<p>The FB doesn’t look like parody to me - but I do think there’s a reason the attorney now says its a hoax. </p>
<p>The dirtbag Inglesino probably set it up (or encouraged Rachel to) - he needed to figure out how to collect on the legal fees he advanced and when the judge denied payment he resorted to what he does best: exploiting this psychologically messed-up young lady. </p>
<p>I was going to slam her for the FB rant, but I’m going to withhold judgment just in case this theory is correct. </p>
<p>The child support that is referenced is in relation to a divorce proceeding in which in some states the courts have the jurisdiction to include college costs as part of child support. It is an option, NOT a requirement. For example in such a proceeding if neither parent asks for college child support it isn’t even discussed. </p>
<p>More importantly, since this is not a divorce proceeding in which child support is being discussed, it is completely and totally irrelevant and just a distraction </p>
<p>I have no idea why people keep bring it up. </p>
<p>Actually according to the parents lawyer they are paying for her health insurance and willing to give her the money that is in the college fund which would cover some of her expenses. </p>
<p>See my 12:49 pm post. I already responded to this argument. Again, I am NOT saying that the parents are wrong–just that they aren’t willing to give her the $ out right. There are strings attached.</p>
<p>Even if a court is willing to make the parents pay for college, I cannot imagine on what basis they would make them pay for OOS tuition, room and board at a sleep away college. Community college, Rutgers, TNJ, maybe. I personally don’t think parents have anything but a moral obligation to educate their children, so it’s way beyond my comprehension that a court would get involved to require the parents to send her to a pricy out of state school.</p>
<p>Actually, she was caught skipping school and her attending alcohol laden parties and using it on school grounds would be considered a criminal violation in some jurisdictions…including some NNJ towns I know of. </p>
<p>Not to mention I find it disturbing you’re differentiating between alcohol and drugs and implying one’s better than the other when abused by legal minors. </p>
<p>Most reasonable parents I knew growing up…especially in my old neighborhood where alcoholics and heroin/crack users were a daily presence in the neighborhood/local parks wouldn’t see any difference. </p>
<p>Not only that, they’d be much more adamant about trying to keep their kids away from known drug/alcohol abusers during the K-12 years so they minimize such “bad influences” as much as possible. </p>
<p>If a Catholic/private school acted as leniently as Morris Catholic HS did, most parents would be hurrying to withdraw their kids from what they would perceive as a “drug/alcohol” school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From what has already been released in the court record about Canning’s behavior in and out of school, that’s a very odd standard for being “a good kid”. </p>
<p>Stealing from her parents, disobeying them with abetting by excessively permissive parents/friends to attend alcohol-laden parties, cutting class, 2 cited suspensions on record with at least one for drinking on school grounds…nope, doesn’t sound like a good kid to me. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Especially considering her cited choices like her #1 UDel doesn’t necessarily have a better academic reputation than Rutgers unless things have drastically changed recently. </p>
<p>If anything, Rutgers actually has the better reputation on the academic front whereas UDel was widely regarded in the Tri-State area as a safety party school for rich kids. </p>
<p>I believe there are two separate issues on the money.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The lawyer said that the parents are willing to pay for her insurance and the give her the college fund that she is “entitled” to. That would pay part of her expenses.</p></li>
<li><p>They also said that if she comes back they are willing to support her and pay for her college expenses.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It is #2 that is the strings attached portion that you are referring to.</p>
<p>Fluffy and Beth’s Mom; I’ll say it again. You’re mistaken when it comes to New Jersey law and practice. For some unfathomable reason NJ from time-to-time has broken new ground in family law (the Mary Beth Whitehead case, for example; in addition to parental obligations in a divorce).</p>
<p>I know this first hand from the case of a close friend. The divorce decree said nothing about college costs (he mistakenly presumed that support would end at 18 and the divorce was relatively amicable). When the child failed to get any significant institutional financial aid or scholarships upon admission to college, the ex-spouse went to court to demand the father pay the full COA, WHEREVER the child enrolled. The judge consequently ordered both parties to bear the costs of college in a split based on the division of income established in the divorce decree years earlier. There you have it; according to this NJ judge my buddy’s child is entitled to have the costs (including repayment of student loans) paid or reimbursed by the parents. When I heard about it I couldn’t believe it!!! As I understand it the judge based his ruling on “family expectations.” What?</p>
<p>The example that you gave is part of a divorce - where goes back to the judge and asks for more support.</p>
<p>That does absolutely happen and some States use it more than others, some States don’t give the judge that jurisdiction.</p>
<p>But, as I have said before, that has absolutely NOTHING, NADA, ZILTCH to do with this case. This is not a divorce case in which there is a request from one parent for support of a child. There are all sorts of things that get done in a divorce including support for a kid well into their 30s (trust fund set up, etc). But that doesn’t matter in this case.</p>
<p>Look at your example, which although is irrelevant can help make the point further. Let’s say that after the kid found out he wasn’t getting any financial aid and neither spouse decided to go to back to the judge to amend the agreement. What do you think what would happen - nothing.</p>
<p>I just checked out the FB page and I think that the lawyer is saying that it’s a bogus FB because the comments are overwhelmingly negative. I didn’t read all the comments (no one has that much time!) but I didn’t read any positive comments. So, I don’t think it is achieving the goal of creating sympathy for Rachel or money for the attorney.</p>
<p>Edit: sorry, put this in the wrong place – this is about the daughter who blabbed about her dad’s lawsuit settlement! So many spoiled and annoying kids in the news these days that I got confused! :)</p>
<p>I wish I knew how real those FB sites are. The Educatioer n page is “liked” by a “Rachel Canning” page, but who knows if the Rachel one is legit either.</p>
<p>The lawyer said it was a hoax, but was also reported that she admitted setting up the page. </p>
<p>Either way, the lawyer should have these pages shut down.</p>
<p>Yes bookreader - I totally agree. It’s certainly not an attempt at parody because there’s no effort to be cheeky or any cariacturization of the plaintiff or her friends, or even the creepy attorney/foster “dad”. (and all of them make perfect subjects for caricature!) </p>
<p>fluffy I don’t disagree but I wonder if the lawyer had hand in getting it up to begin: </p>
<p>In particular, the “Education for Rachel” FB not only looks like an ill-conceived attempt to sway public opinion in Rachel’s favor, but also to frame the discourse along lines that support Inglesino’s ‘possible’ underlying motives. </p>
<p>Taken together with your very interesting point above - that Inglesino has serious financial troubles brewing - his actions in this case may suggest he is hoping to create a little cottage industry suing “rich baby boomer parents” on the part of their overly-entitled adult children in order to extort luxury-model educations for them, when a simple economy-model would suffice. Here’s a post from the “Education for Rachel” FB: </p>
<p>“Suburban baby boomer types are the spoiled lot, they make massive amount of money a year, they are used to flying to luxury destinations when they want, and buy things that they don’t need, people should be inclined to see things Rachel’s way.”</p>
<p>I’m wondering if this will not only fail spectacularly in his face, but also end up with him being brought before the NJ state bar on ethics misconduct, malpractice, and other charges and possibly disbarred. </p>
<p>Whoever set up that page had a bad read about how people would respond to her case. </p>
<p>Again, I don’t know if this is really her page, but on the Rachel page there is this statement:
“In New Jersey (as in most states) parents are required to support their kids through high school unless legally emancipated, which I’m not. This means that they can NOT put conditions on me being at home, which they did.”</p>
<p>I find that to be an astonishing statement. I understand the first part, but I have no idea how she got to the second part. (“sure little Jimmy, you can play with dad’s loaded gun, drink as much as you want, do drugs, sell drugs out of the living room, I wouldn’t want to put any conditions on you”).</p>