Teen Sues Parents for Tuition, Rent, and Other Fun Things

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**kronk**

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.

**Jihadin**

You sucked at Dodgeball to didn't you after that?....

**Ahtman**

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.

**kronk**

Jihadin wrote:
You sucked at Dodgeball to didn't you after that?....

I was told that it hurt her more that it hurt me, but I noticed that she could sit down afterwards...

**sebster**

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.

**agnosto**

Update: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nj-students-feud-parents-headed-court-22763391

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."

NBC talks about some of her allegations which stretch my credulity: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Rachel-Canning-Parent-Lawsuit-Financial-Support-New-Jersey-Eating-Disorder-Abuse-Sue-248407851.html

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.

**daedalus**

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.

**Frazzled**

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

**master of ordinance**

Frazzled wrote:
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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Quoting Frazz from another thread;
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-familyfeud-newjersey-20140304,0,6612381.story

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.

**Da Boss**

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.

**agnosto**

master of ordinance wrote:

+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.

**djones520**

Judge finds in favor of parents.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/05/new-jersey-teen-sues-parents-for-support-claiming-was-kicked-out-home/

**whembly**

**hotsauceman1**

645$ a week? Damn girl. I make that in a month. Dont be so greedy.

**hellrath**

Spoilt brat.

**master of ordinance**

hellrath wrote:
Spoilt brat.

Agreed

**Sasori**

djones520 wrote:
Judge finds in favor of parents.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/05/new-jersey-teen-sues-parents-for-support-claiming-was-kicked-out-home/

So far. April 22nd is the Hearing for the college tuition.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**Sasori**

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.

**djones520**

Sasori wrote:
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.

**Kilkrazy**

It would be up to the school and parents to deal with that. The girl need not get involved.

**sebster**

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.

**DarkTraveler777**

Update.

Looks like Ms. Canning is returning home. So, bluff called?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26553659

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Looks like a white flag being waved. I wonder if the friend's lawyer father is upset he won't be getting paid?

**cincydooley**

What a dumb cooze.

I really just wanna punch this broad. Spoiled little brat.

**paulson games**

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.

**Soladrin**

I was never spanked, I just got a swift kick in the arse if I was being an idiot.

**wowsmash**

Switches mostly. We had to pick our own. Belt onces or twice. A slipper once. And ping pong pattle with wholes in it at school.

**DarkTraveler777**

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.