Cameron BoyCE is facing a legal battle to remove his parents’ parental guidance from the online game “Minecraft,” which he is alleged to have created.
A federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled on Thursday that Cameron Boy CE is not entitled to that parental guidance.
The judge ruled that the legal issues of his parents, who have been divorced for the past 13 years, were not the same as the issues surrounding his creation of “Minecraft.”
The parents, whose identities are protected by court orders, sued Boyce in 2013 and 2015, claiming he created the game without their consent and then abused them.
In a written decision issued last week, Judge Michael McBride said that Boyce is entitled to parental guidance because the parents’ divorce was settled in 2015, and he did not violate the separation agreement by “engaging in conduct that violates the [separation] agreement.”
“If this court finds that [Boyce] is not subject to parental visitation or visitation order because he has not entered into an agreement that establishes the right to that visitation and that the visitation order is invalid, then this court is not bound by that court’s determination and does not have jurisdiction over this case,” McBride wrote.
“We find that Mr. Boyce has not complied with the court’s order that the parent(s) be removed from his personal and social media accounts, and we also find that his conduct constitutes abuse of a parental relationship.”
McBride also wrote that he is satisfied that “the child is not a dependent child of Mr. [BoyCE], nor is there any basis for a finding that [the child] has a disability that would prevent his receiving assistance under the state child support guidelines.”
Boyce and his wife, Kristy Boyce, did not respond to requests for comment.
In a previous post, he claimed that the court had ordered him to delete his parents from his social media account.
McBride wrote that it is his opinion that “[the] court’s findings and conclusions, as well as the evidence submitted by Mr. boyce and Kristy, are erroneous.”
He also wrote: “It is clear from the record that [boyce and girle] have been subjected to a form of physical and emotional abuse and neglect from their father that they are not dependent children of Mr.[BoyCE] and have been able to express themselves freely and fairly in a manner consistent with their wishes.
We do not find it appropriate to require the parents to relinquish their parental rights to [boynce and girlce] because they have been unable to meet their own needs.
The child is an adult, and Mr.
Boyce is not an adult.””
We conclude that Mr Boyce did not break the court order and that Mr [Boynce] does not violate any court order,” McQuee wrote.
“The court’s orders and findings regarding the parents are not supported by any factual basis or reasoning.”
McQuee also wrote, “We have not yet addressed the issues raised by [Boyces] in their divorce proceeding.
Byrne has the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that [their] relationship is a relationship of mutual respect, respect for elders, and the parent-child relationship.
We are not in a position to consider whether [Boyleys] relationship has been harmed by the father’s actions in the past, or by the circumstances of the relationship in the present.”