Teen Sues Parents for Cash, College Tuition. Does She Have a Case?

reply to post by chiefsmom


I know this may sound like a No Real Scotsman fallacy....but "good parenting" won't typically involve daily medications for your children.

reply to post by sled735


Keep in mind that this is a civil lawsuit and this is what our judicial system is there for, to decide contentious cases no matter how absurd they seem. (so long as they pay all of the legal costs anyway)

However, here is a question for the progressives here:

Does she have a case to make against the government for not providing any or all of the resources which she believes she is entitled to?

reply to post by windword


I happen to agree with what you said. But more so, don't believe parents have the right to kick children out, as teenagers anyway, unless its criminal matters, ie some kids get into criminal things and need half way houses or something. Children have the right to basic care, not riches and spoilings and cell phones, but food, clothes, shelter and schooling, and some time to themselves, self directed, and some activities, and also choices, not just being subdued, and school educational trust funds for college, shouldn't even be on the table.

So she has a right to take them to court. The number of teens on the street in the lower mainland is outrageous. And parents locking kids out for the night or even a week for spats or disagreements. What do they think is going to happen to them? Its a complete safety issue and life and limb is at stake. We had such a child sneak in at night and he more or less stayed off and on, even with us talking to the estranged parents and his 'uncle" a friend of his fathers who he started living with. Someone would still let him in after i went to sleep. That kids life is now hard core, and yes its either partly their fault or mainly their fault.

The father even phoned us up on occasion, when he was coming in, and friends of a foster child we had living there would let him in anyway. He would admit that he had this 16 year old boy locked out of his home, but he didn't expect anyone to take him in. it doesnt work like that, and quite frankly, if what he was doing wasn't illegal, it should be. You can't lock out a child.

While 18 is borderline, this is someone who is not fully adult and often still in school. And only thugs would do that to their child at any age.

windword
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Yep, me too. In my case, I was tossed out at 17 for NOT getting an abortion!

The parents should be required to finish paying this girl's high school tuition. It was their decision to put her in a private school. They have no right to transfer the responsibility of that debt to their daughter, who is just starting out in life, or to threaten her with not graduating.

Mine was going on a couple dates with an unacceptable person. The irony about that is that I had spent most of my childhood having who I could be friends with dictated by my parents. The cute and bright girl who shared my love of Snoopy? She was unacceptable as her mother was single and they lived in an apartment. It wasn't "fitting". The black guy at school? My god, somebody could think he was my boyfriend--unacceptable. The redhead with a good sense of humor? "Brash and classless." I've never been one to be elitist so when they did it again while I was in college, I stood up for myself. The funny thing is, despite all that occurred thereafter, I'd still do the same thing.

Technically, I guess that makes us both sharing the same basic criminal act of "shaming the family". I'm sorry that happened to you, too, and totally respect your decision. You did what you felt was right and what you could live with and got penalized for it. I hope to never understand families like these.

Agreed and theoretically, their names should be on the admissions contract as being the financially responsible parties. Where it becomes a potential wedge against their daughter is that the school can legally withhold transcripts, diploma and more due to that outstanding balance as part of that contract. This girl, whether spoiled or not, is literally fighting for her future at this point.

greencmp
reply to post by sled735

 

Keep in mind that this is a civil lawsuit and this is what our judicial system is there for, to decide contentious cases no matter how absurd they seem. (so long as they pay all of the legal costs anyway)

However, here is a question for the progressives here:

Does she have a case to make against the government for not providing any or all of the resources which she believes she is entitled to?

I am not a progressive....but feel that if she cannot complete her education via a private school, the public school has a duty/obligation to help her complete it in their schools.

Other than that...nope. She is a free man on the land.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I could not agree more, which is why I went miles farther than most parents do, to make sure my son was properly diagnosed, after the first doctor wrote a script after a 15 minute visit.



The shame about the whole case here is, what life lesson is this girl going to learn? Not a positive one, I'm afraid.

reply to post by sled735


What a fine example of the spoiled brat entitled attitude so rampant among people anymore.
It's disgusting. Maybe being broke and homeless for a few months would be good for her.

What happened to working for what you need and want, is it that foreign of a concept to people?
Eighteen is legally adulthood, it sounds like she's responsible for herself now.

bigfatfurrytexan

greencmp
reply to post by sled735

 

Keep in mind that this is a civil lawsuit and this is what our judicial system is there for, to decide contentious cases no matter how absurd they seem. (so long as they pay all of the legal costs anyway)

However, here is a question for the progressives here:

Does she have a case to make against the government for not providing any or all of the resources which she believes she is entitled to?

I am not a progressive....but feel that if she cannot complete her education via a private school, the public school has a duty/obligation to help her complete it in their schools.

Other than that...nope. She is a free man on the land.

The private school can withhold her official transcript and make her entire education with them absolutely worthless. In terms of her being a "free man on land", the rules in regards to students under the age of 25 are very different than what one would think. Just because she is a legal adult, she is not viewed as a legal adult in that context. Hence why financial aid applications for students under the age of 25 require parental income information. Even emancipation doesn't cut it for financial aid. She has to be married, within the military or have a dependent child to have the "dependent" status removed for the purposes of assessing financial aid.

The reason why they do this dependency thing is to avoid having families abusing the financial aid system by emancipating the adult. FAFSA does not care what terms you are on with your parent. They presume that a parent will assist in paying for college for the betterment of their child. Essentially, her circumstances are such that, without her parents' consent/favor, she's not going to college. She's actually currently at more of a disadvantage than your average kid and college these days is mighty expensive.

chiefsmom
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I could not agree more, which is why I went miles farther than most parents do, to make sure my son was properly diagnosed, after the first doctor wrote a script after a 15 minute visit.



The shame about the whole case here is, what life lesson is this girl going to learn? Not a positive one, I'm afraid.

Medication is often given in lieu of love and attention.

I know someone who's kid was a problem kid. He had challenges. But he could have been worked with and molded into a decent kid. But instead of love and attention, he got overauthoritarian vitriol from frustrated parents. Seeing the way he was treated is what caused me to walk away from a 30 year friendship with these people.

He needed medication, no doubt. Because he had real issues that would need real treatment. Some kids do. Very few of them, though.

My roof, my rules. That's the way I was raised, and it will be the way my son is raised. When he gets old enough to move out, if he chooses to do so on poor terms, things might be rough for all of us. If he does so on good terms, things are much smoother. We obviously want what will make him happy, but most importantly, we want what will be best for him.

reply to post by sled735


It's a generation that feels entitled! This young lady is 18, she's considered an adult now! I'm sure she was living at home and not helping out with chores around the house. She was probably used to having her parents do everything for her, until her parents decided enough was enough.

Who pays for their kid's college tuition anymore? (cough). Are you kidding me? Most parents have been paying on a mortgage their entire life and now kids want them to take on another mortgage?

I think this young lady had a good deal going for her having her college tuition paid for as long as she lived at home. Duh, it's like a scholarship in return for helping out around the house, having some consideration and respect for her parents. This young lady has really shown how shallow she really is, by making a public spectacle of her parents. I guess it all about her.

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to offend young people in this generations that do show respect, have consideration for people and have the rationale that nobody is entitled to anything in life. It's just that I witness this type of behavior on a daily bases. The rudeness, disrespect, laziness, meanness, negative attitudes and inconsiderate behavior are acted out daily in the hallways and in the classrooms of our high school. I can't understand it, but it seems like the entire generation has this bad attitude, and i'm sure not all of them are raised the same way. The considerate and respectful kids stand out like a sore thumb because there are so few of them.

The court system shouldn't even entertain this lawsuit. The system has already taken away too many parental rights. Smack your kid when they get out of line, and your liable to be brought up on charges of physical abuse. This young lady should be embarrassed for what she is doing. What a nice way of ruining a close relationship with the parents who brought her into this world. I really love and appreciate you mom and dad! It's a sad state of affairs.

Actually I hope this goes to court and sets into motion, legal changes in regard to "how" a "legal adult" is defined within the USA. She need not necessarily win the case, but if she did, perhaps it would put into motion, laws that would make 18 year olds real "legal adults" in this country, as they should be and no longer in the neither child or adult limbo under which they currently are classified .

If things STAY the way they are currently, I say 25 should be the legal adult age, in order to DETER the future births of useless workers whom do nothing more than drive down wages for everyone else who was on earth working first. If such happened it would likely increase wages for those already alive, educated, grown and working; due to decreased available labor in the market. History has proven this many times, wages go up when the "owners of capital" have less people available on hand in the labor market for hire.

Folks can choose to ignore this fact if they wish.

Further, "18 year old" age of consent law goes back to 1920. There is a HUGE difference between labor, wages and careers today versus back then.

-How many 18 year olds without credit will be able to rent a place to live? Not a problem in 1920, everything was paid with cash. An 18 year old cannot apply for financial aid to attend college without their parents financial information. Not a problem in 1920, they didn't have to go to college to earn a living wage.

-An 18 year old can no longer go and take the driving test for a licenses today without a certain number of drivers education hours, which previously did not exists. Also not a problem in 1920, you didn't need a license to drive. A crap box econo car today costs $12,000 new, in the 1990's anyone could pick up a reliable used car for $2000, no way could you do that today (unless you have hands-on car repair knowledge).

In short, American society and laws have DONE everything it can to make 18 year old's unable to engage in commerce as legal adults. We need to face facts, in America you aren't really an adult until you are 25 these days. Try getting an apartment, buying alcohol or cigarettes at 18. The only thing and 18 year old can do in America is get drafted, be jailed, volunteer for military service and/or vote. A real solution to some of our countries economic woes would simply be to make the legal adult age 25 years old. If that happened, MANY people would rethink the consequences of raising children in a high tech, high education society, without a REAL long term plan to train those children for future careers. It might even raise wages in the short term by taking a few able bodied people out of the job market for an additional 7 years.

Now for those with a rebuttal in mind, if you are in your early 30's or older it means you did all the above in the 1990's or before and are essentially a gen X or boomer. The world of getting a drivers license and insurance for an 18 year old MILLENNIAL has TOTALLY CHANGED since then. What does car insurance cost for a 18 year old these days? What about the rate for this one whom will potentially not be a high school graduate? I'll bet they live in some uppity city or suburb that does not have adequate public transportation, with local minimum wage paying employers expecting their younger workers to have access to cars to get them to work, further limiting her "adult" job opportunities. As was stated earlier, student loans need a parents financial info, only being married, having children or doing military service will exempt someone younger than 25 from having to show a parents financial info for college loans. Lack of credit will trump any attempt of some who is 18 from getting out of their parents house successfully.

This isn't 1970 or even 1999 for that matter.

MANY here are quite simply, out of touch with the reality that our youth are facing today.

reply to post by sled735


I think a parent should be responsible for any money due for education until the child is eighteen. If they put her in a private school, then they should pay for it.
As for the college fund, if this money is in a trust for her to continue on to college, then they should turn it over to her so she can continue. But they need to have some kind of control over it to see that it goes for school expenses, not partying expenses.

BUT, if she wants to live out on her own, she should not expect her parents to pay her bills, nor hand over anything when she holds her hand out just because she has had it that way all her life at home.

Turning over the car to her is a decision that I would need further information to make a decision. It would be hard to get started in life without a car to get around in some areas.
The question is, is she responsible enough to care for it, and a good driver?
If it were me, I would help out with the car issue if I had that kind of money to spare, but make her pay for her own insurance so she will feel some responsibility in that area.

Getting out on one's own is a reality check that is good for young people. It could give them more of an appreciation for how good they had it at home, and help them appreciate their parents more.

There is also a much larger problem going on here that I feel this young girl is aware, but the parents are out of touch with because they were born in an era where one could get by with less education and on-the-job work skills. The fact that her father being a middle aged police officer solidifies such. Let me note, she is not necessarily expressing it in a way to garner much sympathy from the general public, but I think the friends parent attorney representing her may be of a similar opinion that I outline below. Otherwise he'd be saying the usual "boot strap your way out of this like everyone has done before you".

Keeping up with the basics in terms of education and on-the-job work skills won’t be enough for jobs requiring future tech, labor market, skill-sets. The poor and even the middle class (not the upper middle class) will simply NOT be able to keep up with the skill demands for employment, while earning wages AND keeping a roof over their heads. In the future these very high costs skills needed to stay “relevant” will only be affordable to the rich, or VERY far forward thinking middle class families, willing to sacrifice everything financially to keep their offspring competitive in the larger job market.

I will begin with the usual assertion I hear in regards to the impact of these soon to be real “future-tech jobs”,

“Someone has to get paid to fix the robots!”

I hear this a lot as a rebuttal to mass automation in the workplace bent on replacing living workers with machines, BUT it misses a subtle point that ONLY the children of the wealthy will have the opportunity to become TRUE experts in this field. Let me clarify, through the prior 20th century, a poor kid who studied hard could become a lawyer, accountant, even a doctor sometimes with the right combination of hard work, savings, scholarships, family support, etc. HOWEVER, in engineering university curriculum’s today, times are changing to favor kids who have access to expensive software and hardware to “experiment” with and “practice” on before entering college. So when they finally get to college, those whom have had lots of free time to “play” with robotics and programming outside of class WILL CERTAINLY outpace their less privileged peer who flips burgers part-time to pay rent and school expenses.

Many people generally do not bother to ask themselves, would future robotics consulting companies prefer to hire low work experienced graduates, whom have demonstrated HANDS-ON, non-professional robotics experience in the form of a “hobby portfolio” OR graduate with no “hobby portfolio” experience, whom worked hard to graduate with a difficult major, but didn’t have as much free time to develop skills specifically related to their major and have a long list of work experience, flipping burgers, unrelated to their major? I’m seeing this already happening in many different engineering fields where the young workers being hired today are from wealthy families and great colleges, while at the same time being trained by older folks whom were necessarily not as privileged in their youth, but got through school the hard, 20th century way and were trained on the job, while paid, over long periods of time. Which certainly is no longer an option in 2014 and on because companies would prefer to churn experienced staff rather than train fresh graduates in-house.

In the link below this paragraph I have posted an example of what I believe to be a young person from a well off family who majored in robotics at USC, whom doesn’t appear to have had an unrelated part-time job to her major, while in college, possibly had lots time to “experiment” with the technology in her spare time, got a masters degree back to back to the bachelors AND at the end of the day got a job offer at a University sponsored dinner party for robotics majors. NOBODY I went to college with EVER got a job offer at a university sponsored dinner party, I’m sure many Ivy league and top 10 school graduates do however. My point being, these future “robot repair jobs” are going to require smart kids with desire to advance, that went to good schools, had lots of spare time and money to play with the tech outside of school AND got their jobs offered at dinner parties, some of which will be non-paying internships at first. These jobs will not be gotten through sending out blind jobs applications or web job boards, as was done in the 20th century. Basically what this girl is doing for Disney will in the near future be more like what a plumber or electrician of today does, EXCEPT you won’t get trained on the job in a low-pay apprenticeship when at “entry level”. In fact to even be considered for these “future-tech jobs” in the first place you’ll need to have good academic pedigree, lots of unpaid hobby time and 1+ years of unpaid internships.

Here is her story, readers can decide for thenselves:

onedublin.org...

Those whom are going to be rendered jobless by automation/robotics/tech are going to be the least likely to be able to pick up these pieces in the post-tech, coming era of traditional jobs destruction. Its going to IMPOSSIBLE for the poor to go back to school, get a masters degree in robotics, in full-time only engineering programs, that strongly discourage their admitted students from taking part-time jobs, while favoring students who have both the money and free time, don’t EVER work at an unrelated job to their majors, who then buy expensive robotics hardware/software to experiment with outside of class.

Mark my words this future labor in the pursuit of “maintaining robots” is going to be the sole domain of rich kids with advanced degrees from good schools because NO ONE is going to train anyone else perceived as lesser in that kind of job, WITH PAY.

Robotics and AI are essentially the same lie that was made when desktop computers in the workplace were supposed to reduce total work hours per week, now rehashed for a 21st century audience.

I think its funny when regular people get excited about future tech jobs, concepts like the Singularity, lean Automation, advanced Robitics, etc. Do people really think when these thing finally become real, functioning, working designs & products, applicable to commercial industry, that the “peons” will all get a “Data from Start Trek” or a “C-3PO from Star Wars” to help out at home, at the job site or in the office?

To continue my above point, I believe “rich kid” job mobility is going to be a bigger problem for regular folks beyond what the previous "rich kid" pedigree typically brought to them. That unfettered access to endless money and time to “explore” academics and hands-on work with no consequences is going to END job mobility of any kind for the lower and middle classes, even those whom have met the typical required higher education and work experience standards. Its a superstar only job market now with no room for middle of road folks.

Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Because the government figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then encouraging that high school graduate to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone looking and willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort.

Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, while they finish school!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able went out to look for work and typically found it, that’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort to those “not seeking employment”, not to the specific detriment of society, but to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare of some kind that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare then are acting in the same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum education levels for employment. Essentially to decrease the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time. This cohort of people not pursuing full-time employment also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners and the disabled on government assistance. If everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” as many “capitalists” suggest these days, we would all be making 0.25 cents a day.

Guess when the largest “recorded” wage increase happened in history for, non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency?

Any ideas?

I’ll tell you, it was after the black death pandemic in the 14th century.

How is that possible?

Because “the owners of capital”, post-black-death-pandemic still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people, so in order for ANY work to get done they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables more, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect both long and short term welfare. The next obvious step for government to further reduce the number of people participating in the full-time labor market is to allow them easier access to welfare or as michaelochurch points out a guaranteed minimum wage or allowance that everyone gets without having to provide labor to an employer. I’m not going to go into any specific economic theory, but this above noted cohort of non-participants collecting a base amount of guaranteed welfare/allowance will keep wages stable for those whom are working full-time. If all people capable of working full-time entered the jobs the market simultaneously, wages would crash and to a certain extent have, as of 2014.

There has ALWAYS been an economic system at work in the USA that limited the number of able bodied workers whom would be PAID and those who WOULD NOT be paid. The “owners of capital” learned their lesson about labor shortages POST the “Black Death” and figured out from that day forward how to keep wages down and potential available laborers numbers at maximum levels, while forcing them to compete for scarce available positions.

In the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around to pay wages the “owners of capital” simply brought in more indentured servant immigrants (Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc) or used flat out slave labor (Blacks, Native Americans, domestic prisoners, POW’s, etc). The only difference between now and then is that “owners of capital” can’t LEGALLY have slaves or indentured servants anymore, BUT they have the same pressures as before, to keep their high wages flowing and laborers working even when there isn’t enough “PIE” to go around to pay those laborers for services rendered. The mechanisms today that replaces slaves and indentured servants are the following: longer than needed formal education for basic employment, off-shoring of labor, forced retirement, prisoners and welfare.

The only other choice when these conditions eventually arise will be the expansion of welfare because rich kids will want to work for fun or enrichment, but there won’t be many job to go around anyway. So, someone has to go and it won’t be them at the end of the day. Making the legal adult age 25, will give the middle class time to recover decades of wage loses and lower the likelihood of people willy-nilly having a child that they know legally can live with them until 25. Baby making will drop off a cliff and daily wages will soar.

This young girl suing her parents know all this instinctively, but has poorly articulated her position to the general public. I hope she wins, if only to affect change in the legal aspects of parenting.

reply to post by boohoo


I agree with just about everything you've said in both of your posts. As someone who did go back to school later on in life, I know that the dynamic is completely different these days. Kids in college aren't being promised jobs. What they're being told is that unprecedented competition in the workplace exists and that they're going to be competing for jobs even in what are some of the most traditionally certain of careers with more of their peers than ever. College tuition was far higher in cost than what it was when I originally went to school there. Most students were working unpaid internships to gain work experience as their job at the local coffee shop wasn't going to cut it. I don't think I met a single kid in college that was paying their own way through. All of them had to have either assistance from their parents or financial aid. The students at my university were actually protesting yet another tuition hike in my last term there.

It's bad but I see so many of my peers as a Gen X sit there and brand anyone in their 20's as being an entitled spoiled brat. Where all that really started to kick in was during Occupy because it did involve students. Students were protesting the high interest rates on student loans (many turned out to be affected by the LIBOR scandal) and high tuition costs within Occupy. This got contorted to being a "free education" and bam, next thing I know, every kid in college was a spoiled brat.

These kids are not entering into the same world that we did. When I was their age, I could get a pretty good job without a college degree. Not the case these days in the slightest. My tuition was far cheaper. Not for kids these days. Most of my peers back in the day could work their way through college. Not these days.

A single term for me as a business major cost around $3k at a state university ($2300 for tuition + %$700 for books--and yes, I used the cheaper online versions when I could). A student working full-time at minimum wage would make $1160 gross a month. After taxes, that would barely cover the tuition and books of a single term and that's working full time. I had a few younger friends that did that and they went nuts. The workloads in colleges have changed dramatically. Back in the 90's, you could still kind of slack off. Now it's project, paper, test, and homework central to make sure that it really does follow that 3 hours per credit hour rule.

So yeah, kids actually need their parents help these days. Absolutely. Saw all of this firsthand, myself. I really feel for this girl if she doesn't win her case. She'll be screwed.

Few snips to add to the story.

‘Just because a child turns 18 does not automatically mean NJ parents can stop financial supporting him/her.’ reiterated the girl’s current caretaker, lawyer, John Inglesino.

To date Inglesino has shelled out of pocket $12,597 in legal fees on behalf of Rachel Canning as well as allowing her to stay in his home in Rockland, NJ.

Of note the girl has already been offered a $20 000 scholarship to attend a NY private school, which school that is, is not necessarily clear. That said, the aspiring biomedical engineer told that her first choice is the University of Vermont.

link to full story

reply to post by MrLimpet


Really makes me wonder just how much of all of this has been deliberately dragged out to be aired in a public forum. Dad sure is chatty on the subject and, honestly, his statements do not eradicate the possibility that abuse occurred. My own parents lied straight to the faces of CPS officers, school counselors, and teachers in regards to what was happening to me.

My parents were good parents. Really. They said it all the time.

reply to post by MrLimpet


Thanks for the link with more information and pictures.

Yeah, I can tell from looking at her, she's a spoiled brat!!

I'll be following this. I'm eager to see how this case turns out.

I saw this on TV ... clips of the court proceedings. She's 18. She's ungrateful. She obviously doesn't love her parents. She wants a free ride at their expense. I'm sure her parents are heartbroken at her behavior. Kick her out. Give her nothing.

WhiteAlice
kids actually need their parents help these days. Absolutely. Saw all of this firsthand, myself. I really feel for this girl if she doesn't win her case. She'll be screwed.

She screwed herself. Her attitude toward her parents sucks. She obviously doesn't care about them.
I saw her behavior in the court room. If that were my adult kid, I'd cut her off too.