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

IroncladFT

WhiteAlice
reply to post by Dianec

 

She's a kid.

So you think being 18 is a kid? That is sad. Again solidifying why you take her side in this circus. Should we raise the age of adulthood to 21? The excuses your making for her actions and the way you talk, tells me we have some SERIOUS social/maturity issues that need immediate attention. She is a young adult, she needs to act like it, and not like a "kid" as you say. To think, this idiot can legally vote or serve our country in the military...scary thought.

Not said by a real parent. 18 a child? you bet! Mom, 5 boys! Age range 12-24!

We didn't even stay firm on kicking our boarder out, who was a ministry kid for 5 months first, who we took in. Homelessness is life and death issue. Those who are really into bad things as some of the kids that kept appearing at our house, they always seemed to have support systems, relatives waiting on the sidelines, or places to stay when we managed to convince them not to come over. Opportunists who recognized a soft touch. The more intelligent and refined ones, were the most vulnerable. We took him back and have to deal with some selfishness issues, that are not atypical of other kids, though he's a young adult now at 20, on a disability. Quite intelligent though not sure if its IQ tested and why they put him quickly on a disabilty when he turned 19, ministry did it really fast. However, he was not stealing from us and even started getting threats from the real hard core ones for choosing to have a roof over his head, and not be black street and homeless. That is so dangerous. Girls are hooked into drugs and prostitution either formally or just an informal survival mechanism. When given a choice he moved with us from the lower mainland to a very small community.

Safety is important to him. Total lack of freedom and making choices about his own life would not be, and its not expected of him.

Anyone who would do that to their children is not going to be happy when they pass over because its obscene crimes against humanity.

People who strive to keep kids, even with some of the more hard core, they were so much better behaved at our place when on the computer and games and acting like normal kids for more hours than they ever did before.

But here is the thing, the people who do pick up the pieces when they can, and spend money, even taking great risks and having thefts done, to help those who would be extremely destroyed otherwise, and/or hardcore. The parents who lock the doors at every issue, who think they can legally boot their own children, should be legally paying up. They download their responsibility on the good nature of others, and I don't believe they should be getting away with it.

The hard core reality is it costs. It costs parents to raise children, who are not raised by 16 even to jump to every whim of parents and are gradually gaining self decisions including ones that may not allign with the parents. The real things that are important is; they don't steal, they don't physically assault others, they don't do hard drugs, they don't stay out all the time, they aren't bullies, they have some degree of awareness of the world around them and compassion. Lots of other things don't.

When parents don't do this, sometimes its strangers who are kind and care strongly about kids, who suddenly have huge expenses.

Now when this situation breaks down, the kids in the ministry cost a great deal, in BC, costs were 40 000 dollars per year, per child, thats tax payer cost.

When the situation breaks down further, ie street.

Our BC gov did study on that years ago, figuring in police, prison, hospital, business and break and enter, and the cost each is year is hundreds of thousands of tax payers money. They might as well have bought them a house!

These are people who's lives are destroyed, often the girls victimized horribly by drugs and prostitution just to survive.

It costs far more tax payers dollars to destroy lives completely by the way. Being HARD NOSED ASSHAT about social obligations, costs the most.

Unity_99

IroncladFT

WhiteAlice
reply to post by Dianec

 

She's a kid.

So you think being 18 is a kid? That is sad. Again solidifying why you take her side in this circus. Should we raise the age of adulthood to 21? The excuses your making for her actions and the way you talk, tells me we have some SERIOUS social/maturity issues that need immediate attention. She is a young adult, she needs to act like it, and not like a "kid" as you say. To think, this idiot can legally vote or serve our country in the military...scary thought.

Not said by a real parent. 18 a child? you bet! Mom, 5 boys! Age range 12-24!

edit on 6-3-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Trying to compare how a mother views her 18 year old son and how society should view them are two VERY different things. You as a mother will of course always call your son your CHILD, but at 18, she is no child or kid..shes an adult, expected to act like an adult, take on adult responsibility, and contribute to society. As I said, she can now vote, join the military, SUE HER PARENTS, go to big girl jail if she breaks the law, etc...

People always ask why our youth these days has the highest crime rate in history, are the most medicated, most mentally ill, shoots up the most schools, brings the most violence, avoids the most responsibility in recorded history, this thread sums it up. The reason crime, murder, shootings, violence, mental issues, etc...were so low by younger folks years ago was they were treated as YOUNG ADULTS, they were raised to be YOUNG ADULTS, and society expected them to pull their own weight, parents too...but alas, these days those same YOUNG ADULTS are treated as children, helpless, no societal common sense, can't fend for themselves without mommy's teet.

The way some of you helicopter moms sound, I wonder if your kids will ever leave the nest? When they do, are they prepared for the world out here that is ready, willing, and able to swallow them up and spit them out without remorse? I agree with you ladies that I wish it wasn't such a harsh place and bad things didn't happen, but being honest about what you face everyday is a good starting point at surviving it.

reply to post by IroncladFT


I don't serve a machine called society. I look at the horror you guys accept as this machine and write over and over that nothing works in the world, there is no democracy, unless real people, families and parents and old people and disabled people, everyone, who are not even remotely machines or homogenized by that 'society' concept, form watchdog citizens groups with teeth and solve all problems and corruptions and put some real fear into their minion politicians and legal minions as well, they lose pensions and dental, they get booted. Eventually they would have fully established teeth to boot anyone the majority thinks is failing them. You see a democracy has nothing to do with voting in a king, its not the voting in that determines its viability, its the ability to boot politicians, police and judges that truly counts.

Society tells me nothing, I tell it!

Unity_99

I don't serve a machine called society. I look at the horror you guys accept as this machine and write over and over that nothing works in the world, there is no democracy, unless real people, families and parents and old people and disabled people, everyone, who are not even remotely machines or homogenized by that 'society' concept, form watchdog citizens groups with teeth and solve all problems and corruptions and put some real fear into their minion politicians and legal minions as well, they lose pensions and dental, they get booted. Eventually they would have fully established teeth to boot anyone the majority thinks is failing them. You see a democracy has nothing to do with voting in a king, its not the voting in that determines its viability, its the ability to boot politicians, police and judges that truly counts.

Society tells me nothing, I tell it!

edit on 6-3-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Actually you DO serve that machine. Do you follow ALL the laws? I bet you do. I bet you file your taxes, you fill out the forms your TOLD too, you show up when told too. You pay bills when told too. If you didn't you wouldn't last very long and be able to do what it is you do. Not saying I like it either, but talking like your in charge as you follow the line set by SOCIETY proves what we all know. 99% follow that line. So that also means you raise kids to meet that line as well, because if you do not, those kids will not be well received and will not function to well around others. Maybe for some that works just fine, and I have no issues with that.

So as it relates to this story, the majority of society thinks this chick is nuts and deserves nothing, because the standard has been set and has worked for THOUSANDS of years. Problem is, as I already stated, its evident in the actions of our youth that it is changing, and NOT for the better IMO. I am not saying it is out of hand yet, but the evidence sure is building that the coddling nanny state isn't doing ANYONE, especially our youth, any good.

sled735
I've read most of the responses, and I see both sides of what is being posted. But, can you imagine what would have happened if this "piece of work" won her case? Teens all over the country would come out of the wood work suing their parents for money they don't deserve by making up lies on them and ruining families everywhere!

Actually, this is EXACTLY what should happen on a large scale for economic reasons. If you had read my earlier posts, you would see that ANY decrease in the overall working population, will likely increase wages for the rest of us whom are already alive here in the USA and working. If parents knew they would have to care for their children to the age of 25, legally, births would drop like a rock and wages would increase corresponding, due to less people being on the job market. Without rewriting my whole explanation, basically during the Black Death wages for non-land owning peasant and undesirables skyrocketed because the "owners of capital" still had labor and work that needed to be done. They had no choice but to pay those alive better wages or the work would never get done. Same thing after World War II. If having to take care of children legally to the age of 25 lowers the overall birth rate, over the course of a shorter, non violent, cycle than usual in the USA, I'm all for it because it means the wages of those already alive, born and working could rise, quite possibly even my own. This economic model of increased wages also functions through governments willingly jailing citizen, putting them on welfare and forcing them to attend school beyond K-12.

IroncladFT
Well, here is the issue I have with your debate. YOUR argument obviously revolves around a career in only computers and doing IT stuff. To YOU that's an admirable career and you feel it is rewarding, and rightfully so. For SOME people they want to make it rich developing games, playing on computers all day, be the computer nerd, working in an office with their soft hands, etc... nothing wrong with that as it does pay well, but not everyone wants that life or to do those things. Some people still want to work with their hands, work outdoors, go to bed tired and feel like they did something worthwhile. Some people want to help others and serve their country or communities, save lives. Some want to farm and build stuff. Others want to run their own mom and pop businesses doing what they love.

Another person who did not read my earlier posts. I addressed trade type jobs, which by the way, are already becoming IT stuff, driven entirely by big business that wanting to destroy existing markets. Replacing jobs like plumber, welder, machinist, etc with proprietary, disposable tech, even robots in some cases. Contrary to what you believe the hands-on trades are being unnecessarily complicated by software and electronic hardware, requiring advanced education beyond the usual apprenticeship. In fact the college major of this teen is biomedical engineering, which makes my previous argument even more relevant to the discussion. Right now biomedical engineers hired by GE are devising ways to REPLACE the labor you make money from with machines. They will be successful at the end of the day, using regulation, if needed, to make you way of earning money illegal, easing the entrance of robots or proprietary tech that is designed to not be repairable only replaced. Your way of doing the trades by hand with sweat of the brow will simply not exists in 15+ years, regardless of what you believe.

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, INCLUDING THE TRADES. 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, REQUIRED CERTIFICATION , STATE LICENSING, 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.

IroncladFT
Maybe kids are more advanced with computers and gadgets these days, they got the social media thing down, they are ahead when it comes to their educations vs. us old timers of the 80's

but mentally and physically they are failing drastically. They can't handle stress, pressure, life, losing, have no common sense, little logic, so many mental health issues it's mind numbing, so many of our youth are on prescription drugs, seeing shrinks, obese, no manual skills at all, etc... and that WILL be a problem soon, even more than it is now.

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!” OR in your case IroncladFT, proprietary tech that will not be repairable, or replaceable by a certified/licensed tech.

I hear this rebuttal to mass automation in the workplace, with big business hell 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 or simply go into the trades and learn on the job with pay.. HOWEVER, in engineering and technitian 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 or their apprenticeship, 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 such as IroncladFT can read it and decide for themselves, this is what a plumber is going to look like in 15+ years, mark my words:

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.

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.

WhiteAlice
She's a kid.

No she's not. She turned 18. She left on her own because she didn't want to follow the rules of the house. She screamed at her mother that she wanted to '*** on her mothers face'. (the recording of this was played in the court room). The ADULT girl left her family. The family owes her NOTHING.

Here we have a girl, however, that most people are condemning as being a spoiled brat making false claims. What if you're wrong? Did you ever think of that?

We aren't wrong. It's very clear that she is exactly that.

AnIntellectualRedneck
The logic is very simple: if they are claiming her as a dependent and likely getting a significantly larger tax return due to her debt, then they are obliged, legally speaking, to provide at least half her upkeep, else they commit tax fraud. If she's paying her own way through whatever means she has, then that means that she is paying for her own food, living quarters, and general upkeep for 9-10 months out of the year, and they are not providing half or more of her upkeep for the year.

In that situation, they have essentially said on a legal document that they are supporting her and are using this fact to a significant financial gain on their part. This being the case, then, yes, I do think that she is well within her rights to sue them for the support that they claim to be giving.

I mentioned this earlier and I will guarantee that the parents will attempt to claim her as a dependent when 2014 taxes come due. The only chance she will have at this point, is if she submits her taxes well before they do, in turn causing them a minor headache.

IrishCream
reply to post by boohoo

 

However, what's to become of the children who weren't born so lucky? Are we just supposed to roll over and allow those boots to crush our throats? I think not.

Following your example here are several people who contributed in major ways, but had to make their own way.

Larry Ellison is the genius behind the success of Oracle Software Company and his wealth is close to $28 billion. His single teenage mother gave birth to Ellison in the Bronx. Later she sent him to live in Chicago with his aunt and uncle, who later adopted him. He dropped out of college then went on to found Oracle in 1977, now he owns one of the world’s biggest software companies. Ellison recieved a $130 million pay package in 2009, making him the second-highest-paid CEO in the U.S.

You can talk about Bill Gates, but what about Steve Jobs? He was one of the richest people with a net worth of about $5.5 billion because he was a co-founder of Apple. Jobs was a San Francisco native who was adopted by a working-class couple and grew up in nearby Santa Clara, Calif. He dropped out of Reed College when he could no longer afford tuition but he continued auditing classes. Jobs started an Apple computer outlet in his parent's garage in 1976. Fired after a power struggle in 1985, he started Pixar and then returned to Apple in 1996.

J.K. Rowling (my personal favorite "rags-to-riches story) is the author of the Harry Potter book series. She currently has amassed $1 billion+ in earnings, but will continue to grow her wealth with royalties. While writing Harry Potter she was a single mother who lived on welfare in Edinburgh, Scotland. She was broke and depressed and reportedly she had even contemplated suicide. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was published in 1997 and quickly became a bestseller and the first of a seven-book series that captivated children and adults worldwide. We all know what happened from there.

So to say it's rich parents giving to their children and NOT a "make lemonade" mentality is simply not the case. Having your parents support you through all of life's endeavors is nice work if you can get it, but it doesn't mean it's the only way.

Funny you mention these, they are very common used examples of exceptions to all that I have asserted and made my case upon here so far. I do in fact have a rebuttal.

Steve Jobs, Ellison and JK Rowling figured out the value of “Leisure time” to career advancement, but unlike Gates and Zuckerberg they did not come from wealthy families who would pay their living expenses while they learned on someone else’s dollar.

So how did they get free time to learn without having a wealthy family backing them, paying for rent, food, etc?

Its simple, they lived like HOBOS as needed, crashing on couches, sleeping in cars, etc. I’ll give these three this much, they certainly had forward thinking and very abstract insight into the need for “leisure time” to be used for training purposes. They somehow figured out, without much worldly experience, that having available “leisure time” for learning, was essential to get ahead, but without family backing they simply reduced their living expenses to zero and in turn solved the problem of being poor.

I would ague doing so still works, BUT the stigma of doing this kind of thing today is a LOT more risky than when they did it. In the 1970′s you could get away with no home address, credit history, or even a car for that matter. Some companies today won’t hire people who don’t have a smart phone at the interview or park a crappy car in the lot on interview day for Christs sake.

Unity_99
When parents don't do this, sometimes its strangers who are kind and care strongly about kids, who suddenly have huge expenses.

Now when this situation breaks down, the kids in the ministry cost a great deal, in BC, costs were 40 000 dollars per year, per child, thats tax payer cost.

When the situation breaks down further, ie street.

Our BC gov did study on that years ago, figuring in police, prison, hospital, business and break and enter, and the cost each is year is hundreds of thousands of tax payers money. They might as well have bought them a house!

These are people who's lives are destroyed, often the girls victimized horribly by drugs and prostitution just to survive.

It costs far more tax payers dollars to destroy lives completely by the way. Being HARD NOSED ASSHAT about social obligations, costs the most.

Unity_99, you are certainly correct, my overall argument about the increased economic value of “leisure time” in 2014, supports your observations. I only used Bil G. and Mark Z. as prime examples because NEITHER of them worked part-time jobs when they were teens and young men. Both of these men as teens used this free time developing skills that were needed to create new ways of doing business. What they learned in that free time COULD NOT have been learned in school or at some part-time job available to to people of their age in their respective eras. The only reason I put cost and price points in there is because “leisure time” is NOT FREE, somebody pays for it. In the case of Bill and Mark it was their parents and in the case of Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison it was the kindness of friends letting them both crash on their couch for free.

It seems MANY here have missed the totality of my points and have taken a very simple view of the obvious chain of event that lead to the current economy, where those of means whom also have free time to develop new ideas are going to be taking the lions share of the available economic pie. Those without free time to evolve and learn are going to be in a world of hurt when trying to earn ANY wage or start-up businesses in an economy that only values skills which cannot be learned on the job in entry level positions or in formal schooling.

Forbes published a great article outlining my point and one day this scenario will apply to ALL JOBS:

www.forbes.com...

IroncladFT
Your a bit dramatic. No one hates our youth, but at 18 she can and should want to support herself, NOT demand her parents CONTINUE to do it for her, especially if she wants to disregard their rules while still living at home under their roof. She is an adult, NOT a child or a youth. What people ARE sick of is our youth remaining helpless babies longer and longer thanks to people allowing them to act as such. I hear people call 18 and 19 year old teens CHILDREN!!!!!!! That is a serious issue. Then the liberals pass a ruling to allow people to stay on mommy and daddies insurance up to age 26!!!!!!! What kind of behavior do you expect when you do these things? GROW UP already and get off the teet!!!

When you are capable of working, capable of taking care of yourself, but expect, or in this case DEMAND other people take care of you, that IS pathetic.

Before 1990, 40% of teenagers had part-time jobs while in school. This is a relevant statistic because today only 20% of teenagers in school have part-time jobs. Teens at one time did make up a sizable portion of the workforce and such changes in employment practices should be acknowledged by you IroncladFT. Whom exactly is going to give this girl an entry level job in this economy? Lawsuit or no lawsuit, publicity or no publicity.

My observations with the status of the current job markets and the real changes in how all working people must use “leisure time”, has a much greater affect on our ability to generate income than it did in the past. The day of the “worker bee” is over. I’m not saying that I am either for or against this evolution, I just see the tidal wave of change coming and have moved to higher ground, while folks like yourself think you can dig in. This wave of the well heeled “leisure elite” will crush you and the tide from their wake, will sweep your career away, without any thoughts of remorse or introspection.

WhiteAlice
For January 2014, the youth employment rate for ages 16-19 with no disability is 24.6%. The unemployment rate for that same group is 24.1%. That means nearly 1 in 4 kids between the ages of 16-19, who are looking for work, are unemployed. Canning has a job. However, it's likely, based on her age, lack of degrees, and work experience, it's only minimum wage. Minimum wage is not enough to subsist on. Do the math yourself.

Given that she is 18 years of age, although legally an adult, she will not get approved for financial aid to improve her plight. Financial aid assessments include parental income and assets, even in the case of emancipation, for all applying students. The only loophole against parental income inclusion is marriage, having a dependent child, or entrance into the military.

She's basically stuck.

Although not my primary point, I do think there is plenty of evidence that teens today do not have the opportunity to get part-time jobs, BUT are beginning to develop advanced skill-sets that COULD be MORE helpful in their future adult employment than say “working at a taco stand after school”. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are very good EARLY examples of two people who made use of their free time developing specialized skills that could not be learned at a MINDLESS part-time job or in school. In the end they leveraged that free time learning into long term careers.

Leisure time today is far more valuable today that it ever was in the past. Things change so quickly that without “leisure time” many employed people today will CERTAINLY “wither on the vine” and become obsolete and unemployable in the near future. I don’t know what the solution is, but free time to learn and keep up with changes in the workplace is going to become a HUGE cultural issue in the near future for many people of all ages and classes.

IroncladFT
Actually you DO serve that machine. Do you follow ALL the laws? I bet you do. I bet you file your taxes, you fill out the forms your TOLD too, you show up when told too. You pay bills when told too. If you didn't you wouldn't last very long and be able to do what it is you do. Not saying I like it either, but talking like your in charge as you follow the line set by SOCIETY proves what we all know. 99% follow that line. So that also means you raise kids to meet that line as well, because if you do not, those kids will not be well received and will not function to well around others. Maybe for some that works just fine, and I have no issues with that.

So as it relates to this story, the majority of society thinks this chick is nuts and deserves nothing, because the standard has been set and has worked for THOUSANDS of years. Problem is, as I already stated, its evident in the actions of our youth that it is changing, and NOT for the better IMO. I am not saying it is out of hand yet, but the evidence sure is building that the coddling nanny state isn't doing ANYONE, especially our youth, any good.

And its people like you that reinforce the strength of the "machine", by disseminating outdated concepts of how society functions, that no longer apply, versus what is actually happening. Your kind eats up the illusion pushed by the "machine", yet at the same time you mock those whom have shown the truth of the situation. When pushed and proved wrong, folks like you retreat to the MACHINE making it harder for those of us resiting it to extinguish its enduring flame.

reply to post by IroncladFT


Helicopter moms, eh? That would imply that we're hovering over our children, protectively, non-stop--and yet, here Unity99 and I are both arguing that Rachel's parents were overzealous in their parenting. I advise my children. I suggest what they can do when they get into trouble and, as my eldest fast approaches 18, I have been emphasizing that his decisions = his life and have deliberately stood off in the shadows. This so-called helicopter mom agreed to allow her son into college at age 15 despite the fact that he is mildly autistic. I'm really quite proud at how he's turning out to be quite honest. He's very responsible and empathetic to the needs of others. Nah, I'm not a helicopter mom at all. Not even for my autistic son.

Life is about learning. You try to teach a child what you think is probably the best course and share with them why you think that. You show them that you actually have experienced a whole lot yourself and that wisdom in adults is typically well founded. Before my son was transferred to college, his high school held a meeting and commented on how much respect he had for me. They said it was really amazing, especially for someone his age.

Respect doesn't come from corporal punishment, behaving like a drill sargeant, or dishing out ultimatums. 99.9% of the time in human interactions, respect is earned and children are human beings after all. A parent shouldn't say "because I said so" but actually explain why it's the better idea, teaching the cause and effect. To do otherwise is just laziness in my book and well, children aren't dumb. My son is on the verge of becoming a great adult because he understands that his actions do have an effect. He knows he doesn't live in an isolated bubble and his decisions have ramifications. Our plan on when my son leaves the nest is this. He's about to finish his second year in college at 17. He'll be graduating from college at 19 with a bachelor's. He may opt at that time to pursue a graduate degree. Throughout that time, I will be supporting him including the first two years after he graduates and begins working where he's planning on tucking money away so that he can build a nice down payment for a home to avoid the rent drain entirely. I want to assure that my son has the best life that he possibly can and I will back him for the rest of his life if need be. He's my son. Like hell will I simply just watch him fall or be a party to it like Rachel's parents.

You never touched on what I said about the irony of your own statement. Rachel is old enough to choose who she thinks should be president but she couldn't choose who she was going out on a date with on Friday? Isn't that a little discontinuous? If she's an adult in your eyes, then why couldn't her choice in personal relationships be her decision?

FlyersFan

WhiteAlice
She's a kid.

No she's not. She turned 18. She left on her own because she didn't want to follow the rules of the house. She screamed at her mother that she wanted to '*** on her mothers face'. (the recording of this was played in the court room). The ADULT girl left her family. The family owes her NOTHING.

Here we have a girl, however, that most people are condemning as being a spoiled brat making false claims. What if you're wrong? Did you ever think of that?

We aren't wrong. It's very clear that she is exactly that.

If the girl was, in fact, abused, then you bet she's going to dish out some mouthfuls to her parents once she obtains freedom. I told my dad to go **** himself just two years ago after he told me what a good dad he's always been. For the record, my dad coerced me into committing 150 acts of forgery when I was just 17 years old. When I split with a very abusive ex and he offered shelter just a few years ago. I was dumb and believed that he was sincere though I did make the remark that I feared that I was jumping out of the pan and into the fire doing so to my friends the night before our flight. The promises were to rectify what my parents had done to me years prior. I was supposed to go back to college and finally finish. However, after just a couple months at the threat of throwing my children and I out on the streets if I refused, he ordered me to forge again. I am really the only parent my children have and he was risking my going to jail to avoid EPA penalty and spending $8k on actually fixing the damn thing. Statute of limitations on all of those things are up, btw so I am at full liberty of talking about those events. And when I moved out of that house as soon as I could after that, he's the "father" that basically took all of my and my children's belongings, stuffed them without any regard, and dumped them on my lawn. My neighbors were horrified when they saw him do that and one of them asked me what kind of father would do such a thing? He ruined most of my children's toys and belongings after they had lost everything a year before when we escaped my ex. That's just what he's done recently. So you bet, when my dad started going on about what a good dad he's always been, I told him to go **** himself and lit into him on everything that he had done throughout my life that was absolutely not something a "good dad" would do. He apologized and agreed with me. He's also been respecting my desire to not have him in my life.

Parents who abuse their children underestimate the level of anger that those children harbor towards them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that others' parents behave so much more differently than one's own. I am angry at my parents and, considering that it was just a few years ago that they both have deliberately tried to harm me and my children, it's pretty justified. My mother actually invaded my home after I drew the line in the proverbial sand and called her out on what she had done and been doing. My son and I were forced to barricade ourselves in my room while she behaved like a maniac on the other side of the door. Having dealt with that kind of behavior so much in my life, I was waiting for the storm to pass but my son was losing his mind at this new comprehension of just what his grandmother was. She usually kept that side in check around him. He begged me to call the police and I did. Gave her fair warning that the police were coming and she departed.

She doesn't mess around with me any longer either. Both of my parents know that their time of abuse is done and why? Because I made sure that they knew that I harbor that anger and a zero tolerance. If Rachel was getting abused, then she's in a place where she feels safe to let it out. Good for her. I didn't have that myself for so long.

"We aren't wrong", you say. You've got several former victims of child abuse on here that are sympathetic to this girl because we know how it works. I guess you're not including us. I see red flags so, apparently, do they. I know better than to presume that her life was wonderful, especially in light of the statements made in the court docs about the school and a teacher notifying child protective services of potential abuse. What is it that is always said by neighbors after some atrocity in a home is uncovered? "They seemed like such a nice and quiet family" or, worse yet, "I didn't even know they had kids!". Unless you're certifiably psychic, how can you know what went on behind the closed doors of this particular family?

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I was abused as a child, and I am sorry, I am just not seeing it here. of course we don't know. But even if she was, I would trade my life at that age for hers any day. At the end of the day, abused or not, she is still spoiled.

WhiteAlice
If the girl was, in fact, abused, .....

- There is absolutely no evidence of any abuse.
- She made no history of complaints to police or school or any authority about alleged abuse - until she was getting ready to leave and sue her parents.
- She has a history of bad behavior in the school and out of the school.
- She threatened to sue the school over nonsense.
- She is suing her parents, who are no longer responsible for her in any manner.
- SHE left abusive voice mails with her parents .. telling them she wanted to 's*** on their face', etc
- SHE left the house two days before her 18th birthday .. by her own choice.
- Her demands for $600 a week 'support' as well as full college tuition are ABSURD. She is 18.
She is legally an adult. She chose to cut off the family and she insulted them as she did so.

Bottom line - She left on her own. She's an adult. The family she left has no legal or moral obligations towards her.

calstorm
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

I was abused as a child, and I am sorry, I am just not seeing it here. of course we don't know. But even if she was, I would trade my life at that age for hers any day. At the end of the day, abused or not, she is still spoiled.

Totally understand. It's really hard, especially looking at the pictures, to not feel a little of that. My family's photos were very similar. It's all about the trade offs, really, for an abused child. How much can one take in exchange for what? A really close friend of mine grew up in extreme poverty with drug addicted parents in one of those settings where there is garbage everywhere and he and his siblings slept on dirty mattresses on the floor. He recognizes all those signs of abuse in me but still wishes that he had been in my circumstances over his. I don't blame him for thinking that and I don't for one minute think that I had it worse. While hell can be hell, a gilded hell is far better than one that is the exact opposite. We also talk about the differences in how we each turned out. I'm a dissociative amnesiac with PTSD. He has reactive attachment disorder. We're two disparate sides of the same coin and I agree, mine was better. Even knew that in high school because I saw those kids who had it worse. I used to give them the money I earned working so they could buy lunch. Their parents didn't even care if they ate or had a winter coat. I figured that they needed to know that someone recognized their existence and cared when their own parents so obviously didn't.

Gilded hells are so very weird because there is that mixture of gleam counterpointed with horror. You've got the pretend world that is the outside face juxtaposed with the reality of when no one outside the home is looking. It can create a lot of confusion and I think that that is that difference between my friend with RAD and I. I was conflicted of whether my parents loved me or not. He had no conflict. He outright knew. It took some very extraordinary and severe circumstances to really set that conflict to rest to the point where I absolutely knew, without a shred of doubt, that all those nice things that they seemed to do was not out of love for me. It was out of narcissism and/or psychopathy. Those nice things were all to present that glossy and shiny face to the world to reflect back on them what they wanted to be to all others. So, it's hard being inside that kind of circumstance and I totally understand how hard it would be for others outside of that circle to understand the reality beneath all the gilding.

Hope that makes sense. I'm glad you survived.

reply to post by FlyersFan


dig.abclocal.go.com...

It's in her signed court documents that the school and a teacher both contacted the Department of Protection and Permanency about Rachel's home life. If these things did not occur, then the judge would've found her guilty of perjury. I have seen no report of that occurring. We've already discussed the issues within child protective services between issues with them accepting parental lies and, as Calstorm also very adroitly pointed out, circumstances where the perceived financial costs outweigh the desire to take action.

As a New Jersey family law attorney, this is an unusual one and a case we are all watching closely. NJ is in the minority of States which hold that parents are on the hook for child support all the way through undergraduate school as long as the child shows aptitude and a host of other items are in play. Although with that being said, whether you will have an obligation to pay just college contributions or you will have to pay those AND child support and whether if you have to pay college AND child support your child support obligation may be set by use of the NJ child support guidelines are additional issues to litigate if necessary. Heck, I have had some guys paying for graduate school, even, where the "child" is 26. But the thing here that is key and is threshold is the fact that there is a legal presumption of emancipation which occurs either at 18 or graduation from high school unless the "child" is enrolled full time in post high school studies of some sort. Balancing this is the stated legality that "emancipation is deemed to have occurred whenever the child moves beyond the sphere of parental influence." Entry into the military will do this as will marriage of the child or graduation from high school and entry into full time employment with no intention to begin or active enrollment in college or trade school. So the question here is: Has the "child" actually moved herself beyond the sphere of parental influence by her actions here? And if she has, do her parents no longer have to pay for her high school tuition or any other costs? And should the parents have to contribute to her college expenses if she is deemed to have moved beyond the sphere of parental influence? Or continue to pay for her high school since she has not yet graduated? It's a tough call and like I said we are all watching it closely. NO ONE wants her to win, even though it would open up very interesting revenue streams for all us blood suckers, lol.

WhiteAlice
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

dig.abclocal.go.com...

It's in her signed court documents that the school and a teacher both contacted the Department of Protection and Permanency about Rachel's home life. If these things did not occur, then the judge would've found her guilty of perjury. I have seen no report of that occurring. We've already discussed the issues within child protective services between issues with them accepting parental lies and, as Calstorm also very adroitly pointed out, circumstances where the perceived financial costs outweigh the desire to take action.

And no, the judge would not have found her guilty of perjury. The next time someone gets found guilty of perjury in an NJ family law case will be about the first time I have seen it. Don't get me wrong, I am sure it occurs now and again, but neither I nor my partner have ever seen it. The courts here in NJ are VEEEEERY busy and they do not have time or inclination to try fact-heavy perjury cases. And as to Division of Child Placement and Permanency, who cares? They can be called every single day if someone wants to do so with absolutely no recourse because the reporting is all anonymous. Happens in like 75% of all my divorces and is the #1 page in the dirty family law handbook, lol. DCPP investigates tons of people and do not substantiate most of the reports that come to them. That does not mean nothing is happening, it just means they don't find enough evidence to spend the State's money looking into it further. Again, we're really busy in NJ...

There is a fair amount of hate mail and comments making it to this girl - some really cruel things being said, which in my opinion will only serve to make her more sick or defensive. They are so abundant and harsh I can see some serious depression setting in and even suicidal ideation (already mental health issues in place so more at risk). It would be nice to see people on Facebook and other social media sites attempt to be more constructive. I personally never post to those sites but it's amazing to see how there is no filter with some.

What I am most disturbed by is the fact that the guy she is staying with, John Inglesino (an attorney who is wanting to get into politics) is also a friend of the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie. He has a shady reputation (Inglesino). The fact that he has influenced this girl by supporting a lawsuit against her family means he is likely to be sued by her or the family in time. What sort of person says they are trying to support a child's well being and then places a permanent wedge between her and her family (putting money before blood)? One who wants to drum up some attention for himself.

This whole thing is wrong and will only serve to mark this girl for life - humiliation and people distancing themselves as she is so litigious (has threatened to sue others). She needs to rethink who she is spending time with, and get a mental health professional on board who is objective and will help her step back and see how damaging this all is. No one is a winner with this - except Inglesino if he can win and make a name for himself.

Apparently, there is another Rachel Canning, and she has been receiving all kinds of hate mail because of her mistaken identity, but she turned it into a positive:


shine.yahoo.com...