<p>And how did she come up with this sassy comment about ‘other people’s’ frivolous lawsuits: </p>
<p>“How many threat remarks reached that guy who blamed a life of crime on beer companies? Has that Ohio teacher who claimed fear of children in suit against district got sick of the non-stop harassments? How about the lawsuit claiming “footlong” sandwiches come up short? Hypocrisy Hypocrisy Hypocrisy” (Education for Rachel FB)</p>
<p>For a future biomedical engineer she seems to have an extraordinary grasp on current legal issues </p>
<p>re fluufy at 4:58–No, there is no such distinction. See the brief for the parents, p.28 of the documents previously llinked. The ONLY thing they are willing to pay is what is in her college fund and ONLY if they reach “a mutual decision” as to where she will attend college. </p>
<p>Again, I’m not arguing they are in the wrong to say that–just that they most definitely have told the court they will only spend her college fund on her if she returns home and follows their rules…</p>
<p>Oh and, cobrat, she was not found guilty of drinking on school grounds. A teacher saw her with a group of boys, including her boyfriend, in the parking lot during a school dance. He suspected they were getting booze from the boyfriend’s car. A thoroiugh search of the car was made–no booze was found. Rachel’s parents claim that the teacher was convinced that she had in fact been drinking. Rachel denies it. The school did NOT discipline her based on the teacher’s unproven suspicions. </p>
<p>I did not come to the same conclusion. They say they don’t want to pay without consultation, etc, (the conditions that you mentioned) but there is no mention of any limit of a college fund.</p>
<p>My comment about part 1 was based on what their lawyer said:
That they are not willing to pay tuition based on not being consulted (as per the above) HOWEVER,
“she said, the parents will continue to pay Rachel’s health insurance and said she is also entitled to money in a college fund, which would pay part of her expenses.” There are no conditions mentioned on that last part.</p>
<p>(of course, we don’t know if the college fund has $1000 in it from gifts from relatives over the years “lets put that money aside for college” or if it is one of those college plan that has been funded by the parents that has $100k in it).</p>
<p>So it seems there is a compromise that the parents are setting up:</p>
<p>Pay for insurance and give you the college fund.</p>
<p>Sounds like the typical philosophy of parents here on CC and a philosophy which is usually championed. Seriously, how many parents here advocate the idea that parents are obligated to pay for college but may have NO say about which college their kids attend?!</p>
<p>Do we REALLY want the courts telling us that it’s okay for our KIDS to dictate to us how we spend our money on their education? The fact that this girl’s position about parental obligations re: college (even though she wants nothing to do with her parents and maintains that parental rules are null and void once one is 18) is even given any credence by adults just blows my mind. And what if this young woman goes to college and makes crappy grades, changes her major numerous times, drinks to excess and gets citations for same, etc., etc., we want her parents to be under court order to keep showing her the money simply because she is their biological child? </p>
<p>This is exactly why I am totally against the notion that parents owe their children a college education. There are too many possible situations where this is not the right philosophy. DH and I believe we have a moral obligation to our kids to provide them with education - but most definitely not a LEGAL obligation, because under certain circumstances, this education would not be a given. It should be for US to decide, not the state or federal government.</p>
<p>ah, but it doesn’t stop there…
Don’t want to stay in a dorm, Pay for an apartment.
Don’t want cafeteria food, Pay to eat out every day.
Public transportation, blech. Pay for a car…and gas…and insurance…and repairs…
Need to expand my horizons, so pay for my European trips over the summer.</p>
<p>Re: jonri at 5:40 - If you are referencing the quote from fluffy’s post: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>then I’m not sure what your point is. She’s talking about high school. In fact if you look at the original FB post it goes on to rant about how her parents are in breach of contract for refusing to pay her second semester tuition at her HS. </p>
<p>Also you dispute the allegation that she was found guilty of drinking on school grounds, yet it’s stated and uncontested in the court record that she and her boyfriend were suspended for two days in Oct. 2013. Whether it was for drinking or something else, I can understand the parents’ concern about her associating with the boy. I don’t blame him, but clearly any astute parent would attempt to separate their child from any negative influence when the child is heading in the wrong direction. </p>
<p>Plus - at no point has Rachel’s attorney tried to refute the parents’ claims that she was using and abusing alcohol. </p>
<p>I’m not sure what your point is, but you clearly seem to want to defend the daughter’s position, whereas I have no sympathy for her and am squarely aligned with the parents on this one. </p>
<p>It takes real courage at times to be a parent. </p>
<p>According to page 67, the father states that she was suspended due to alcohol involvement at the Homecoming Dance. I would expect that he wasn’t wrong about that otherwise he risks perjury since it is so easy to prove one way or another.</p>
<p>Do these details even matter? I don’t think either side here is disputing that she was a slightly unstable, out-of-control teenager, culminating in packing up and moving in with her boyfriend and his family which is a really crazy situation that should not be okay with anyone. I really don’t care if her parents were strict or made mistakes. It makes no difference. No parent owes an 18 year old much of anything. They don’t owe her private high school. They certainly don’t owe her the college of her choice. That’s just nuts.</p>
<p>Okay, not the thing to do on a Friday night, but I just read the entire document from the dad.<br>
For those interested in the “rules” of the house, it is on page 69. Exact same rules we have, so of course I think they are reasonable ;)</p>
<p>The rest is heartbreaking.</p>
<p>The email from Rachel is also heartbreaking (I do miss you guys and I know a change has to be made).</p>
<p>Reading all of this, I really, really wish the other family helped her get back together and help her with her issues instead of filing this #$!# lawsuit. Awful, absolutely awful. </p>
<p>Some are more lenient than those I’ve heard about even from older HS classmates who were attending college as commuters. </p>
<p>Considering her demonstrated behavior as cited by school and court records, it’s very understanding if the parents are concluding maybe a gap year or few is best.</p>
<p>Especially considering they’re probably pondering this good question:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Slightly?? Now that’s a bit of an understatement. :)</p>
<p>Again, I am not saying the parents don’t have the right to say this–just that here and in other places the parents have said that they will NOT pay anything more than what’s in the account AND that using what is in the account is dependent upon “good behavior.” They also said since they had no input into Rachel’s list and she chose to leave home, they should not have to pay for college. Their attorney is arguing that Rachel is emancipated and they are therefore under no financial obligations to her at all. </p>
<p>Again, I am NOT saying that the parents aren’t within their rights–only that they have made it abundantly clear that they are NOT willing to give her the $ in the account with no strings attached and the amount of $ in the account is the limit of what they will contribute for college. </p>
<p>I guess I don’t understand their lawyer statement which said they are paying her insurance (which the girl confirmed) and would give her the college fund which which she was entitled to.</p>
<p>Especially when giving large sums of money or allowing anything without strings attach is likely to lead to a possibly even greater train wreck in college considering past behavior cited in the court record released so far. </p>
<p>We’re entitled to Social Security, but we have to meet certain criteria to receive it. The same is true of Workers’ Comp. Is it possible that this girl is entitled to money the parents have set aside for college only if she meets certain conditions, or are the rules for college funds different? I thought certain types of funds required parents to spend them only on educational expenses. If true, it doesn’t seem like handing a teen a check for $100k, or $300k, or whatever the figure is, meets that criteria. </p>
<p>I don’t think ANY state mandates parents to pay for college, the court decisions on this usually involve one parent who wants to pay for college suing the other parent for tuition or maybe the kid as a third party beneficiary of divorce agreement suing non-parent. New York requires parents to support kids until age 21, but that is to keep kids off public assistance for necessities. Parents don’t have to pay for college, and kids can usually take out full loans for community college anyway.</p>
<p>By the way, this is he quote from the parent’s lawyer I was referring to:
</p>
<p>So it seemed to me that just like the health insurance, they were willing to pay out the college fund. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, so this is fun with words. I disagree with how the statement is phrased since it needs to be more specific.</p>
<p>As of today, I am not entitled to receive any Social Security benefits.
In a bunch of years, if I meet the conditions, I will be entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The entitlement comes AFTER the conditions are met, not before.</p>
<p>So circling back to the lawyer’s statement, I thought it was clear that she is getting the money in the college fund. </p>
<p>(I find this interesting since I would have been a lawyer if I went to college for it, passed the bar, and got a job practicing somewhere. Otherwise, I was really close since I saw a lot of Matlock episodes and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express).</p>
<p>“Again, I am NOT saying that the parents aren’t within their rights–only that they have made it abundantly clear that they are NOT willing to give her the $ in the account with no strings attached and the amount of $ in the account is the limit of what they will contribute for college.”</p>
<p>And, what’s wrong with that, exactly? Many parents do this even without all the obnoxious drama in this case.</p>
<p>@jonri “Again, I am NOT saying that the parents aren’t within their rights”</p>
<p>Hi, I know where you are coming from and you have been consistent about that.</p>
<p>I am just looking at what the lawyer said. I know it is not binding or legal, but if you see the quote, it is what was said and was said after the depositions and all that legal stuff.</p>
<p>Perhaps that lawyer’s comments were related to a 529 college account. I always thought that when the child turned 18 it was their account, as long as the money was used for legit college expenses. I didn’t realize that the parents actually still control the money and are allowed to transfer the money over to another child’s 529 account.</p>
<p>I think the lawyer’s comments were non-specific. I agree he was merely reinforcing that the parents will support the D if she comes home and if she abides by house rules. I think this was smart of the lawyer. If the judge emancipates the D because she’s already been out of the house for at least four months then technically she’s entitled to zilch and the parents can choose not to give her any money that isn’t in some account that legally she would be entitled to receive because it’s “owned” by her.</p>
</p>