I want to start by pointing out that it's not true that minors have no rights. They do indeed have fewer rights than legal adults (also fewer legal responsibilities, don't forget about that) but saying they have no rights is just wrong when you consider that not too long ago children were legally considered not people, but property (no, this is not an exaggeration. Look it up). It was not that long ago even that some people (and even more so minors) didn't even have the right to live (and that doesn't mean house and board. It means being alive or not). While we do take these rights for granted now, to the point where we don't even think about them (hey, you don't constantly think about how great all that air you're breathing is), we should probably be a bit more aware of these things, especially considering how easy it actually is to take them away.
But now more on-topic: I think what the poster was talking about was strictly the law allowing parents in general to have complete control over their children's assets and not the specific situation he's in, and I must say that I mostly agree with that law and here's why: Minors have fewer rights and responsibilities because they are considered to lack the reason, judgement and mental faculties required to understand and to respect these rights and their implicit obligations. And this is quite true. You wouldn't trust a 2-year-old child with an important decision, would you? You wouldn't trust him to be able to provide for himself, right? Other people have to do that, and to be able to do that, the child's legal rights are restricted. Think what would happen if a mother wouldn't have the legal right to stop her child from wandering into a busy street (if the child has full rights like an adult, stopping him from going into the street if he really wanted to would be considered a breach on his right to freedom, and as such punishable), but not stopping a 2-year-old from doing that could end up with him being hurt, since he doesn't understand the danger he's putting himself in, doesn't grasp the fact that being hit by a car is bad, and mostly lacks the mental capacity to focus on both the act of walking and the oncoming traffic if he does understand the danger.
Things do tend to go a bit grey as the minor advances in age, because if you can argue that a toddler can't recognise the danger of traffic, a 13-year-old would have no such problems and then the required 18 years to be officially an adult might seem weird and random, but that's not so. Everyone knows the brain goes through significant changes during childhood and adolescence, restructuring itself, growing, making new connections, and so on. It seems that around 20 is when the very significant and powerful changes stop and the brain mostly settles in (sure, stuff still goes on, at least for some people, but not as dramatic). This age varies between individuals, naturally, but since you don't really have to pass an exam to determine if you are an adult (there's an idea) most countries have selected ages close to that one to be considered the default "maturity" age.
Also to clarify a bit, while a teenager does posses all the mental faculties of an adult, during the drastic hormonal changes brain function moves away from the frontal lobes (associated with higher reasoning, logic, social skills, etc) to the more primitive impulse and emotion based regions, making them less capable of proper decision making and turning them into ...well... teens.
All of the above is ofc very generic and since people are not the same, special individual cases do arise. I'm sure there are children out there with more reason and intelligence and capability than most adults, and I do know for sure there are adults out there that should be stripped of that title. And when such individual cases lead to abuse and infringement on the very basic rights of minors, there are legal ways to deal with that - Mainly emancipation ,social services and so on, that tend to judge each case in particular.
So no, in conclusion I don't really find the law itself stupid, or silly or anything like that, since parents, as adults, should be able to better decide what to do with the money than the child that is earning it can(in the interest of the child). But this only holds true because there are other laws that ensure the first one is not an absolute law, and in individual cases it can be altered in the best interest of the minor.
