<p>@nysmile</p>
<p>I actually put that same scenario to younghoss via PM’s. The fact is, the father has huge financial incentive to not send his D to private school. You have to take that into consideration when looking at this situation.</p>
<p>So for all you people who think it’s just fine that the parents imposed this condition in the first place, are there any limits you’d draw on what sorts of conditions are OK to impose? Would there come a point where you might actually be willing to criticize the parents, and say that their priorities were misplaced? Or does the “it’s their money, they can do what they want, nothing wrong with it” approach hold true no matter what? </p>
<p>After all, many of you seem perfectly willing to engage in scathing criticism of the daughter. OK, fine. But doing that at the same time you’re unwilling even to question the parents’ priorities is remarkable, and I wonder how far that would extend.</p>
<p>How about if they’d made a deal with her that they wouldn’t pay for a private college unless she <em>did</em> get a tattoo? Maybe a nice big heart with “Daddy” written in it? And then she reneged? Their money, right? And she’d be just as much a liar and deal-breaker, right?</p>
<p>DonnaL:
“Don’t get a tattoo until you’re out of college, or we will not support you financially, and you can go to the state school instead” isn’t reasonable? It’s four years, and the daughter can still go to college, just not the one she wants. At that age, the daughter would be making a risky choice to get a tattoo, and it sounds good to me that the parents would rather she not get one until she is older, their set age limit (five years old, eighty, never).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Though she likely wouldn’t have agreed to the deal in the first place. Maybe a tattoo that they could all agree on? If this scenario played out with her not wanting to get a tattoo, she should still do it. It’s their rules.</p>
<p>But I wouldn’t understand their rationale; I understand it in the real situation. So at this point, I’d wonder more about the sanity of the parents. This is not the same as what is really happening here because the real agreement seems fine.</p>
<p>EDIT: The question here actually isn’t what was or wasn’t wrong for these parents to do; the question is rather, was the daughter justified in breaking the agreement that she understood? Did she have a say in the first place? Even if she didn’t, the parents set a decent rule. Or, she could have approached them respectfully and talked to them about it. Maybe then they would have let her get just that one without them having to threaten to pull the plug on that private school. We just don’t know.</p>
<p>I really, honestly don’t understand. I don’t see what is so extreme about this situation on the parents’ part. Maybe it’s better that I not post at all because I really don’t see it. I would like to know why so many find the parents’ agreement ridiculous. I’d like to see the other side of the issue because somehow I don’t see it myself. Maybe I won’t until twenty or thirty years. But for now, this just seems strange, and I’m asking for clarification. I can only imagine it’s because it is easier for parents to question the decisions of other parents as opposed to those of college/high-school students (who, in turn, find it easier to question the decisions of their peers).</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong in telling the daughter not to have tattoos until after college, when she is more mature in making such a decision, and from where I am sitting, hers parents seem to know her pretty well. Three to four inches tattoo with BF’s initials just says it all for me, but to have it above the bikini line so her people could see it(like her parents)? She is beyond stupid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is the crux of the matter. We need the Fairly Legal arbitrator in here to help us come to a resolution. Or maybe the D should propose a solution…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure if this is how others see it, but it’s the way it appears to me:</p>
<p>I think these are parents who place a high value on a good education for their daughter, and the daughter agrees. The parents were willing to lower their standard of living in order to send their daughter to a college that is a financial stretch for them. People who do this generally care very much about their child’s education.</p>
<p>The parents set some conditions on letting the daughter go to that college – which may have seemed like a good idea at the time because it allowed them to take advantage of the daughter’s desire to go there, but I suspect that they didn’t think that the daughter would violate any of them. I don’t think they stopped to think, “If our daughter gets a tattoo that doesn’t show when she’s wearing business clothing and therefore will not harm her future career, do we really want to take this educational opportunity away from her, thus harming her future career in a different way?” If they had asked themselves that question, they might have realized that perhaps the proposed punishment did not fit the crime.</p>
<p>It seems evident to me that the mother, at least, regrets the condition that she and her husband set. If she did not regret it, she would immediately have enforced the agreement the day she saw the tattoo, by telling the daughter that she and her husband would not be paying her college expenses and that therefore she must withdraw from college immediately. But she did not do that. Instead, she is caught between her husband (who, perhaps, would feel that he and his wife must enforce the agreement) and her daughter (who still wants to go to the college where she was accepted). Whatever she does will damage her relationship with at least one of them. </p>
<p>It is very unfortunate that the mother finds herself in this position, and it is difficult for others to give advice. It would have been better if this particular agreement had not been made in the first place. </p>
<p>One irony here is that the daughter is learning about the downside of getting a tattoo (well, at least this particular tattoo) on her own. The tattoo she chose was not a butterfly or a shooting star. It was a heart design that incorporates the initials of her then-boyfriend – who isn’t even her boyfriend anymore. I suspect that she already regrets it – perhaps to the point where she will avoid wearing two-piece bathing suits in public and will eventually consider getting the tattoo modified to conceal the initials (even though this may not look good) or removed (even though this will leave a scar). Her parents’ involvement in the situation is unnecessary. The life lesson is happening on its own.</p>
<p>Thank you Marian!!! Perfectly sums up my feelings on this.</p>
<p>The part about the parents “taking advantage” of the Ds desire to go to the private school is particularly relevant and is, to me, the crux of why the agreement was inappropriate in the first place.</p>
<p>
Donna, I don’t think it’s just fine that the parents here used their financial leverage to keep their kid un-tattooed, which seems controlling and even petty to me. I asked earlier why this, of all things to try to control, was what the parents pegged to their financial support of the private school. But I do recognize that they have the right to do this, because it’s their money. </p>
<p>Someone upthread asked if there wasn’t a better way to teach a lesson about agreements, especially considering that the parents have already had 18 years to teach their d about consequences and follow-through. I agree. I hope fishymom comes back to tell us that her friend’s family has worked out another punishment for breaking the agreement. But I have to agree with the posters who mention the dad’s incentive to extricate himself from an expensive full-pay school obligation. Perhaps the dad never really bought into the ED school with enthusiasm.</p>
<p>“Why isn’t Susie leaving for school?”</p>
<p>“Because she got a tattoo and I won’t pay for her to go.”</p>
<p>Some people would say that with pride, I suppose.</p>
<p>I just spoke to my friend, her husband got home yesterday from his business trip. After dinner, the daughter told her father about the tattoo. She told him it was a bad decision and that she allowed herself to be influenced by her friends. As I said before, she got the tattoo on an overnight trip to South Beach with her girlfriends to celebrate her 18th birthday. They had a couple of drinks, beer and/or wine coolers. The daughter claims she was not drunk and knew what she was doing when she got the tattoo. She regrets the tattoo, especially the initial, and had already talked with her cousin about removal before her mom saw the tattoo. She offered to have the tattoo removed, paying for it with her own money. She also said that she would apply to the local state college and withdraw from the private school. Her mom said that they needed a day or two to think about things, so they will talk again later. No action, other than the appointment for removal that the daughter already made, will be taken until Monday. My friend is meeting her husband for lunch today to discuss. Her husband is very disappointed, mostly that the daughter did not tell them sooner. The daughter is very apologetic and ready to face the consequences of her decision. My friend still cannot believe that her daughter did this, but is proud of her for talking to her dad and accepting responsibility. She apologized to her mom for her meltdown the other day and thanked her for her support. Neither parent wants her to stay home and go to state college.</p>
<p>Thanks for the update fishymom! I think we can all back off on the parents at this point. While we may not agree with the original agreement, no one can fault them at this point (at least not from my vantage point). They heard their daughter out, it doesn’t sound like there was a blow-up, are taking a few days to think this through so everyone can be level headed, and neither one wants her to go to the state U. It sounds like a compromise is in the works. For her part the daughter apologized for her earlier outburst to the mother (which some found frustrating), and is being proactive on her own.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone could ask anything more of this family. We may not agree with the original agreement, but it sounds like they are all working together at this point to move forward to a resolution that will best serve the daughter’s future. Obviously this is simply my opinion, but I hope people will give all parties credit for trying to work this out.</p>
<p>Thanks again fishymom. This thread can’t have been easy for you. I think it it on a few hot buttons for parents and kids. There is no one right answer. Keep us posted as to their final resolution if you feel comfortable.</p>
<p>
To me that is my main complaint … personally I think using the term “agreement” is a pretty bug stretch … so I’m 18 and my parents tell me the only way I can attend Cornell instead of University of Maryland is if I agree to these X social limitations which have no direct bearing on my academics. Exactly how much choice do I have? … to me essentially the parents have shown they are willing to pay for a high level private education and blackmailed their child into social limitations to as a condition for paying … ok, I think blackmail is a bit extreme but it feels closer to reality than “a agreement” … when one side has virtually all the power and the keys to the outcome and then the other sides accepts conditions to gain the desired outcome I’m not sure the capitualtion is quite voluntary and future breaking of conditions likely considered unfair when “accepted” is far from surprising. I’m not sure how long the list of limitations were for this “agreement” but it would not surprise me at all if it was a list that about 99.9% of college students would break before they graduate … no drinking, no drugs, no sex, no parties on weeknights, no tatoos, no piercings, no died hair, don’t leave campus without contacting us, etc … MomToGo and I believe if we impose enough rules on our kids we guarentee they will eventually break one and disappiont either us or themselves; so we pick our battles over a short list of really big things (such as driving drunk or flunking out).</p>
<p>Some see the chief issue here as the tattoo. They look at the beauty, the student’s legal right, the size, the location, the degree of popularity, and other reasonable aspects of anyone considering a tattoo.
Some question the sensibility of the parents and the student entering into such an agreement. Also interesting, but too late to question the wisdom of going into that deal; the deal is done. </p>
<p>Although they make for an interesting discussion, I don’t see those points as the key issue here. I see the key here as a young adult that had agreed to a conditional gift to gain huge potential benefits of attending a pricey private college(as jsanche pointed out to me). Instead of following her agreement, she reneged. She valued having the tattoo right now, more than the private education. </p>
<p>What I might see as a limit on potential conditions- whether I was the parent or the student is not relevant. Apparently here, both the parents and the student agreed this condition was fair and reasonable so they made a promise to each other. Although a timeline hasn’t been specified, it appears the student kept her end of the bargain for just “days” into a 4 yr agreement.</p>
<p>With my scenario still unaddressed, I will ask for the last time a question to those who think this was an unfair(or unreasonable or silly) agreement and therefore should be disregarded: What if the student kept her word, but the day before student was to attend her first freshman class, on a whim, the parents said - “We have changed our mind. We will not pay for the pricey private”. What then, posters? Would you still be of the same opinion that it’s an unreasonable condition, and therefore should be disregarded? Or do you see it as enforceable for the parents but not for the student?</p>
<p>Thanks, fishymom. I hope it all continues to work out. I know that what I’m going to take away from this is a resolve to really think through any agreements, conditions, consequences, etc. that affect me and my kids. I’d like to avoid a situation like this if I can, and this is educational.</p>
<p>younghoss, I think that there is inherently unequal bargaining power between parents and children, and I would apply different standards to them, just as the law applies different standards when there is a large disparity in bargaining power. It’s kind of like the covenant between God and the Israelites I mentioned upthread.</p>
<p>referencing post 232- Assuming I have the money, I can choose a Chevy Cobalt or Caddy Escalade. Both get me from point A to B. If I decide I want the Caddy bad enough, for whatever reasons of mine, then I might go for it. But if I do, there may be other limits in my life due to the cost to purchase and maintain. I weigh those costs then make my decision. That’s adult life.</p>
<p>Secondly, the parents do not have all the power. The D has equal or more power. She can compel parents who have no legal obligation to buy her a stick of gum, to pay for a pricey private education, if the student will delay getting a tattoo for 4 yrs., though she has a legal right to get one. {How I wish someone would make me that offer!} Student has proven what power she has by choosing to get a tattoo right away- the parents could not stop it, and can not force her to remove it. Her choice means her power.</p>
<p>Though Fishymom’s update sure looks like student is trying to do the right thing now. Well done.</p>
<p>But Hunt, I strongly agree with your first paragraph in 234!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another issue that I think should be considered is that when you impose rules that are likely to be broken, you are putting your kids in a position where they would be reluctant to seek necessary help if something goes wrong while they are breaking the rules. For example, what if this girl’s tattoo had become infected? Would she have avoided seeking medical care because she’s on her parents’ insurance and they would have found out that she had been to the doctor?</p>
<p>One of the first things you learn in law school – one of the first things I learned, at least – is that contracts are made to be broken, for the most part. Of course, breaking a contract has consequences, but those consequences are not always the ones specified in the agreement. One of the first things you learn representing clients is that everyone wants all the power available, but when it comes down to brass tacks people more often behave reasonably than not.</p>
<p>The lesson I would take from this experience is not that contracts are sacred, or that contracts are meaningless. Rather, that parents are as prone as everyone else to overreach in hypothetical situations, and to walk themselves back sheepishly in the face of reality.</p>
<p>And, perhaps more importantly this: Everything we love and cherish is held hostage for a number of years by . . . teenagers. Our hopes for the future. Our grandchildren. Our families. The prospects of our children. Their very bodies! In the utter control of quasi-criminals whose idea of the long term is next Friday, who may have heard of the Copernican Revolution but who haven’t abandoned the fervent belief that all of Creation revolves around them, and who may have no idea from one moment to the next why they are doing anything in particular. (And who, by the way, have the capacity to imitate normal people for such long stretches of time that the less vigilant among us can forget that they are dealing with monsters.) Luckily, in most cases teenagers surrender our treasures to better guardians within a few years, not so much worse for the wear, discreet tattoos notwithstanding.</p>
<p>There was no long list of limitations for the agreement. The parents requested that the daughter maintain a reasonable gpa, work at least part-time during the summer for her spending money and not get tattoos or piercings until she graduates from college. That is it. These parents have their reasons for not wanting the daughter to get tattoos and the daughter was well aware of them. She willingly agreed to the terms of their agreement. Her choice was apply ED to the private school and abide by the agreement or go to a very well ranked state school. She chose to apply ED to the private school. In my opinion, she had two great options, either of which many kids would jump at the chance to have. She made a mistake, albeit a very stupid mistake in my opinion, but not the end of the world. They are dealing with the consequences the same way the entered into the agreement, as a family. They love their daughter very much and only want the best for her. She really is a good kid, just made a poor decision.</p>
<p>JHS- Post 237 Post of the Day. Excellent.</p>
<p>One of the first things I learned in law school was “Clients Lie. Legal aid clients. Corporate clients. ALL clients.”</p>
<p>The first thing I remember learning about in law school is the Hairy Hand, so you’re all ahead of me.</p>