<p>Fluffy, yes the money in our children’s 529 accounts is in my name FBO (for benefit of) our kids. If kid 1 had decided not to go to college or we had decided not to fund her college for whatever reason, the funds in “her” account could have been easily transferred to her brother. This possibility actually came up when for a brief moment she was considering ROTC. In that case the money in the 529 would have been transferred to her brother’s 529, and “IF” all had gone well with her ROTC plan we probably would have made her a sizable gift later for the purchase of a 1st home in order to recognize her work in providing her own education.</p>
<p>In any event, yes, all the money in a 529 belongs to the parents, subject only to a penalty of back taxes and I believe 10% if none of the money is eventually used for qualifying educational expenses. Our kids have no legal entitlement to that money.</p>
<p>meow is correct. In applying for SSI for our son with mental illness, I first wrongly wrote down that he had money in a 529 account. It was more than $2,000, so they said he didn’t qualify for SSI. I mentioned it to our financial guy, and he explained that the account is in the PARENTS’ name - the child has no claim on it. I reapplied with this information, and my son was approved for benefits. </p>
<p>Fluffy, don’t bother reiterating the obvious. Yes, the Canning Affair is not a divorce case. However, what it MAY represent, as someone said up-thread, is a very significant new set of legal inquiry and conflict if the judge rules for the parents IF…consequently a non-custodial parent whom was ordered (didn’t volunteer) to pay for college files an equal protection lawsuit to oppose the court order that imposed his obligation to support the child after age 18 or pay for college. I’ll guess that the person defending against the claim would assert that a non-custodial parent is not “similarly situated” to an intact couple such as Mr. and Mrs. Canning. Maybe, but maybe not. I’ll bet there is more than one lawyer or father’s right’s advocacy group willing to roll the dice. Certainly there would be no shortage of potential plaintiffs.</p>
<p>The point is that some states have, by statute, the jurisdiction to award college costs as part of a child support custody in a divorce. The way this case gets settled has absolutely nothing, nada, zilch to do with that (especially if you read the judge’s ruling) any more than a college dropout may be awarded tuition expenses in a lawsuit about the damages caused by an exploding burrito.</p>
<p>People seem to think that the word precedent means that if it happens in one circumstance that it is applied to any other circumstances. Precedent is a consideration, not a mandate.</p>
<p>I just read a number of pages of the father’s statement. It is truly astonishing how similar much of Rachel’s behavior and lies are to my friend’s errant D. Just amazing.</p>
<p>So you claim I am mistaken about family law and your explanation is to say that this MAY represent something entirely different and you use your friend’s divorce settlement as an example - when this isn’t even a divorce.</p>
<p>She first lived with the boyfriend’s parents the first couple of nights and then moved in with the “cool” friend’s family. Notice none of the articles claim he’s a honor student or where he’s headed to college. I wonder why…</p>
<p>Did you miss the part where BOTH mom and dad admit in their affidavits that “consent was given” to their D staying with her boyfriend’s family when she left home and/or was kicked out? Even Rachel’s mom says that when Rachel called her boyfriend to come get her from the parking lot and he took her to his home, his mother called the Cannings. Elizabeth Canning claims that the mother wanted to protect the kids from the consequences—and maybe she did–but the boy’s mom did call the Canning home immediately. Note that NEITHER Canning parent then drove to the Kitzmiller home to pick up Rachel.</p>
<p>And what on earth lead you to the conclusion that the boy’s parents consented to Rachel having sex with their son in their home? Rachel’s parents don’t say that in their affidavits. They say that his parents drove them to and from parties where there was drinking and that his father brought Rachel home drunk at 3:30 am once, but there is not a word in the affidavits about having sex in their home with their consent. </p>
<p>All we know about the boy is that he is a classmate of Rachel’s, according to news accounts he is a B student, and he plays football. The Cannings allege that he influenced Rachel to drink and go to parties where their was drinking. His father has denied that. </p>
<p>I don’t think it’s fair to trash a boy because his girlfriend sued her parents. </p>
<p>Probably because he’s not. Like most people though, I don’t immediately assume the worst of someone because they’re not a top student or not going to college. </p>
<p>jonri, I’m beginning to suspect a ■■■■■. This poster (joined three days ago… which we would know if they hadn’t taken away our “join date” stamps) has posted some pretty inflammatory things on multiple threads. I think I’ll just back away now. </p>
<p>From the dad’s affidavit, after the first request, the mom “vociferously refused to comply”. After DCPP was called and the girl asked the disciplinarian at the school for permission to stay there she stayed there for 2 days. (so she left, she wasn’t kicked out). </p>
<p>(by the way, the wording is odd. She asked the disciplinarian for permission, then that person contacted the parents and permission was granted. It doesn’t say by whom. This is relevant since after 2 days the school, not the parents, said she could no longer stay at that house - so he revoked the permission, not the parents).</p>
<p>The Cannings say Rachel left home when she went to work with her dad while suspended and called her boyfriiend from the parking lot. The boyfriend picked her up. According to ‘her parents, that’s when she “left home.” Mrs. Kitzmiller called the Cannings when Rachel arrived at her home. According to her father, Mrs. Kitzmiller asked Mrs. Canning to call the high school and tell the staff that Rachel had the Cannings’ permission to be there. It is THIS request that Mrs. Canning claims she “vociferously denied.” After this conversation, Rachel returned to the school. See pages 67-68, paragraphs 8-10. According to her parents, Rachel then asked the disciplinarian at the school if she could go to her boyfriend family’s home rather than her own and --I agree the wording is odd–consent was given. I don’t see this as "running away. "
<a href=“Court papers detail family history of N.J. teen suing parents - nj.com”>Court papers detail family history of N.J. teen suing parents - nj.com; </p>
<p>Before we can decide that question one way or the other, we need more facts. That’s what the April hearing is for–if it happens. If it does, Mrs. Kitzmiller and the disciplinarian at the school will give their versions of what was said during these conversations. </p>
<p>One thing is clear. The Kitzmillers didn’t just let a “runaway” stay at their home without consulting her parents. We don’t know why the Cannings didn’t go get Rachel from the Kitzmillers when Mrs Kitzmiller called and we don’t know whey they consented to have Rachel go to the Kitzmillers’ home rather than theirs when she left school that day. </p>
<p>I didn’t read the court transcript…Did the judge order the family to get counseling? I think it is what the family needs. This girl is going to be on her soon in few months, whether she goes to college or not. It is to everyone’s interest if the parents and the girl can make up and get over this difficult period. In few years, they are not going to remember what they were arguing about, but unfortunately everything they are writing about in the media is going to stay with this girl. The impact is not going to be as great for the parents.</p>
<p>The judge strongly recommended it, but said he cannot legally order them to do so. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the judge rules for Canning’s parents, she’s would be considered effectively on her own since the day she became an adult under the law at 18. </p>
<p>At that point, she’s going to have to accept whatever reasonable and legal conditions her parents or anyone else sets as preconditions to giving her help. </p>
<p>If the judge rules for Canning, parents all over the state of NJ are going to be concerned being sued by their teen/young adult children so they can demand their parents’ continued financial support without any parentally set conditions. </p>
<p>If someone has a drinking/drug problem, judge could order the person to go into rehab, but when it comes to dysfunctional family he can’t order them to get counseling. </p>
<p>OF, is there really no way a judge can order a family to get counseling? I could’ve sworn I’ve heard of judges order counseling but it could’ve just been “recommended” or perhaps it was for couples or something. </p>
<p>Sorry, I wasn’t stating the fact, I should have put a question mark after my statement. I was just as surprised as you, based on what cobrat said.</p>
<p>In this case, it seems not judging by what the judge said. </p>
<p>Also, the drinking/drug issues are different because the mere act of being caught drinking or abusing drugs is often considered sufficient evidence of a criminal offense so the judge would have sufficient legal grounds to give such an order. </p>
<p>On the other hand, being part of a dysfunctional family alone…even to this point is not considered sufficient evidence of a crime alone. </p>
<p>It’s very possible that upon finding further substantiated evidence of possible crimes or juvenile delinquency, he may find he has sufficient grounds to do so. </p>
<p>The case may also get interesting if the Canning parents’ allegations against the Kitzmillers and the lawyer bankrolling the lawsuit is substantiated as that could lead to criminal charges against both for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and/or violating other laws regarding adults giving alcohol to legal minors…and ones who aren’t their children at that. </p>
</p>