identity-theft/.

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] Axton Betz-Hamilton, A Phenomenological Study on Parental Perpetrators of Child Identity Theft, 31 J. Fin. Counseling & Plan. 219 (2020).

[40] Nat’l Youth Rights Ass’n, Parental Identity Theft, https://www.youthrights.org/issues/parental-oppression/parental-identity-theft/

[41] Id.

[42] Assoc. Press & WHAM, Parents in Steuben County Charged with Using Kids’ Identities to Rack Up Debt, WRGB (Nov. 15, 2018, 12:50 PM), https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/parents-in-steuben-county-charged-with-using-kids-identity-to-rack-up-debt.

[43] Robbing the Cradle, NBC News (Oct. 10, 2005), https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9655565.

[44] Gerry Smith, Family Secrets: Parents Prey on Children’s Identities as Victims Stay Silent, HuffPost (Nov. 11, 2011), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/child-identity-theft-parents-credit-fraud-debt_n_1010093.

[45] Id.

[46] Axton Betz-Hamilton, A Phenomenological Study on Parental Perpetrators of Child Identity Theft, 31 J. Fin. Counseling & Plan. 219 (2020).

[47] Nat’l Youth Rights Ass’n, Parental Identity Theft, https://www.youthrights.org/issues/parental-oppression/parental-identity-theft/.

[48] Id.

[49] Id.

[50] Id.

[51] Press Release, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, Schumer: Children Are Vulnerable to Identity Thieves; Kids Under 18 Are Easy Targets Because Their Credit Reports Are Often Clean and Unmonitored; Senator to Introduce Legislation That Will Automatically Freeze Credit for Kids—Until Parents Unfreeze It—Will Protect Kids from Several Types of ID Theft (May 13, 2015), https://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-children-are-vulnerable-to-identity-thieves-kids-under-18-are-easy-targets-because-their-credit-reports-are-often-clean-and-unmonitored-senator-to-introduce-legislation-that-will-automatically-freeze-credit-for-kids_until-parents-unfreeze-it-will-protect-kids-from-several-types-of-id-theft.

[52] Id.

[53] Axton Betz-Hamilton, A Phenomenological Study on Parental Perpetrators of Child Identity Theft, 31 J. Fin. Counseling & Plan. 219 (2020).

[54] Cort Honey & Ozzie Enriquez, Child Identity Theft: Parent Awareness, Behaviors, and Attitudes, Security.org (last updated Sept. 17, 2026), https://www.security.org/identity-theft/child/.

[55] Tracy Kitten, Javelin Strategy & Rsch., Child Identity Fraud: The Perils of Too Many Screens and Social Media (2022), https://javelinstrategy.com/sites/default/files/files/reports/22-5012J-FM-2022%20Child%20Identity%20Fraud%20Study.pdf.

[56] Axton Betz-Hamilton, A Phenomenological Study on Parental Perpetrators of Child Identity Theft, 31 J. Fin. Counseling & Plan. 219 (2020).

[57] Tracy Kitten, Javelin Strategy & Rsch., Child Identity Fraud: The Perils of Too Many Screens and Social Media (2022), https://javelinstrategy.com/sites/default/files/files/reports/22-5012J-FM-2022%20Child%20Identity%20Fraud%20Study.pdf.   

[58] Id.

[59] Id.

[60] Axton Betz-Hamilton, A Phenomenological Study on Parental Perpetrators of Child Identity Theft, 31 J. Fin. Counseling & Plan. 219 (2020).

[61] Id.

[62] Gerry Smith, Family Secrets: Parents Prey on Children’s Identities as Victims Stay Silent, HuffPost (Nov. 11, 2011), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/child-identity-theft-parents-credit-fraud-debt_n_1010093.

[63] Id.

[64] 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7).

[65] Id. § 1028(b)(1)(D).

[66] Id. § 1028A(a)(1).

[67] U.S. v. Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602, 608 (4th Cir. 2010).

[68] U.S. v. Retana, 641 F.3d 272, 273 (8th Cir. 2011).

[69] 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B).

[70] Id. § 408(b). 

[71] Ala. Code § 13A-8-192(a).

[72] Fla. Stat. § 817.568(6), (7).

[73] Id. § 817.568(6).

[74]Id.  § 817.568(7).

[75] 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1(j)(2)(A).

[76] Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, Starting Today, New Federal Law Allows Consumers to Place Free Credit Freezes and Yearlong Fraud Alerts (Sept. 21, 2018), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2018/09/starting-today-new-federal-law-allows-consumers-place-free-credit-freezes-yearlong-fraud-alerts.

[77] 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1(j)(2)(A), § 1681c-1(j)(1)(B)(i).

[78] Legal Info. Inst., Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Wex (last updated Dec. 2022), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fair_credit_reporting_act_%28fcra%29.

[79] Margaret Mikyung Lee, Cong. Rsch. Serv., RL31666, Fair Credit Reporting Act: Rights and Responsibilities (Apr. 10, 2013), https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20130410_RL31666_cb5bb8ab3a063f5581d10cdd669b4555c2fd381c.pdf.

[80] 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b).

[81] Id. § 1681c-2(a).

[82] Id. § 1681c-2(a). 

[83] Id. § 1681c-2(a)(1)-(4).

[84] Id. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).

[85] Id.

[86] Id. § 1681i(a)(5)(A)(i)-(ii).

[87] Id. § 1681n(a).

[88] Id.  § 1681o(a).

[89] Galper v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 802 F.3d 437, 444 (2d Cir. 2015).

[90] BCS Background Screening LLC, Alabama Background Check Laws for Employers (2026) (last updated Oct. 29, 2026), https://usabackground.com/fcra-employment-screening/background-screening-laws/alabama/.

[91] Ala. Code § 13A-8-199(a).

[92] Id. § 13A-8-199(a)(1)-(2).

[93] 42 U.S.C. § 405(j)(3)(A).

[94] Id. § 405(j)(3)(D)(i)(I).

[95] Id. § 405(j)(3)(E).

[96] Soc. Sec. Admin., Program Operations Manual System GN 00502.113 (Sept. 2, 2026), https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200502113.

[97] Id.

[98] 42 U.S.C. § 405(j)(2)(B)(i)(VII).

[99] Id. § 405(j)(2)(C)(i)(VI).

[100] Credit Freeze for Kids Act, S. 619, 119th Cong. (2025).

[101] Id.

[102] 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1(j)(1)(B)(i), (j)(1)(C), (j)(2)(A).

[103] Social Security Child Protection Act of 2025, H.R. 5348, 119th Cong. (2025).

[104] Identity Theft Res. Ctr., Learn the Warning Signs of Child Identity Theft, https://www.idtheftcenter.org/post/warning-signs-of-child-identity-theft/.

[105] Id.

[106] 18 U.S.C. § 3283.

[107] Ala. Code § 13A-8-192(b), (d).

[108] Id. § 13A-8-192(d).

[109] Snow v. Waffle House, Inc., No. CV 06-0321-CB-C, 2006 WL 8437952, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 5, 2006).

[110] Id.

[111] 42 U.S.C. § 405(j)(2)(C)(vi)(I)(bb).

[112] Soc. Sec. Admin., Program Operations Manual System GN 00502.113 (Sept. 2, 2026), https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200502113.

[113] Id.

[114] 42 U.S.C. § 405(j)(2)(B); Soc. Sec. Admin., Program Operations Manual System GN 00502.113 (Sept. 2, 2026), https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200502113.

[115] Soc. Sec. Admin., Program Operations Manual System GN 00502.113 (Sept. 2, 2026), https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200502113.

[116] U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Identity Theft Offenses in the Federal Criminal Justice System (2018), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2018/20180924_ID-Theft-Mand-Min.pdf; see generally U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, An Overview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/overview/Overview_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines.pdf.

[117] Ala. Code § 13A-8-199(a)(1)-(2). 

[118] Ala. Code § 13A-8-198(a).

[119] 18 U.S.C. § 3663(b)(6).

[120] Guntersville Law, LLC, Can Charges Be Dropped? What Alabama Cases Need (July 13, 2026), https://guntersvillelaw.com/can-charges-be-dropped-alabama/.

[121] Trans Union LLC v. Lindor, 393 F. App’x 786, 789 (2d Cir. 2010).

[122] Id.

[123] Id. at 788.

[124] Bernoskie v. Zarinsky, 383 N.J. Super. 127, 135 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006).

[125] Id.

[126] Id. at 139

[127] Landwer v. Deluxe Towing, Inc., 249 N.E.3d 1039, 1046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).

[128] Id.

[129] Suluki v. Credit One Bank, NA, 138 F.4th 709, 714-15 (2d Cir. 2025).

[130] Id. at 716

[131] Id. at 713

[132] Id.

[133] Id. at 716

[134] Id. at 718-19

[135] Id.

[136] Id. at 715

[137] Id. at 714

[138] Id.

[139] 12 C.F.R. § 1022.3(h).

[140] See Suluki.

[141] 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2(a)(1)-(2).

[142] 12 C.F.R. § 1022.3(i)(1)(i).

[143]Id. § 1022.3(i)(1)(ii).

[144] 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2(c)(1)(C).

[145] Gerry Smith, Family Secrets: Parents Prey on Children’s Identities as Victims Stay Silent, HuffPost (Nov. 11, 2011), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/child-identity-theft-parents-credit-fraud-debt_n_1010093.

[146] Id.

[147] Axton Betz-Hamilton, A Phenomenological Study on Parental Perpetrators of Child Identity Theft, 31 J. Fin. Counseling & Plan. 219 (2020).

[148] Id.

[149] Fed. Trade Comm’n, Transcript of Stolen Futures: A Forum on Child Identity Theft, Panel 3: Children at Risk: Familial ID Theft (July 12, 2011), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/stolen-futures-forum-child-identity-theft/stolen_futures_071211_sess2.pdf.

[150] Suluki v. Credit One Bank, NA, 138 F.4th 709, 715 (2d Cir. 2025).

[151] Id.

[152] Fed. Trade Comm’n, Transcript of Stolen Futures: A Forum on Child Identity Theft, Panel 3: Children at Risk: Familial ID Theft (July 12, 2011), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/stolen-futures-forum-child-identity-theft/stolen_futures_071211_sess2.pdf.

[153] Id.

[154] Id.

[155] Anne C. Dailey & Laura A. Rosenbury, The New Law of the Child, 127 Yale L.J. 1448, 1457 (2018).

[156] Id. at 1458.

[157] Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979).

[158] Anne C. Dailey & Laura A. Rosenbury, The New Law of the Child, 127 Yale L.J. 1448, 1459 (2018).

[159]Id. at 1462.

[160] Parham at 602.

[161] Id.

[162] Id.

[163] Id. at 610.

[164] Id. at 606.

[165] Anne C. Dailey & Laura A. Rosenbury, The New Law of the Child, 127 Yale L.J. 1448, 1458-59 (2018).

[166] Parham at 603.

[167] Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68-69 (2000).

[168] Id. at 72-73 (2000).

[169] Anne C. Dailey & Laura A. Rosenbury, The New Law of the Child, 127 Yale L.J. 1448, 1465 (2018).

[170] Id. at 1474.

[171] 26 U.S.C. § 24(e)(1).