This seems really weird to me. I don't think she has a case, but who knows.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/n ... aid-n43826 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/n-j-honor-student-booted-home-sues-parents-college-aid-n43826)
QuoteA northern New Jersey honor student who claims her parents threw her out of their home when she turned 18 late last year is now suing them.
Morris Catholic High School senior Rachel Canning filed her lawsuit last week, according to the Daily Record of Parsippany.Canning is seeking immediate financial support and wants to force her parents to pay for her college education. She also wants a judge to declare that she's non-emancipated and dependent as a student on her parents for support. A hearing in the case is scheduled for Tuesday.
Canning's father, retired Lincoln Park Police Chief Sean Canning, told the newspaper that his daughter's claims are not accurate. He says she voluntarily left home in October because she didn't want to abide by reasonable household rules, such as being respectful, keeping a curfew and doing some chores.
"We love our child and miss her. This is terrible. It's killing me and my wife. We have a child we want home. We're not draconian and now we're getting hauled into court," Sean Canning said. "She's demanding that we pay her bills but she doesn't want to live at home, and she's saying 'I don't want to live under your rules.'"
In recent months, Rachel Canning has been living in Rockaway Township with the family of her best friend. The newspaper reports the friend's father, former Morris County Freeholder John Inglesino, is funding the lawsuit and hired the attorney who is representing Rachel Canning.
I read about that. I hope she wins.
Indeed
I don't understand why anyone hopes she would win. In the quoted part of the article it clearly says he is retired which means there is most likely a fixed income. I'm as liberal as the next person, maybe more but if she didn't want to live under their roof and rules she made her choice.
Not to mention there are plenty of ways in the U.S. to afford a University education that don't include mommy and daddy such as combination of grants and student loans.
Quote from: "SGOS"This seems really weird to me. I don't think she has a case, but who knows.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/n ... aid-n43826 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/n-j-honor-student-booted-home-sues-parents-college-aid-n43826)
QuoteA northern New Jersey honor student who claims her parents threw her out of their home when she turned 18 late last year is now suing them.
Morris Catholic High School senior Rachel Canning filed her lawsuit last week, according to the Daily Record of Parsippany.Canning is seeking immediate financial support and wants to force her parents to pay for her college education. She also wants a judge to declare that she's non-emancipated and dependent as a student on her parents for support. A hearing in the case is scheduled for Tuesday.
Canning's father, retired Lincoln Park Police Chief Sean Canning, told the newspaper that his daughter's claims are not accurate. He says she voluntarily left home in October because she didn't want to abide by reasonable household rules, such as being respectful, keeping a curfew and doing some chores.
"We love our child and miss her. This is terrible. It's killing me and my wife. We have a child we want home. We're not draconian and now we're getting hauled into court," Sean Canning said. "She's demanding that we pay her bills but she doesn't want to live at home, and she's saying 'I don't want to live under your rules.'"
In recent months, Rachel Canning has been living in Rockaway Township with the family of her best friend. The newspaper reports the friend's father, former Morris County Freeholder John Inglesino, is funding the lawsuit and hired the attorney who is representing Rachel Canning.
Non-emancipated? Legally she is a fucking adult. I seriously hope the judge gives this "adult" a serious reality check. At 18, I know this will come as a big shock to a lot of people, your parents don't owe you shit. They have done their part. You have been raised and, if your parents truly cared about you, given the necessary skills to look after yourself. Seriously if the judge caves to this bullshit, I will have lost all faith in humanities ability to succeed.
(//http://www.cavemancircus.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2012/februrary/i_dont_want_to_live_on_this_planet_anymore/i_dont_want_to_live_on_this_planet_anymore_20.jpg)
As far as I'm concerned, she is an adult and has the responsibilities that come with it. However, I suspect that she will be able to claim something from her parents, given that parents are required to support offspring at college if they are above a certain financial threshold, even if it's a small amount. That's the way is works here in Britain, anyway.
It sounds like she wants independence, but not financial independence....
The article comes from MSN, which typically provides unusually scant amounts of information, so I'm thinking we are missing something very important. I've never heard of a law that requires parent's to pay for children's college. Support maybe, but not college.
The guy that is funding this, to the tune of $12,000 so far, is a lawyer if I read it right (actually from another article). He must think he's going to win and is asking the court to force the girl's parents to pay his legal fees.
It suggests he knows something. Are they still declaring the girl as a dependent on their taxes? Did they throw her out and endanger her?
What's missing is the girls version of the story. I expect it to be settled (or not settled) out of court, and we will never know the ending.
Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"As far as I'm concerned, she is an adult and has the responsibilities that come with it. However, I suspect that she will be able to claim something from her parents, given that parents are required to support offspring at college if they are above a certain financial threshold, even if it's a small amount. That's the way is works here in Britain, anyway.
Uhh.... since when? Last time I checked you pay your own uni fees out of a loan in your own name.
Quote from: "Jason78"I read about that. I hope she wins.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Agreed. I hope she gets it.
Honestly wondering what factors are making you hope she wins.
Not to criticize you or anything, but I don't see any legal reason for her parents to be forced to provide anything to her now that she's over 18.
In the US once you are 18 you are legally an adult. Your parents aren't legally required to provide anything to you beyond that point. They can kick you out and leave you homeless on the streets if they so wish.
Do you have any knowledge of mitigating factors that make her case different from the thousands of kids who are thrown out to be on their own every year? If not then I can see no reason she should win.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"There is more to this story. You don't throw your honour student kid out, because she doesn't obey curfews.
The fact that she was an honor student says literally nothing about her behavior at home. Being an honor student may indicate that she's more likely to be some kind of angel at home, but she could of just as easily been a little shit at home. Regardless, her behavior when she was at home has no bearing on the legality of the situation.
The information is fairly scant, so I'm not seeing any mitigating factors. If such factors exist I'd like to see them, but until then I can't see why she should win the case.
I hope she wins. My reasoning boils down to this:
[spoil:306zt32a](//http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TzYI7lkc808/T5cEdFN7a4I/AAAAAAAACJQ/-y-FWAFIjLg/s1600/Some%20Men%20Just%20Want%20to%20Watch%20the%20World%20Burn.jpg)[/spoil:306zt32a]
Another spoiled brat in the news.
She is an insult to kids who put themselves through college or take out loans and would never think of suing their parents.
She'll be hilarious when she doesn't get her own way at her employer, someday.
Meanwhile there are kids in third world countries who have to work hard labor jobs to help put food on the table for their whole family, and they'll never have a chance at a college education.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Not to criticize you or anything, but I don't see any legal reason for her parents to be forced to provide anything to her now that she's over 18.
Most states require parents to provide for their children until age 18 and either graduating from high school or dropping out of high school.
Since she is still attending high school, her parents will lose on that issue as a matter of law. Even if over 18, it is illegal to end support for her as long as she's in high school (unless NJ is different than most states, but probably not).
There's no law requiring parents to pay for a college education, and if she has a case there at all it would be in equity not in law. I can't imagine what circumstances would be present to have an equity judgement in her favor unless she's an abused child or something like that.
Quote...she didn't want to abide by reasonable household rules, such as being respectful, keeping a curfew and doing some chores.
Sell your pussy on the street then.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Regardless, her behavior when she was at home has no bearing on the legality of the situation.
Nor does being an honor student. When I read the article I kept wondering why being an honor student was relevant to the case. It's in the text and it's a part of the headline, but I don't see how that affects legality. From what I understand, after a person turns 18, parents are not legally responsible for supporting them. It's exactly the same as if they were 35.
Most, but hardly all, parents continue to supply financial assistance to their children through college. And in turn, most students offer gratitude to their parents. But I don't think either the financial assistance or the child's gratitude is a legal obligation.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Regardless, her behavior when she was at home has no bearing on the legality of the situation.
Nor does being an honor student. When I read the article I kept wondering why being an honor student was relevant to the case. It's in the text and it's a part of the headline, but I don't see how that affects legality. From what I understand, after a person turns 18, parents are not legally responsible for supporting them. It's exactly the same as if they were 35.
Most, but hardly all, parents continue to supply financial assistance to their children through college. And in turn, most students offer gratitude to their parents. But I don't think either the financial assistance or the child's gratitude is a legal obligation.
Well, I don't know how this relates legally but let me tell you..............As someone that has to pay $348 a month to some bitch he no longer lives, I know for a fact that the child support ends at 18..........UNLESS they decide to attend college, in which case it continues to 21. Here in Michigan anyway, according to my attorney. Never thought I'd root for my kids to be stupid...........haha j/k.
Quote from: "aileron"Most states require parents to provide for their children until age 18 and either graduating from high school or dropping out of high school.
Since she is still attending high school, her parents will lose on that issue as a matter of law.
I didn't know about the "over 18, but still in high school caveat", but it makes sense. Therein lies part of the helpful but excluded information in the article.
The forum should provide a legal advisor for threads like this. :-D
Quote from: "Moriarty"I know for a fact that the child support ends at 18..........UNLESS they decide to attend college, in which case it continues to 21. Here in Michigan anyway, according to my attorney.
Amazing. That would change the whole debate. I guess I haven't been keeping up with my law studies. I always wondered why they kept telling me I couldn't take the bar exam. :-D
Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should. Her parents don't owe her a college education.
The ironic thing about this story is that these parents probably created this behavior in their daughter. Being too permissive, etc. She looks like she has no respect for them, but they probably enabled this behavior for a while.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Moriarty"I know for a fact that the child support ends at 18..........UNLESS they decide to attend college, in which case it continues to 21. Here in Michigan anyway, according to my attorney.
Amazing. That would change the whole debate. I guess I haven't been keeping up with my law studies. I always wondered why they kept telling me I couldn't take the bar exam. :-D
Yeah, that would be the mitigating factor I was talking about. I'm wondering if it only applies to child support in the case of divorced or split up parents though.
Quote from: "SGOS"[From what I understand, after a person turns 18, parents are not legally responsible for supporting them.
Apparently the law in NJ concerning emancipation of a child is complex. A 60 year old court case Cohen v. Cohen is the precedent, and it states, "...parents would be required to pay for college when college would be considered normal for that family, the child shows scholastic aptitude, and one or both parents have the financial ability to pay tuition."
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Moriarty"I know for a fact that the child support ends at 18..........UNLESS they decide to attend college, in which case it continues to 21. Here in Michigan anyway, according to my attorney.
Amazing. That would change the whole debate. I guess I haven't been keeping up with my law studies. I always wondered why they kept telling me I couldn't take the bar exam. :-D
Yeah, that would be the mitigating factor I was talking about. I'm wondering if it only applies to child support in the case of divorced or split up parents though.
I don't know. I know two situations, where parents refused to support their college age offspring. One was a woman who had wasted her entire first year in college just having a party, and her parents cut her off, actually more like disowned her (if there is such a thing). She did eventually decide to get her ass in gear and finished all the way through a masters degree on her own. But it took a couple of extra years.
The other was a boy right out of high school whose parent's were sort of struggling but could have helped a little. They just told the kid he would have to do it all on his own.
But these cases were in Montana, many years ago. If there was a law that could force the issue, I don't think anyone knew about it.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"The fact that there are thousands or more kids being thrown out from their houses and that parents see it a normal thing to do doesn't change the bigger fact that how fucked up this culture is. A fast and effective way to create a sociopathic society.
Actually, this is not a normal situation in the US at all, which is why it made the news. It's incredibly atypical, in fact. Most parents do not throw their kids out, and most kids obey the rules set by their parents. On the surface, what the reporter is describing here might be a dysfunctional family. We can't jump to conclude that anyone is being totally unfair or totally reasonable for that matter. The family just appears to be fucked up. It's dysfunctional.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Yes, I am aware of everything you said, TSA. Legality of the situation doesn't change the fact how fucked up the parents' behaviour is. She is NOT suing them to become rich. She is suing them for her college expenses to have a chance of beginning in life.
May be it is a cultural thing, because it is VERY alien to me, but you don't throw your kid out because her behaviour is shit, because you 'wish'. Children are not property of their parents. And doesn't matter how legal 18 is, she is a fucking kid. Period.
There is a reason given in the link by the parent's side, I have no idea we suddenly have to assume that it should be a lie, especially if this is that common of a situation in the US. And it is about trivial bullshit like curfew and not obeying rules. Parents are people and they act pretty fucked up most of the time. We are not 'animals', we are related to our offspring after they become legal adults and we prepare/support them so they would be able to. This is why people should need a licence to have kids. "Oh she is 18 now we are not legally responsible for looking after her, let's throw her out". Fuck them, don't breed then.
The fact that there are thousands or more kids being thrown out from their houses and that parents see it a normal thing to do doesn't change the bigger fact that how fucked up this culture is. A fast and effective way to create a sociopathic society.
Basically she is just out of high school and her parents are throwing her out without giving her any chance to have a hold on to her life and showing the most stupid thing possible as a reason. She is told that she cannot have what most people can, because her parents do not want her and again, she is trying to get what she needs to build a life by suing them to have her college expenses not to become rich.
And you are pitching some bullshit about "oh another spoilt brat, she is 18 she should be able to stand on her own feet".
:arrow: Everybody in the US who suffers from some bad situation is either 'spoilt' or 'stupid'. There is nothing wrong with the culture or how society works.
Notice that I said nothing about the
morality of the situation, but rather the
legality.
I agree that it is a morally right to support your child in college if you have the means to do so. Do I think you should be legally obligated to do so? Fuck no.
Did I ever say she was a spoiled brat? No. I said that her being an honor student wasn't an indication of her behavior at home.
And why shouldn't you throw someone out because their behavior is shit? My brother is bipolar, refuses to take his medication, and physically and verbally violent. He used illegal drugs in the home and was utterly disrespectful. Should my parents have let him live at home just because he was their son? Should they have risked injury and property keeping him around just because he was their son? Fuck no. There's a point where it doesn't matter what kind of connection someone has to you, you gotta toss them out for your own safety.
Do I think she was a danger to her family? No, I wouldn't make that judgement unless I knew something that indicated that she was. Do I think the parents were morally right to throw her out? No. Do I think they had the legal right to throw her out? Yes.
All I was asking for was some mitigating factor that made her case significantly different from others.
There are shitty people out there, and they have every right to be shitty people. We shouldn't force our morals upon everyone.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Moriarty"Well, I don't know how this relates legally but let me tell you..............As someone that has to pay $348 a month to some bitch he no longer lives, I know for a fact that the child support ends at 18..........UNLESS they decide to attend college, in which case it continues to 21. Here in Michigan anyway, according to my attorney. Never thought I'd root for my kids to be stupid...........haha j/k.
Oh wow, what a disgusting way to express a simple piece of information. You sound like that 'bitch' had 'your' kids completely out of your knowledge or involvement, but that you have to pay some money now, because you moved to live in another place.
Because it's my fault you lack a basic sense of humor and sarcasm~
Although, since we're being blunt, I would bet everything I own you would consider her a bitch if you knew what she did with the money, of which I can assure zero reaches the kids. But go ahead and act high and mighty to someone else because quite frankly I don't give a fuck what you think.
Something overlooked, and anyone who has ever paid child support should know all to well, in certain states a parent can be required to pay for the cost of an offspring's education until the age of 26 IIRC. My friend John has paid child support for years and as long as his daughter remains in school, not just high school, he'll be required to keep paying although I'm not sure the exact age at which he's off the hook, but it's well over 18. His daughter is in no way required to remain at home with her mother.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"May be it is a cultural thing, because it is VERY alien to me
I will preface my post by saying I am not disagreeing with anything you said, I am wanting to give some additional clarity from an "insider's perspective" :)
As an imigrant to the US, I can contrast and compare and can tell you that yes, to a certain degree it is a cultural thing. Basically to make a long story short, the people here that are struggling with the notion of an 18 year old suing for financial support stems from the fact that you
can, in this country, put yourself on your own two feet, financially. It is neither easy nor quick. There are countless stories of struggle in the United States, good people that have reached far in life through honesty, dedication and hard work. Immigrants who came to this country with nothing other than the shirt on their back and yet made a decent life of their own. It is that so called American spirit that people here have, socially, very ingrained in them, that sense that in life you can succeed on your own, and those that live with a sense of entitlement, such as what this story
appears to suggest at first glance, is not easy to accept.
I agree that there is more to this story that meets the eye. I can only speculate at this point, but something makes me thing the daughter is coming from a highly religious household that is demanding her total submission and she simply could not go on another day under that type of thing. So in that light, I think it is reasonable to expect that her parents would in fact kick her out on what seems to us the simple notion that she is rebellious.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Something overlooked, and anyone who has ever paid child support should know all to well, in certain states a parent can be required to pay for the cost of an offspring's education until the age of 26 IIRC. My friend John has paid child support for years and as long as his daughter remains in school, not just high school, he'll be required to keep paying although I'm not sure the exact age at which he's off the hook, but it's well over 18. His daughter is in no way required to remain at home with her mother.
It wasn't overlooked, I mentioned it. It's 21 here in Michigan but then again we are more forward thinking than Ohio~ :P
Judge denied her, but as a caring, understanding and compassionate pervert I've decided she can come stay with me and sleep in my bed at the YMCA.
See how happy I've made the little lass?
(//http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q490/atheola/student-sues-parents.jpg)
Quote"We love our child and miss her. This is terrible. It's killing me and my wife. We have a child we want home. We're not Draconian and now we're getting hauled into court. She's demanding that we pay her bills but she doesn't want to live at home and she's saying, 'I don't want to live under your rules,' " Sean Canning said.
The father said that he and his wife did stop paying the Morris Catholic tuition and have kept Rachel's car because they paid for it. The father contended that Rachel moved out because she didn't want to abide by simple household rules — be respectful, keep a curfew, return "borrowed" items to her two sisters, manage a few chores, and reconsider or end her relationship with a boyfriend the parents believe is a bad influence.
Yep, smells like a totalitarian Christian household to me.
In addition, NJ law apparently says
QuoteIn New Jersey, emancipation of a child "is a fact-sensitive analysis that looks at whether the child has moved beyond the sphere of influence and responsibility exercised by a parent and has obtained an independent status of his or her own.
The mere fact that a child has turned 18 is not an automatic reason to stop financial support, according to Helfand and several longtime family attorneys in Morris County. A key court decision in the state specifies that, "A child's admittance and attendance at college will overcome the rebuttable presumption that a child may be emancipated at age 18."
So easy to find out if one clicks on the source article
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/2014 ... ck_check=1 (http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20140302/NJNEWS/303020017/?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1)
Not completely denied, just the initial claim... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1710802 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-judge-denies-teen-request-funds-suit-parents-article-1.1710802)
^ wow!
QuoteMorristown Superior Court Judge Peter Bogaard appears to have agreed with an independent investigators' assessment of the home atmosphere: that the high school cheerleader and lacrosse player is "spoiled."
Alright then. As usual the truth is not as one sided as it may seem.
The comments to the article are a good read as well ;)
It looks to me like the girl has had her chance in court and failed to present a compelling case.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am going to say that the picture that the parents are presenting is indeed an accurate one, until evidence to the contrary. And the judge seems to agree with me.
Quote from: "Shol'va"^ wow!
QuoteMorristown Superior Court Judge Peter Bogaard appears to have agreed with an independent investigators' assessment of the home atmosphere: that the high school cheerleader and lacrosse player is "spoiled."
Alright then. As usual the truth is not as one sided as it may seem.
The comments to the article are a good read as well ;)
Consider the source here is NYDN...about as reliable as the label on a tampon box usually. [-X Actually tampon boxes don't usually support one agenda or another..
If that makes you skeptical, then let's look at this news from other sources. I'm trying to find the court ruling.
Here is a much better detailed article
http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014 ... rents.html (http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/03/judge_issues_ruling_in_teens_suit_against_parents.html)
Personally I don't really care.. My kids are all grown and I raised them so the whole argument is mute to me. :-$
The only thing I have a problem with in general is the sense of entitlement. If everything the parents are saying is true, then I am inclined to agree with them. I'm not sure I would have taken the same measures, but it looks to me like an intervention of some sort was necessary. It is the classic example of the girl wanting the best of both worlds: live as an independent adult on her family's income.
I don't blame her. She's a kid, not some sort of monster. The parents are within their rights, but seem a tad selfish too, but remember, they raised her to be who she is. I'll just split the baby in half..
I'm gonna cite the article, what the hell :) ... and bold some relevant parts.
QuoteA Superior Court judge today refused to order a Lincoln Park couple to pay private school and college tuition for their 18-year-old daughter who moved out of their house and is suing for financial support.
"Do we want to establish a precedent where parents live in basic fear of establishing rules of the house?" Family Division Judge Peter Bogaard asked.
Rachel Canning, a senior at Morris Catholic High School, went to court to force her parents, Sean and Elizabeth Canning, to pay her child support, private school tuition, medical and related bills, college expenses and legal fees. Canning is an honor student and an athlete, but her parents have stopped paying her bills because she would not obey their rules.
Bogaard refused to issue the requested emergency order, which would have awarded the teen more than $600 a week.
Bogaard said no emergency exists because Morris Catholic has said Canning may continue attending the school despite her tuition not being paid, and because the final deadline of May 1 has not yet arrived for college applications.
Allowing the emergency order "would represent essentially a new law or a new way of interpreting an existing law," Bogaard said. "A kid could move out and then sue for an XBox, an iPhone or a 60-inch television."
The judge's decision followed a more than two-hour hearing in Morristown during which attorneys pressed their arguments. Parents and daughter sat on opposite sides of the courtroom, rarely exchanging glances. Both sides appeared tense and sad.
Bogaard scheduled another hearing for April 22. The case may be headed for trial on the key issue of whether Rachel Canning was "emancipated" from her parents when she defied their order to break up with her boyfriend and moved out of their house.
Rachel remains "unemancipated," or dependent on her parents, because she needs their support to complete her education at Morris Catholic and to pay for the college education for which she has been preparing, her attorney, Tanya Helfand, argued.
Helfand is focusing on getting financial information from the parents that will show they have the ability to pay for their daughter, but are avoiding those responsibilities.
At today's hearing, Bogaard said, Canning's parents were required to produce information about their incomes, including their 2011 and 2012 income tax returns and their last three pay stubs. That information is to remain private.
"Normal, healthy people want to help their children," Helfand said. "The Cannings simply don't want to pay. They want to strip their daughter of her opportunities."
She said Canning's parents treated her in an "abnormal" way that made it "untenable" for her to stay in the house.
For instance, Helfand said, Sean Canning would not allow his daughter to have a
boyfriend while a senior in high school, which she said is not "normal."
The parents' attorney, Laurie Rush-Masuret, countered that Rachel could easily have stayed at the house, which she said had "a loving, nurturing environment. She clearly could have come home to her nice house and her new car."
"She voluntarily decided to leave because she didn't like the rules they were imposing," Rush-Masuret said, and that makes her "emancipated."
If Rachel were granted her emergency order, "Other young women will say to their parents, 'I'm going to live with my boyfriend, no matter what you say, but you'll still have to pay for my college,'" Rush-Masuret said.
The parents have no obligation to pay for their daughter's private school tuition or child support, Rush-Masuret said. She added that the parents don't want to pay for Rachel's college tuition because they weren't consulted about the applications.
However, she added, the parents will continue to pay for their daughter's health insurance and said she is also entitled to money held in a college fund, which would pay part of her expenses.
Documents submitted by Rachel Canning and her attorney said she has been admitted to several colleges, and "deadlines to accept are imminent." The parents have income in the $250,000 to $300,000 range, yet refuse to pay, according to the papers.
A key problem, Helfand said, is that Rachel has been unable to fill out the FAFSA federal student aid form because her parents have not provided financial information.
Sean Canning is a retired chief of police in Lincoln Park and current business administrator for the Township of Mount Olive, while the mother is a legal secretary at McElroy, Deutsch, according to the papers.
Rachel said in court papers that she has been living for the past four months at the home of her best friend, the daughter of prominent Morris County attorney John Inglesino, who has "advanced" her legal fees.
Much of the hearing focused on the behavior of Rachel, her parents and her boyfriend, with frequent disagreement over facts.
Rachel and her boyfriend both had two-day suspensions from school, and Bogaard said he thought it had resulted from Rachel's "vulgar postings" on social media related to her parents.
Helfand disagreed, saying the punishment was because Rachel had "tweeted" about people causing her problems at school unrelated to her parents, and because she and her boyfriend both skipped classes one day so she could help him with his college applications.
Bogaard cited a vulgar voice mail left by Rachel for her mother. "Have you ever seen a child show such gross disrespect for a parent?" he asked. "Is there a point at which a parent can say they don't have to pay for college?"
The judge also cited certifications submitted by the Canning parents about their daughter's alleged history of staying out and drinking during the week. Once, he said, she was driven home by her boyfriend's parents at 3 a.m. Rachel was removed from her position as captain of the cheerleaders and from the campus ministry, Bogaard said.
"What kind of parents would the Cannings be if they did not discipline her?" he asked. "The Cannings had to right to set up rules."
Helfand countered, "I don't think what the Cannings are saying is true. They simply want to point their finger at Rachel and say 'she is a bad girl because she didn't do anything we wanted.' They paint the most disgusting picture of their daughter in these certifications."
The judge replied that "a day or two for a hearing" might determine the truth of the matter.
Helfand also accused the parents of "neglect" for going to Las Vegas for five days during Homecoming, when Rachel was a member of the court and was also responsible for her two younger siblings.
Bogaard countered that "neglect" was a too strong a term, pointing out that several neighbors were checking on the children regularly.
Bogaard also disagreed with Helfand's contention that Rachel was "thrown out on her 18th birthday." Rachel was "not thrown out," but was "constructively abandoned" by her parents, Bogaard said.
Despite the apparently wide gap between Rachel and her parents, Bogaard held out hope for a possible reconciliation.
He read a letter Rachel sent to her parents in October, the month that she left the house.
"Hey guys, I want to apologize for my actions," Rachel said. "I really need to realize there are consequences for the things that I do. I am trying to change. I do miss you guys. I am trying to turn over a new leaf."
Bogaard commented, "This family is well worth the effort to salvage. It does appear more energy has been utilized to tear up this family than to figure out how it can be brought back together."
WTF? A good CATHOLIC girl who DRINKS and probably FUCKS her boyfriend? Oh, I just can't believe it. Good catholic girls never do these things. Just look at her angelic face. How could anyone even think of getting drunk with her to get naked? If that's not the most honest, wholesome looking girl on the planet then John Boehner doesn't have a fake tan. 8-)
(//http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q490/atheola/student-sues-parents.jpg)
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"WTF? A good CATHOLIC girl who DRINKS and probably FUCKS her boyfriend? Oh, I just can't believe it. Good catholic girls never do these things. Just look at her angelic face. How could anyone even think of getting drunk with her to get naked? If that's not the most honest, wholesome looking girl on the planet then John Boehner doesn't have a fake tan. 8-)
[ Image (//http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q490/atheola/student-sues-parents.jpg) ]
People who look similar to her have been cast as villains too often for me to think that smile has good intentions behind it.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"As far as I'm concerned, she is an adult and has the responsibilities that come with it. However, I suspect that she will be able to claim something from her parents, given that parents are required to support offspring at college if they are above a certain financial threshold, even if it's a small amount. That's the way is works here in Britain, anyway.
Uhh.... since when? Last time I checked you pay your own uni fees out of a loan in your own name.
I haven't checked that recently, as my degree was some time ago, but one of my work colleagues who has split with the mother of his children is obliged to pay some monthly amount towards his daughters' upkeep if they go to college, whereas he isn't obliged to if they don't. I don't have kids of my own so I'm only going on what I'm told. Given that the daughter in the OP is apart from the parents, I thought maybe the same things may apply. But this is a different country, so maybe not...
But yes, the
majority of the funding in
Britain would certainly come from loans or the occasional bursary, if it is available.
Meh, they clothed her, gave her food, and this his how she repays them by suing them... haha!!
My, if they abused her, fine, but IMHO that's not abuse. She deserves being thrown into a mental institution....
I don't want to be judgmental, but she comes across as selfish, self centered and spoiled. And she obviously feels entitled. Don't think she makes a sympathetic plaintiff.
Quote from: "stromboli"I don't want to be judgmental, but she comes across as selfish, self centered and spoiled. And she obviously feels entitled. Don't think she makes a sympathetic plaintiff.
From the judge's comments, I kind of picked up that he felt a little of that too. However, from what this thread has generated as far as understanding New Jersey law, I'm wondering if this first judge's opinion will count for anything.
The news coverage does point out that this case is unprecedented, however. That may create greater room for considering the circumstances along with written law. I can imagine one possible equitable solution, and there may be better ones. The court could order her to return home and follow house rules that could be negotiated with the help of an impartial third partly, like social services. That way the court could have some confidence that neither side is being unreasonable. Her financial support could be contingent on that. If she makes a reasonable attempt to comply, her parents would support her as they normally would have. If she leaves home on her own again (otherwise known as running away, which frequently does happen), she must accept the responsibility for her own financial affairs (which is what usually happens). If she follows the agreed rules and the parent's kick her out, the parents must still accept responsibility for her finances.
I have lots of friends who moved out of their parents homes when they were 18. They just got apartments, usually in the same town. It struck me as odd, but they wanted more independence and privacy. Neither their parents or my friends made a big deal out of it. There was no animosity involved, and my friends supported themselves adequately. One of them even drove a Corvette. It's not like letting an incompetent 18 year old loose in the jungle without a knife.
Growing up (not in the US), my dad had a successful business. I washed his cars and did other choirs around he house and helped him with various things for allowance money. He taught me one of the very important life lessons a parent can impress upon their children. Although they could have paid for my college tuition, I already had an income at that time and was able to do so on my own, by my own choosing. I worked days and went to college at night. I can attribute my current financial stability to my dad.
I'm a very easy going guy, but there are things that agravate me, and one of those things is the sense of entitlement. If my kid sued me on the basis of access to my financial success, trust me when I say we would be in court for an entirely different reason, and that would be battery and assault charges laid upon me.
I put myself through college with G.I. bill and working variously 1 or 2 jobs. It took me 6 years to get my bachelor's degree, when the G.I. bill ran out and I had a family. I ended up finishing at night school while working full time at Hill AFB. They mailed me my diploma.
So needless to day I don't have a lot of sympathy. She does act like she's entitled, and that I don't agree with.
I don't know of a single law that says being an arrogant pissy spoiled cunt is illegal anywhere. If there is then a lot of women and men need locked up immediately! Fuck drug offenders, let's get these shitheads behind bars and rewire old sparky! :shock:
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"I don't know of a single law that says being an arrogant pissy spoiled cunt is illegal anywhere.
That's what makes this an interesting case. In the end, the courts may decide that her behavior doesn't matter, and that she is entitled - period. I'm wondering if this first ruling will stand up under appeal.
I do find myself occasionally arguing legal aspects in situations where they are on the side of an individual that is asshole-ish. And that's one of the times I don't enjoy my job dealing with civil law and rules of the road. I certainly understand all too well the whole "the law is the law".
There seems to be a lot more entitled young people now than previous. We've all known them in high school and college, but there seem to be more of them now.
Quote from: "stromboli"There seems to be a lot more entitled young people now than previous. We've all known them in high school and college, but there seem to be more of them now.
Parents that coddle and are too permissive, are really at the helm of the problem. Kids aren't born that way, they are more than likely raised to be entitled.
Quote from: "Deidre32"Quote from: "stromboli"There seems to be a lot more entitled young people now than previous. We've all known them in high school and college, but there seem to be more of them now.
Parents that coddle and are too permissive, are really at the helm of the problem. Kids aren't born that way, they are more than likely raised to be entitled.
Absolutely.