The Ran on Amud Beis discusses the status of possessions of a married woman.  Since there is a nuptial agreement that the husband support his wife financially, in exchange for that, she agrees that her earnings become his property. What if someone gifts to the woman something with a stipulation that it not be transferable to her husband?  Is this condition valid?  The Ran proves that this condition is accepted as the halakhic norm and proves from another Gemara (Sanhedrin 71a): 

According to Rabbi Yose the Son of Rabbi Yehuda, the Ben Sorrer Umoreh, the rebellious youth described in Devarim (21:18-21) is only liable if he steals from his father and his mother.  The Gemara asks, how is it possible for the mother to have independent possessions for this son to steal?  The Gemara answers that it is from possessions acquired via a gift with the stipulation we described.  The Ran thus proves from this Gemara that it is the halakhic standard to accept this condition.

What is the Torah’s reason for only considering theft from both parents as a necessary condition to create liability for the rebellious son? Ralbag (Devarim 21:18) says it is because of proximity.  Meaning to say, if we believe that the child is going to grow up in such a sociopathic manner that he is beyond hope, he must become sufficiently habituated in his behavior,  By definition, since theft from the mother and father is easier to commit, if this is his habit, he will have many opportunities and become fully entrenched in the anti-social behavior.  (This also references what we discussed about Crime Opportunity Theory in Psychology of the Daf, Nedarim 85.)

However, another answer comes from Rav Samson Rafael Hirch’s unique perspective on the Ben Sorrer. He says that the requirements hint at significant pedagogical principles. The requirement that the mother and father “have the same sounding voices”, alludes to the need for parents to be consistent and on the same team. If the parents are not able to provide a stable and harmonious message, we cannot fully fault the rebel, and he is not liable. (He also might be considered redeemable in society, as perhaps he would reform if exposed to proper education and guidance.) Applying this idea of Rav Hirsch, we can say that if the child only steals from one parent and not the other, it indicates that the child feels favoritism to one and/or hatred to other. This too is a result of parents splitting and not presenting a unified front. In such a case, the child’s sociopathy may not be beyond hope because it’s not stemming from his true nature, rather from an improper environment.