I remember at an update one year, the position was the innocent owner defense never goes away, because it is based on the time the owner purchased the (in this case vehicle). The situation I have is a Dad buys his son a vehicle and the son had been stopped 3 separate times in the vehicle while the son was in possession of the drugs. From some cases I have read, there is no mention of these kind of facts, can these facts defeat this defense?

Check out 2004 Volkswagen Jetta v. State, 285 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2009), for what sounds like a similar situation.

I can't remember the case off the top of my head, but there is authority out there for bifurcated ownership. The father with legal ownership and the son with equitable ownership. You forfeit the ownership interest of the son and the other owner (the dad) has no innocent owner defense.