Girl sues parents for school money

[Backroads]

Rachel Canning Loses Effort to Make Parents Pay High School Tuition

So, whadya think? Spoiled entitled brat or will she actually win anything further down the line?

[skippy740]

That brat had BETTER lose in court!

Otherwise KIDS can become like the Government... and can take what they want, just by having a court ruling saying it belongs to them now.

No wonder birth rate is declining here in America. Some idiots are smart enough to not reproduce.

[Wingnut]

Spoiled entitled brat or will she actually win anything further down the line?

Yes, and no.

So, whadya think?

I think that parents have an obligation to care for this children (financially) to the best of their ability, until at least the 18th birthday or high school graduation, if the latter happens later. It's not something I feel super strongly about, and it's somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like a good cutoff.

[Backroads]

Another really long article on the matter.

It seems New Jersey courts once stated something along the lines of enrollment in college trumping emancipation. So what does that mean? An adult can require parents to pay for her education?

I feel the high school can demand the parents pay the rest of the tuition bill since they're probably under contract, but supporting this young lady in everything else? Nope.

[SpiritDragon]

I saw this story earlier and thought it was absurd. Parents should have the ability to cut kids loose if the kids are no longer willing to abide by the rules of the household.

The crazy thing is this girl seems to expect her parents should be paying her way for practically everything. I hope she loses every attempt, it would be horrible to set a legal precedence for this type of behaviour.

[Suzie]

What this girl need are three words: Get a job.

[Quin]

I think this is just the tip of the iceberg:

More and more parents are holding their kids back a year before starting school (red shirting) so that they start at age 6... Instead of age 5.

Which means more and more kids are 18 & 19yo seniors.

Legal adults still in highschool, through no fault of their own.

Q

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm with Wingers. I can see a court requiring the parents to finish out the high school year (and am mildly surprised that it didn't). But, college? I don't know how New Jersey does things; but including college tuition as part of a parent's obligation to child support would be an absolute game-changer in Utah divorce law.

[Backroads]

I think this is just the tip of the iceberg:

More and more parents are holding their kids back a year before starting school (red shirting) so that they start at age 6... Instead of age 5.

Which means more and more kids are 18 & 19yo seniors.

Legal adults still in highschool, through no fault of their own.

Q

And I see the grey area here. A person still working through high school turning 18. Is the kid just in trouble financially there?

Then again, my husband worked and paid rent through high school.

But otherwise, parents ought to be prohibited from denying help to someone still reasonably working through high school (and not someone who is "stuck" there).

Edited March 5, 2014 by Backroads

[Wingnut]

JAG, perhaps the reason the court didn't require the parents to finish funding the girl's tuition is because she could just as easily attend a public school at no out-of-pocket cost to herself or her parents.

[Backroads]

I'm still surprised the school isn't demanding its money directly. Hoping for a court-mandated pay-out is silly. The tuition matter is between the school and whoever agreed in a contract to pay for it.

[Palerider]

She left home because she was tired of their rules and curfews. Well.....isn't that too bad.

[Quin]

I'm with Wingers. I can see a court requiring the parents to finish out the high school year (and am mildly surprised that it didn't). But, college? I don't know how New Jersey does things; but including college tuition as part of a parent's obligation to child support would be an absolute game-changer in Utah divorce law.

It's really common in many states, though.

The state I divorced in even has standard language in a couple different options. (We have the In-State option) In my divorce it reads (paraphrasing legalese, here, not fishing out the PP) that each parent is responsible for half of the tuition for an in-state school.

Doesn't mean the kids CANT go to Yale or UCLA.

But it means that it the state universities we have residence in cost 20k per year, and Yale costs 60k, that if they go to Yale, we're responsible for 20k.

Q

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, perhaps the reason the court didn't require the parents to finish funding the girl's tuition is because she could just as easily attend a public school at no out-of-pocket cost to herself or her parents.

Quite possibly. But I'd expect them to still run the standard child support calculations for a divorce case (which are based, at least in Utah, on the parents' incomes) and at least award her that amount.

[Backroads]

It's really common in many states, though.

The state I divorced in even has standard language in a couple different options. (We have the In-State option) In my divorce it reads (paraphrasing legalese, here, not fishing out the PP) that each parent is responsible for half of the tuition for an in-state school.

Doesn't mean the kids CANT go to Yale or UCLA.

But it means that it the state universities we have residence in cost 20k per year, and Yale costs 60k, that if they go to Yale, we're responsible for 20k.

Q

This surprises and rather disgusts me.

If I interpreted this correctly, it means that parents are legally required to pay for another adult's education? What if they can't afford to do so?

[Quin]

She left home because she was tired of their rules and curfews. Well.....isn't that too bad.

That's the parents position.

Her position is abuse.

I'm not going to believe either, out of hand.

Q

[Palerider]

That's the parents position.

Her position is abuse.

I'm not going to believe either, out of hand.

Q

I never heard abuse from her other than her lawyer. They must not have proven the abuse part or I am reading incorrectly

[Backroads]

From what I read, investigations found to evidence of abuse.

[Quin]

This surprises and rather disgusts me.

If I interpreted this correctly, it means that parents are legally required to pay for another adult's education? What if they can't afford to do so?

Then you take out loans.

To be clear, this is not a requirement in divorce, it's an option.

A commitment that most people who choose to have this option written in have already agreed to.

I fought for it, because with my ex's serious 6 figure income, my kids will NEVER qualify for aid as long as they're still considered dependents (age 24, unless serving in the military or emancipated as a teen).

But my ex will also not willingly pay for my children's education.

He'll pay for OTHER people's kids (he's already paid 2 years of private schooling for his girlfriend's kids), but won't even pay half of private school tuition for his own, because they're also MINE, and he uses them to hurt me. As often as possible.

So you have the people agreeing to this because they both feel education is vital (they tend to go with one of the more open ended clauses, that don't specify monetary caps, our cap is the lowest one out there, but it's a durn sight better than nothing!), and then you have people who have this clause written in to keep your children's futures from being weapons.

Q

[Backroads]

Thanks for clearing that up, that makes more sense.

I suddenly found myself terrifed at the idea of some law requiring this all across the board.

[Quin]

From what I read, investigations found to evidence of abuse.

I never heard abuse from her other than her lawyer. They must not have proven the abuse part or I am reading incorrectly

She claims that her parents, Sean and Elizabeth Canning, kicked her out of their Lincoln Park house when she turned 18 in October, which they deny. Dad Sean Canning says she left voluntarily because she didn't want to follow their house rules concerning curfew and chores.

With only a $13,000 legal bill... I'd be floored if there have been any investigations into the allegation, and at it's gone beyond he said / she said.

Her lawyer says her home life is abusive and her parents kicked her out on her birthday, their lawyer says she a rule breaking hellion who left on her own. Either could be true, easily.

It cost 40k, on TOP of my other legal fees, to prove the abuse in a minimally satisfactory way to the courts in my divorce case. It is notoriously difficult to prove abuse in upper middle class or wealthy families, and my numbers were pretty low-ball to average, because we had medical documentation & police response. A girlfriend in MO needed to,put down a 45k retainer JUST for psychological testing on her ex (and retainers are often less than half of your expected bill).

Q

Edited March 5, 2014 by Quin
Fixin. Quotes

[Palerider]

I read the article on my local news website and it stated her lawyer is the father of the girl she is living with. This might be a soap opera by time it's over.

[Sharky]

Rachel Canning Loses Effort to Make Parents Pay High School Tuition

So, whadya think? Spoiled entitled brat or will she actually win anything further down the line?

She does come across as believing she is entitled or that her parents are obligated to provide everything she wants.

While I do believe parents should make every effort possible to ensure their child graduates from high school ... if she elected of her own free will to move out of her parents home at 18 then I do not believe "living expenses" & an "allowance" are the obligation or responsibility of the parents.

I don't buy vehicles for my kids, though they can use a family vehicle when needed if they return it with a full tank of gas.

I don't provide them much in the way of cash or "allowance", though they do have a roof over their heads & food to eat & clothes to wear & they are grateful for those things.

As long as they are willing to work & earn some of their own money, I will gladly pay for their housing & even food while they are attending college even if they are not "under my roof". I won't pay tuition, might help with books though.

If they choose not to attend college & don't want to live under my roof, then they are responsible to pay their own way 100% ... I will give them a job & pay them farm labor wages but that's where it ends.

At some point children have to learn to be independent. They have to learn & realize their choices & actions have consequences.

The choice/action of moving out of her parents home (having come of the age of adulthood) has the natural consequence that she is "independent" & must now start providing for herself. Rather then getting a job & paying her own way she decided to hire an attorney & try to get her parents to pay his fees as well as pay her way.

The court really needs to stick with the "natural consequences" of her being an adult & making the "adult decision" to move out of her parents home ... those "natural consequences" are that no one has the responsibility for her but her herself.

[Guest]

What a brat.

[estradling75]

My thoughts are either the court need to find her an adult with all the rights and privileges that come with that and free the parents from all financial obligations for her.

Or find her to be a minor and assuming her parents are fit in the eyes of the court, enforce their parental rights and obligations.