A New Jersey teenager claiming her mother and father tossed her out of their home and cut her off financially is suing them for immediate support, current private-school fees and future college tuition. The parents, meanwhile, say that daughter Rachel Canning, 18, moved out voluntarily after refusing to abide by their rules.
“We love our child and miss her. This is terrible. It’s killing me and my wife,” Rachel's father, Sean Canning, a town administrator and retired police officer, tells the Daily Record. “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.’” The rules, he notes, include reconsidering her relationship with a boyfriend who may be a bad influence, being respectful, and abiding by her curfew. He and his wife, Elizabeth, who live in suburban Lincoln Park, about 25 miles outside of New York City, have kept their daughter’s car because they paid for it, says Canning, and he admits that they did stop paying Rachel's tuition at the private Morris Catholic High School. A hearing is scheduled to take place on Tuesday in the Morris County Superior Court.
For months, Rachel — an honor student, cheerleader, and lacrosse player — has been living with the family of her best friend and classmate, Jaime Inglesino, whose father, attorney John Inglesino, is bankrolling Rachel’s lawsuit. He’s also requesting in the lawsuit that the Cannings reimburse him for the legal fees, so far totaling $12,597, according to the paper.
Rachel’s attorney, Tanya Helfand, is not currently taking calls as she prepares for Tuesday's hearing, her office tells Yahoo Shine. Rachel did not return a call from Yahoo Shine, and the Morris County court was closed on Monday due to inclement weather. But the Daily Record reports that, in the suit, Rachel alleges her parents decided to cut her off “from all support both financially and emotionally” as of her 18th birthday, which was November 1. Her suit also demands the following of the Cannings: that they take care of an outstanding $5,306 Morris Catholic tuition bill; pay their daughter’s current living and transportation expenses; and free up her existing college fund, as she’s already been accepted to several universities.
It’s not unheard of for youngsters to take legal action against their parents for various offenses — from a pregnant Texas teen who sued her parents for allegedly pressuring her to get an abortion, to a pair of Illinois siblings in their 20s who sued their mom (unsuccessfully) for bad mothering. Even so, the Canning case is an extremely unusual one, according to experts in family law. That’s because similar suits typically involve either a divorce context, with parents disagreeing on a child’s financial support, or a fight for emancipation, in which a teen is declared financially independent from parents.
“This young woman is actually saying, ‘I want to compel the court to continue to support me financially. That’s what’s unique in this case,” Mary Coogan, assistant director of the non-profit Advocates for Children of New Jersey, tells Yahoo Shine. “So this young lady is in a unique situation because it does become very fact-sensitive. There’s really no law directly on point.” What families in similar situations have done, in Coogan’s experience, is to file for what’s called a “family crisis petition,” in which the court will try to mediate an agreeable outcome between the parents and their child.
Talking the situation through would be a better route here than a lawsuit here, Kenneth Neumann, a New York divorce mediator and psychologist with the Center for Mediation & Training, tells Yahoo Shine. “We often use the legal system as a way to deal with disagreements when we should be using therapy or mediation,” he says, noting that Rachel’s case is “extremely rare,” and that he’s “not had a case like this in 30 years,” with the most unique angle being that the parents are not in disagreement. Unfortunately for Rachel, “I don’t think she has much of a case," says Neumann. "This sounds like just another 18-year-old who got into a thing with her parents.”
It's strange that the father of the family she is staying with is actually supporting her in this. I wonder if her parents aren't that great after all. Or whether the family she is staying with is equally deluded.
Medium of Death wrote: It's strange that the father of the family she is staying with is actually supporting her in this. I wonder if her parents aren't that great after all. Or whether the family she is staying with is equally deluded.
Clearly its because hes so fed up with her hes trying to get rid of her...
And kronk, i've dealt with the daddy issues, not a fan, I was just being humorous (she also only lives 20 minutes from me...)
For months, Rachel — an honor student, cheerleader, and lacrosse player — has been living with the family of her best friend and classmate, Jaime Inglesino, whose father, attorney John Inglesino, is bankrolling Rachel’s lawsuit. He’s also requesting in the lawsuit that the Cannings reimburse him for the legal fees, so far totaling $12,597, according to the paper.
That seems suspicious to me. Either the parents aren't being truthful and did something grievous enough to Rachel to convince one of her friend's attorney parents to fund this lawsuit, or Rachel is one great spin artist who convinced an attorney to bankroll a frivolous lawsuit to the tune of $13k.
For months, Rachel — an honor student, cheerleader, and lacrosse player — has been living with the family of her best friend and classmate, Jaime Inglesino, whose father, attorney John Inglesino, is bankrolling Rachel’s lawsuit. He’s also requesting in the lawsuit that the Cannings reimburse him for the legal fees, so far totaling $12,597, according to the paper.
That seems suspicious to me. Either the parents aren't being truthful and did something grievous enough to Rachel to convince one of her friend's attorney parents to fund this lawsuit, or Rachel is one great spin artist who convinced an attorney to bankroll a frivolous lawsuit to the tune of $13k.
What a mess.
He may be a disreputable lawyer who thinks he can get a return? Perhaps the bad influence boyfriend may have something to do with the matter? Maybe the mother and father really are just donkey-caves.
Who's still at school, which her parents appear to be stopping her from finishing. The fact that because of some disagreement over a boyfriend they are stoping paying for her schooling in the final year, where she is clearly doing well, makes me more to this than a simple teen hissy fit.
Who's still at school, which her parents appear to be stopping her from finishing. The fact that because of some disagreement over a boyfriend they are stoping paying for her schooling in the final year, where she is clearly doing well, makes me more to this than a simple teen hissy fit.
That's in addition to what Darktraveller777 said, that she's already got someone to push for $13k in legal fees. I expect there must be a lot more to this than "teen throws a fit, walks out, lives with boyfriend, wants money."
Who's still at school, which her parents appear to be stopping her from finishing. The fact that because of some disagreement over a boyfriend they are stoping paying for her schooling in the final year, where she is clearly doing well, makes me more to this than a simple teen hissy fit.
Doesn't matter... Mom & Dad are king, queen, ruler, dictator, whatever in their house.
Nobody is keeping her from school though. She can finish anytime she wants. Might not be where she wants to be, but I'm sure there is a 100% free and paid for public school that has a spot reserved for her.
Y'know. I live at home and I have no problems living by my moms rules. which is mostly tell her when I plan on being home, excluding summer and breaks, always have a job and go to school. And fix things around the house when they break. If it means I get free food and living expenses, im fine with rules.
Rude awakening in a couple years..
stripper...wait..it goes
"Want fries with that order?"
stripper
steal her friend dad the lawyer
Sues him next for child support
'Found a much better article about this in the Daily Mail.
In included this particular tidbit, which I found hilarious:
Mr. Canning admits a state worker visited the home just prior to Rachel’s alleged ‘abandonment,’ but that the official found the teen simply to be ‘spoiled’ and didn’t pursue the abuse allegations.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Y'know. I live at home and I have no problems living by my moms rules. which is mostly tell her when I plan on being home, excluding summer and breaks, always have a job and go to school. And fix things around the house when they break. If it means I get free food and living expenses, im fine with rules.
You have amazing parents, they love you so much they're willing to ignore the whole brony thing. Personally I don't know if I could still love my child in that situation.
hotsauceman1 wrote: There comes a point where "Spoiled" is no longer the fault of the parents. We cant blame parents for everything.
As soon as she goes on a drug crazed sex-murder spree we can stop entirely blaming the parents.
As it stands she's acting like a teenage girl and they are acting like children. They are destroying their relationship with their daughter over pride and nonsense.
So its a legally adult woman who is saying, please still treat me as a child by paying for everything, but don't actually be my parent and expect me to obey your rules.
If i were her parents i'd pay up for tuition, and that would be it unless she moved home.
Rotary wrote: So its a legally adult woman who is saying, please still treat me as a child by paying for everything, but don't actually be my parent and expect me to obey your rules.
If i were her parents i'd pay up for tuition, and that would be it unless she moved home.
That's the line of action I was thinking as well. Your education is covered. Everything else...... good luck.
Rotary wrote: So its a legally adult woman who is saying, please still treat me as a child by paying for everything, but don't actually be my parent and expect me to obey your rules.
If i were her parents i'd pay up for tuition, and that would be it unless she moved home.
That's the line of action I was thinking as well. Your education is covered. Everything else...... good luck.
They should pay her tuition to a public school to finish out High School and then call it a day.
Rotary wrote: So its a legally adult woman who is saying, please still treat me as a child by paying for everything, but don't actually be my parent and expect me to obey your rules.
If i were her parents i'd pay up for tuition, and that would be it unless she moved home.
That's the line of action I was thinking as well. Your education is covered. Everything else...... good luck.
They should pay her tuition to a public school to finish out High School and then call it a day.
And I believe taxes already take care of that, right? So they're good. She's free to move out at 18, she's an adult. I'm siding with the parents here. They pay taxes, she can go to public school. "You live in my house, you obey my rules" is a damn good parental/child law. The coddling that has started recently is doing far more damage to kids than tough love does.
My roof, my rules is still in effect in my parents house, and I'm 40.
Of course, it's also in effect when they come to stay at my house.
And of course at 18 the rule, "If you don't like the rules, move out" comes into force.
Who's still at school, which her parents appear to be stopping her from finishing. The fact that because of some disagreement over a boyfriend they are stoping paying for her schooling in the final year, where she is clearly doing well, makes me more to this than a simple teen hissy fit.
Doesn't matter... Mom & Dad are king, queen, ruler, dictator, whatever in their house.
Their rules.
Deal with it.
BS. There is a point at which rules become unreasonable and abusive. I'm not saying that is the case here. It may well be a spoilt brat having a teen hissy fit, but you also can't have a blanket "My house my rules". At some point it becomes abuse, at a point before that it becomes unreasonable. What if she was the subject of physical or psychological abuse and just wants to finish high school. There is only the barest information so it's impossible to say what the cause is. It could be either side at fault at the moment, but parents do not have absolute right to do as they wish.
For those not in the know, just because she's 18 and moved out, doesn't mean the parents aren't on the hook for her college/university.
In IL, a kid can sue her parents for paying for her college. It varies from State to State, but one of my co-workers is in that situation now. His daughter lives with his Ex, but sued him for tuition, noting that her mother didn't make enough to cover it. The kicker is, he would have gladly paid for community college, as she was by no means an honor student. However, she chose an expensive State school, and he's now on the hook to cover it.
BS. There is a point at which rules become unreasonable and abusive. I'm not saying that is the case here. It may well be a spoilt brat having a teen hissy fit, but you also can't have a blanket "My house my rules". At some point it becomes abuse, at a point before that it becomes unreasonable. What if she was the subject of physical or psychological abuse and just wants to finish high school. There is only the barest information so it's impossible to say what the cause is. It could be either side at fault at the moment, but parents do not have absolute right to do as they wish.
I'm guessing you are still a teenager or young adult living with your parents?
She's 18, if she doesn't like the rules then she can leave. She wants to enjoy all the benefits of having her parents paying for everything but doesn't wan't to obey their rules? Yeah, that is a clear sign of abuse right there, only she's the one doing it, not her parents.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: For those not in the know, just because she's 18 and moved out, doesn't mean the parents aren't on the hook for her college/university.
In IL, a kid can sue her parents for paying for her college. It varies from State to State, but one of my co-workers is in that situation now. His daughter lives with his Ex, but sued him for tuition, noting that her mother didn't make enough to cover it. The kicker is, he would have gladly paid for community college, as she was by no means an honor student. However, she chose an expensive State school, and he's now on the hook to cover it.
The article kind of covers that. Apparently that is a situation that happens in divorce cases but doesn't really apply here because both parents are in agreement. Or at least that was what I took from the article in the OP.
Who's still at school, which her parents appear to be stopping her from finishing. The fact that because of some disagreement over a boyfriend they are stoping paying for her schooling in the final year, where she is clearly doing well, makes me more to this than a simple teen hissy fit.
Doesn't matter... Mom & Dad are king, queen, ruler, dictator, whatever in their house.
Their rules.
Deal with it.
BS. There is a point at which rules become unreasonable and abusive. I'm not saying that is the case here. It may well be a spoilt brat having a teen hissy fit, but you also can't have a blanket "My house my rules". At some point it becomes abuse, at a point before that it becomes unreasonable. What if she was the subject of physical or psychological abuse and just wants to finish high school. There is only the barest information so it's impossible to say what the cause is. It could be either side at fault at the moment, but parents do not have absolute right to do as they wish.
If something illegal is occuring, bring it to the authority.
kronk wrote: For those not in the know, just because she's 18 and moved out, doesn't mean the parents aren't on the hook for her college/university.
In IL, a kid can sue her parents for paying for her college. It varies from State to State, but one of my co-workers is in that situation now. His daughter lives with his Ex, but sued him for tuition, noting that her mother didn't make enough to cover it. The kicker is, he would have gladly paid for community college, as she was by no means an honor student. However, she chose an expensive State school, and he's now on the hook to cover it.
Usually that only occurs if one parent is supporting. If neither is typically they are SOL.
Being I'm the sole cash machine for the Boy and his epic quest for the ideal everclear/water and coed combo now, I CAN VOUCH THAT IT DOESN'T WORK IN TEXAS.
kronk wrote: For those not in the know, just because she's 18 and moved out, doesn't mean the parents aren't on the hook for her college/university.
In IL, a kid can sue her parents for paying for her college. It varies from State to State, but one of my co-workers is in that situation now. His daughter lives with his Ex, but sued him for tuition, noting that her mother didn't make enough to cover it. The kicker is, he would have gladly paid for community college, as she was by no means an honor student. However, she chose an expensive State school, and he's now on the hook to cover it.
Usually that only occurs if one parent is supporting. If neither is typically they are SOL.
I was just looking into it, and you seem to be right. The cases like the one I discussed are if the parents are divorced or separated or never married.
I can understand there are situations where they may be forced to make sure you get out of High School, but it seems strange to be forced to pay for college.
Why does the girl. Y'know, Finish as a public school. I mean Jesus girl. Life if about following rules of those who give you money? You think I like wearing pants to work everyday? NO. But I have to to because my work has a rule that says I have to wear pants everyday. Why do I listen? THEY GIVE ME MONEY.
Who's still at school, which her parents appear to be stopping her from finishing. The fact that because of some disagreement over a boyfriend they are stoping paying for her schooling in the final year, where she is clearly doing well, makes me more to this than a simple teen hissy fit.
Doesn't matter... Mom & Dad are king, queen, ruler, dictator, whatever in their house.
Their rules.
Deal with it.
BS. There is a point at which rules become unreasonable and abusive. I'm not saying that is the case here. It may well be a spoilt brat having a teen hissy fit, but you also can't have a blanket "My house my rules". At some point it becomes abuse, at a point before that it becomes unreasonable. What if she was the subject of physical or psychological abuse and just wants to finish high school. There is only the barest information so it's impossible to say what the cause is. It could be either side at fault at the moment, but parents do not have absolute right to do as they wish.
If something illegal is occuring, bring it to the authority.
Otherwise, heil to the dictator of the house!
Quite right. They're your parents. They clothe you, they shelter you, they pay for your every need. That means you either obey their rules of get out. If it is something illegal. than that's different, but a teenage girl's view on unreasonable rules is a little un-creditable. "They want me to be home at 9 and I have to do my homework before I can talk with my frineds! My parents are SoooOOoo unreasonable!"
In my 20 years of practicing family law in New Jersey, I’ve never seen anything like this,” Brian Schwartz, chairman of the New Jersey Bar Association’s Family Law Section, told the newspaper.
New York law has this to say:
(c) When a youth under the age of 21, leaves home without parental consent and without "good cause," or refuses to obey the reasonable rules set by their parents, the young person may forfeit his/her claim to parental support. If the child leaves home because the conditions are unbearable, the parents may not be relieved of the obligation to support the young person. However, the young person may have to bring the parents to Family Court to obtain support in such cases.
Wow, 21....
It gets worse. Apparently there is no legal statute in NJ that emancipates 18 year olds (except in specific circumstances like marriage or joining the army or getting their own permanent residence) and so the courts have created case law that will probably mean these parents lose.
In my 20 years of practicing family law in New Jersey, I’ve never seen anything like this,” Brian Schwartz, chairman of the New Jersey Bar Association’s Family Law Section, told the newspaper.
New York law has this to say:
(c) When a youth under the age of 21, leaves home without parental consent and without "good cause," or refuses to obey the reasonable rules set by their parents, the young person may forfeit his/her claim to parental support. If the child leaves home because the conditions are unbearable, the parents may not be relieved of the obligation to support the young person. However, the young person may have to bring the parents to Family Court to obtain support in such cases.
Wow, 21....
It gets worse. Apparently there is no legal statute in NJ that emancipates 18 year olds (except in specific circumstances like marriage or joining the army or getting their own permanent residence) and so the courts have created case law that will probably mean these parents lose.
Yeah, that's crazy. You are a legal adult at 18, but parents can still be on the hook for you. Whole new definition of Nanny State.
My grandmother used switches (made us pick our poison) and those blue hot wheels racing tracks until they broke. She could whip them like a red GW whippy stick from the starter sets.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, that's crazy. You are a legal adult at 18, but parents can still be on the hook for you. Whole new definition of Nanny State.
I think it will come down to 'without parental consent and without "good cause"'. Obliviously she had parental consent, but the "good cause" will be the sticking point, though I think telling your parents they are your own personal ATM and that they don't have to listen to you will be a pretty good reason to let her out on her own. It still seems strange to force parents to pay for college; it doesn't seem like something they should be legally on the hook for. It is nice when they do, but it shouldn't be a requirement*.
*Generally speaking, I imagine there are circumstances where it makes sense. This isn't one of them.
I like how people have just happily assumed that the girl must have been spoiled and never disciplined... and they've concluded this by basically making it up.
I mean, why delve in to the complicated real world when you can just assume that the story perfectly matches your pre-concieved notions.
Rachel Canning had sought immediate relief in the form of $650 in weekly child support and the payment of the remainder of her tuition at Morris Catholic High School, as well as attorney's fees.
State Superior Court Judge Peter Bogaard denied those motions but ordered the parties to return to court on April 22, when they will present evidence and testimony on the over-arching question of whether the Cannings are obligated to financially support their daughter.
Interesting statements from the judge:
Bogaard sounded skeptical of some of the claims in the lawsuit, saying it could lead to teens "thumbing their noses" at their parents, leaving home and then asking for financial support.
"Are we going to open the gates for 12-year-olds to sue for an Xbox? For 13-year-olds to sue for an iPhone?" he asked. "We should be mindful of a potentially slippery slope."
Canning outlines a litany of alleged abuse that involved demeaning comments about her weight, as well as inappropriate encounters with her father. She says her mother called her "fat" and "porky" as she was growing up, and she developed an eating disorder her sophomore year of high school. By her junior year, she says she weighed 92 pounds and was no longer healthy enough to play basketball, which she says angered her father.
Canning alleges her father was "inappropriately affectionate" toward her for much of her life, and claims he fed her so much alcohol that she blacked out on occasion. Once, she alleges, he woke her up in the middle of the night to drink and play beer pong. Frequently, she says, he told her that he didn't view her as a daughter, but as "more than that."
Shortly before she moved out of her parents' house, Canning says she was wrongly accused of being drunk at a homecoming dance and had to call her parents. She says her mother and father, who were in Las Vegas at the time, "began screaming obscenities" and the teacher in the room with her heard the curses. When Canning complained to the school about the alleged longtime abuse she had endured, the school called child services and her parents, in retaliation, then cut her off and directed her college funds elsewhere.
Wait, you don't like drinking so much that your dad has to force you to play beer pong (how many retired police chiefs know how to play beer pong?) but you were totally not drunk at the school dance.
According to court documents filed by the defense, children's services authorities investigated Rachel Canning's claims of abuse after she complained to her high school and found no evidence of abuse.
Not saying child protective services is infallible but things as egregious as she's claiming would be obvious to a field worker, I'm a former social worker myself. If she's not exhibiting the signs of abuse and the interviews with the parents don't raise any red flags, chances are she's lying.
At cursory examination of what's available, I would have to say that she's exhibiting the signs of a teenager a bit out of control who came under the influence of adults with questionable motives (lawyer adult she's living with) and possibly questionable boyfriend who the parents didn't want her to see anymore. I've seen similar scenarios in the field and not a single one wound up being legitimate child abuse or neglect but the willful acts of angry children who didn't get their way.
How many times have you heard a child throwing a fit that winds up with them threatening their parent with calling Child Welfare? I called a kid's bluff one time; kid was throwing a fit in public, poor mom couldn't get him to stop, kid threatened to scream abuse if he didn't get the toy he wanted. I whipped out my badge and asked him if he wanted to go to a home right then and preceded to tell him what his life would be like being bounced around from foster home to foster home. How he wouldn't be able to have nice things that belonged to him or even know if the family he was staying with would keep him long...etc. I gave the poor mom a fright at first but she caught on after a second or two, the kid apologized to his mom and I gave her my card if she wanted to talk later about parenting classes.
My parents always treated me strictly, but fairly. I can say for sure though that if I would have ever even threatened Child Services on them, they would have made sure there was reason for me to be taken away before I actually got taken away.
How many times have you heard a child throwing a fit that winds up with them threatening their parent with calling Child Welfare? I called a kid's bluff one time; kid was throwing a fit in public, poor mom couldn't get him to stop, kid threatened to scream abuse if he didn't get the toy he wanted. I whipped out my badge and asked him if he wanted to go to a home right then and preceded to tell him what his life would be like being bounced around from foster home to foster home. How he wouldn't be able to have nice things that belonged to him or even know if the family he was staying with would keep him long...etc. I gave the poor mom a fright at first but she caught on after a second or two, the kid apologized to his mom and I gave her my card if she wanted to talk later about parenting classes.
How many times have you heard a child throwing a fit that winds up with them threatening their parent with calling Child Welfare? I called a kid's bluff one time; kid was throwing a fit in public, poor mom couldn't get him to stop, kid threatened to scream abuse if he didn't get the toy he wanted. I whipped out my badge and asked him if he wanted to go to a home right then and preceded to tell him what his life would be like being bounced around from foster home to foster home. How he wouldn't be able to have nice things that belonged to him or even know if the family he was staying with would keep him long...etc. I gave the poor mom a fright at first but she caught on after a second or two, the kid apologized to his mom and I gave her my card if she wanted to talk later about parenting classes.
Agnosto is awesome
+1 to this, if only all spoilt brats where dealt with so easily
Back OT though im reserving most of my judgment for now although i have to say that i am split betixt the schools of 'She is just a spoiled brat and just wants to get at her parents(the current evidence is pointing this way)' and the 'She was being abused and left (she may have made some of it up, but some of it may be true)'
As for my view on parenting: Mollycoddling is a bad thing and due to current laws is to prevailent within modern society (smacking a child for doing a naughty thing is good for teaching them not to do it), but at 18 the house laws should be, for the most part, negotiable.
MORRISTOWN, New Jersey (Reuters) - A New Jersey student who says her parents abandoned her when she turned 18 lost a first round on Tuesday in the lawsuit she filed against them for school costs and living expenses, a case that could set a precedent for a family's obligation to support a child who has left home.
A family court judge denied a request by Rachel Canning of Lincoln Park, New Jersey, to have her parents temporarily resume paying her tuition and living expenses. He set another hearing date for next month.
Canning, 18, wants her parents to pay the remaining $5,000 in tuition owed to the Morris Catholic High School, where she is a senior, and she wants access to a college fund that was set up for her.
The cheerleader and lacrosse player claims her parents kicked her out of the house in November 2013 after she turned 18, the age of legal adulthood. She wound up living with a friend's family, she said, and the upheaval has jeopardized her educational future.
Judge Peter Bogaard rejected her request for a temporary payout of about $600 a month in support as well as tuition for her private high school, which has waived fees while the case is settled.
In court, the teen said her parents remain obligated to help her with food, transportation, high school tuition and her college education.
She filed the lawsuit last week claiming that she is still dependent on them for support because she is still in school and not yet legally emancipated under state law.
"They left her high and dry because they didn't want to pay," attorney Tanya Helfand told the court. "Now at the age of 18 is not the point to do this."
Her parents, Sean and Elizabeth Canning, said their daughter left home voluntarily, telling the court that she had severe behavioral problems, including underage drinking, and had been suspended from school.
In court papers, they said she did not want to follow the rules of the house that included doing chores and a curfew.
In New Jersey, emancipation is not contingent on becoming a legal adult at age 18 but instead requires a young person to obtain "an independent status on his or her own" - such as graduation from college, obtainment of employment or marriage.
Family law experts in New Jersey say Canning's case might set legal parameters on whether non-divorced parents in the state are obligated to pay for their children's college education and provide other financial support after the child has left home.
New Jersey is one of several states that require divorced parents to pay for their children's education through college, or legal emancipation, said William Laufer, a family law expert in New Jersey. So far, there is no parallel decision for intact families.
"This case is certainly unique," Laufer said. "The question is, a kid at the age of 18 says he or she is moving out of the house - do parents have a legal obligation to support their kids until emancipation?"
An attorney for Canning's parents said in court that she was welcome to return home and under the financial care of her parents, should she abide by house rules.
"She can come home tonight. There is no abuse. There is no neglect," attorney Laurie Rush-Masuret said.
Sean Canning, a former police chief in Lincoln Park, told local television station WCBS-TV on Monday he was "dumbfounded" that he was being sued by one of his three daughters.
He called Rachel "rebellious" and said her college fund was not in jeopardy.
"We have a college that's available to her - there's no doubt about that. But it's the equivalent ... of going shopping at a high-end store and sending somebody the bill," he told the station.
My sister used to threaten to call childline on my dad whenever he'd give out to her. She'd be storming around going "I'M GOING TO CALL CHILDLINE ON YOU!" and then he'd grab the phone and handed it to her and go "Go on then, I hope they fething take you away! You're a pain in the arse!"
Worked pretty well.
I'm ambivalent about this case. I'm wary of dismissing claims of abuse (I've seen that happen before when kids are unsympathetic as people), but I'm also a bit sceptical of some of her claims. Like, I don't see why they should be required to pay for private school when a public school is available. Likewise, paying for university would be nice and all, but it's not a requirement for parents.
To be honest, if there's abuse, and evidence of abuse, that should be the focus of the court case, not financial compensation. The fact that it's financial compensation first, abuse second, makes me suspicious.
+1 to this, if only all spoilt brats where dealt with so easily
Back OT though im reserving most of my judgment for now although i have to say that i am split betixt the schools of 'She is just a spoiled brat and just wants to get at her parents(the current evidence is pointing this way)' and the 'She was being abused and left (she may have made some of it up, but some of it may be true)'
As for my view on parenting: Mollycoddling is a bad thing and due to current laws is to prevailent within modern society (smacking a child for doing a naughty thing is good for teaching them not to do it), but at 18 the house laws should be, for the most part, negotiable.
I'm not a nice guy. I threatened to call child welfare on my neice if she didn't straighten her life out recently (drugs, abusive husband, etc.) She's ruining her kids' lives (three of them and one already has emotional issues).
Here in the States people have a prevailing attitude that if they physically "correct" their child's behavior, they'll be immediately sent off to jail and their children taken from them. It's false, the cake is a lie and CPS/DHS has bigger fish to fry than dealing with parents who occasionally spank their children. Hell, most states still allow corporal punishment at schools whereby the administrator is acting "en local parentis" (in the absence of parents). If it's legal for the school to spank your kids, it's ok for you to do it too. Before anybody jumps on this and says, "No it's not!" laws vary according to state statute so YMMV.
So, what is actionable abuse? The things that field workers look for when they investigate and interview include signs of emotional or phsyical distress or an environment where phsyical or emotional trauma is soup de jour, casual. We receive (past tense in my case) intensive training on warning signs and red flags. If you walk into a relatively stable home environment (mother- check, father- check, financially stable- check) where people are not drug addicted or exhibit signs of mental instability...you're off to a good start. It's important to not build up assumptions based on superficial observations but pay attention to details and off-hand comments made by all parties, body language and so on. It's really interesting training and has really helped me in my current career in dealing with people.
What you're looking for are signs of a culture of abuse. One bruise or scratch on younger children is no big deal; heck kids fall down. A lacrosse player would exhibit signs of some physical contact, as would a cheerleader (bruising around thighs due to lifts and the like). A child claiming mental/ emotional abuse would require a different approach in the investigation; subtle questioning, examination of the home, etc.
My analysis of this situation is that daughter made these accusations to get her way. Parents called her bluff, she ran away and then cried foul when the gravy train stopped. Friend's relative is a lawyer and saw an angle to exploit a lack of emancipation laws on the books to garner some attention and funds (he's been supporting the runaway). I would also ask if he is having sexual relations with the child/now adult as it is suspicious that a non-relative male is supporting an young female without some form of quid-pro-quo (she's paying rent or the "get out or put out" scenario might apply). No amount of Christian charity will convince most people to take in a stranger off the street, for an extended period without recompense.
The girl has issues. Mom and dad split for a while, she developed an eating disorder (unfortunately common in chearleaders), connected with a crowd that leaned towards underage drinking. etc. Then she went a little wild; when mom and dad got back together and tried to put a stop to such things as showing up to school dances drunk, she threw a tantrum and moved out. Mom and dad did the reasonable thing and cut her off, financially, that's when she filed suit. She didn't file suit before and claim emtional trauma which leans me towards trsuting the judgement of the CPS investigator(s).
Just some odd thoughts running through my suspicious mind.
The reason for paying for private school would be that the parents put her in it and she needs to complete her exam year without the disruption of moving schools.
That in itself is not unfair, though the rest of the circumstances of the case are murky.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason for paying for private school would be that the parents put her in it and she needs to complete her exam year without the disruption of moving schools.
That in itself is not unfair, though the rest of the circumstances of the case are murky.
The school already said it wouldn't kick her out. for unpaid tuition.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason for paying for private school would be that the parents put her in it and she needs to complete her exam year without the disruption of moving schools.
That in itself is not unfair, though the rest of the circumstances of the case are murky.
The school already said it wouldn't kick her out. for unpaid tuition.
That in itself is true, but if the parents entered a contractual agreement to pay the school, then they should still be held to it.
master of ordinance wrote: Back OT though im reserving most of my judgment for now although i have to say that i am split betixt the schools of 'She is just a spoiled brat and just wants to get at her parents(the current evidence is pointing this way)' and the 'She was being abused and left (she may have made some of it up, but some of it may be true)'
It's a lot more likely that none of it is true. She wasn't abused, but just claiming it win the case and piss of her parents. But it also probably isn't true that she was spoiled. Kids react against their parents for all sorts of reasons, and assuming it must be because she's spoiled and not disciplined is a really simplistic view. This girl was a high achiever, so it's possible she snapped against parental expectation. Or its just the kind of teenage drama you get pretty much out of nowhere - the unapproved boyfriend hints at that one.
Thing is, kids go bad for all sorts of reasons, and just assuming it must be a lack of discipline ain't necessarily true.
A US high school student who sued her parents for financial support has returned home, a lawyer says.
Rachel Canning's return is not contingent on any financial or other considerations, family lawyer Angelo Sarno said in a statement.
A New Jersey judge rejected Ms Canning's emergency request for child support last week, but another hearing in the case is scheduled for April.
Ms Canning, 18, previously said she had been thrown out of her parents' home.
She has been living with a friend since October.
The teenager sued her parents in a bid to make them pay the remainder of her private high school tuition, to be given access to her college fund and $650 (£390) in weekly child support.
She also alleged that her parents, Sean and Elizabeth Canning, were abusive.
They had contributed to an eating disorder and pushed her to get a basketball scholarship, Ms Canning said.
Her parents denied those claims, saying they had helped her through her problems and transferred her to a private school where she would not play basketball as often.
They said Ms Canning had left the home voluntarily after refusing to break up with a boyfriend they considered a bad influence.
She also would not follow basic house rules, such as keeping a curfew, they alleged.
On Wednesday, Mr Sarno said the lawsuit had been settled "amicably", but would not comment further.
He said the notoriety surrounding the case had damaged the family, and asked for privacy.
kronk wrote: My grandmother used switches (made us pick our poison) and those blue hot wheels racing tracks until they broke. She could whip them like a red GW whippy stick from the starter sets.
I got the hot wheels track o' whippin several times as a kid, man did that sting. One time I caught a butt spanking from my dad and he used a long brass shoe horn which was the worst thing I was ever cracked with, I don't think I could sit for about three days after that one. I think I got spanked about a total of a dozen times growing up, every one of them was well deserved as I only got smacked when I way out of line. It's about instilling discipline and it works wonders.
I was hit with a belt by a baby sitter once at age 4 or 5. Not a pleasant experience. As an adult I draw the line at striking a child with an object, but think a swat on the backside with a hand can be appropriate if used sparingly.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I was hit with a belt by a baby sitter once at age 4 or 5. Not a pleasant experience. As an adult I draw the line at striking a child with an object, but think a swat on the backside with a hand can be appropriate if used sparingly.
If you aren't doing it with a spiked mace, you aren't doing it correctly!
You guys know my opinion. Hitting kids is wrong and reinforces the wrong Ideas "This causes pain" rather then "I shouldny destroy my sisters stuff because it hurts her feelings"
You guys may think of me as a liberal yuppie, but that s my opinon.