<p>But had they not taken her in she would have had no choice but to return to her family and make an attempt to work things out. The “host family” enabled a very rebellious and head strong teenager to take on her own parents. When you have other people making your rebellion easy, then it is going to be more difficult to come to terms with your family’s house rules. Teenagers will usually do what is most convenient for them. Rachel seems to have a real axe to grind with her family and the Inglesino’s seem to as well. Not a good dynamic. </p>
<p>@HarvestMoon1 I agree. But she’s 18, so she can’t be compelled to return home (even by the police). And with her past, I doubt she would just have returned to her family - she could have done something extremely stupid on an impulse, like camped out at a bar or crashed with older hard-drinking people she probably knew from parties or just wandered about fuming for a couple of days. And who knows what could have happened to her if she did that? Perhaps right now the Morris County papers would be carrying the story of the local teen who was raped/beaten to death after running away from home.
I think they did the right thing taking her in and giving her a place to sleep - if I were a parent, I would do the same for any of my children’s friends who turned up at my doorstep, not because of whatever their problem was but because I would always blame myself if I turned them away and something bad happened to them. Of course, the logical next step is to call the parents to come get their kid (or at least know where she is, in cases like this where she’s not a minor) and figure out what’s going on and what you can do to help. That’s where the Inglesinos failed.</p>
<p>I know I’m in a distinct minority here, but again I think you are all jumping to conclusions before we have enough evidence to conclude that Rachel is a brat and Mr. Inglesino is an awful human being or that he “failed.”. </p>
<p>To me, it looks as if there IS evidence that the Cannings threw Rachel out. If they did…it’s understandable that the boyfriend’s parents let her come stay for a couple of days. The Cannings’ affidavits say “consent was given” to Rachel staying with her boyfriend’s family. That’s odd wording. It’s also odd because weeks later when Rachel asks if she can come home, her father tells her if she does, she can’t see the boyfriend any more. </p>
<p>So, the only way it makes sense to me----and I admit I’m speculating–is that Rachel told the disciplinarian that her parents had thrown her out. The disciplinarian called Rachel’s parents–the Cannings admit there was such a conversation-- and “consent was given” for Rachel to stay at her boyfriend’s. If they were determined to end her relationship with the boyfriend, consenting for her to stay with his family is an odd way to do it. I suspect one or both of them told the disciplinarian she could go anywhere she wanted–they were through with her. Oh, and BTW, we aren’t paying her tuition. </p>
<p>Now, you may think they were justified in doing so and after all, she was only a couple of days shy of 18. But the fact remains that both the Kitzmillers and the school called Rachel’s parents and they didn’t come collect her. After a couple of days, the school, a Catholic school, said she couldn’t live with her boyfriend’s family, so the Inglesinos take her in. She is best friends with their D and I suspect they honestly believed she had no place else to turn. </p>
<p>They probably thought Rachel’s parents would calm down in a few days, but the days stretch into months. So Mr. Inglesino sets up a meeting with Rachel’s dad. Now he may have gone about this the wrong way—I don’t know. But I don’t see any evidence that the Cannings were doing anything to try to resolve things.</p>
<p>So, he probably recommended that Rachel sue them because he hoped that a judge would resolve the situation one way or another. I am sure that he never suspected the law suit would go viral. He’s NOT making $ from this case. He’s PAYING the legal fees to ANOTHER lawyer who is representing Rachel. If the Cannings were ordered to pay fees, he’d simply come out even (or more likely, spend less $ on fees than he otherwise would.) </p>
<p>Rachel is NOT arguing she’s emancipated. She’s arguing the contrary–that her parents have an obligation to support her. The amount of support she asked for did NOT come out of thin air–it’s based on NJ’s child support guidelines. </p>
<p>It’s her PARENTS’ attorney who is arguing that Rachel is emancipated and they have NO obligation to support her. IF THEY WIN, RACHEL WILL BE BETTER OFF THAN SHE IS NOW because if the court says she IS legally emancipated, then she won’t have to have her parents fill out FAFSA and their income and assets won’t count in determining financial aid. Now, she’s in a position where every college will demand that her parents fill out at least a FAFSA form and they can stop her from going to college at all by refusing to do so.Rachel was probably counting on having the $ in her college fund too and now she doesn’t. </p>
<p>Rachel is 18 and , despite the law, that’s not an adult. There is no universe in which I would “consent” to having my 18 year old D live with the family of a boyfriend I thought was a bad influence with his parents who allegedly drove them to drinking parties. Of course, I also wouldn’t go off to Vegas for 5 days and leave Rachel in charge of her younger siblings. Nor would I call my D’s boyfriend a “scumbag,” especially to his face and in front of his mother. None of this is particularly mature conduct either, IMO. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that were true, then Rachel would have had that in her description of events.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. But we all are. All we have is the he-said, she-said statements from each party and our experiences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, in this universe, it doesn’t matter if a parent gives consent or not about what an 18 year old does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>College tuition and room and board are in the guidelines? That is also the support she is asking for - to be supported through college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with Jewel on this.</p>
<p>I have no problem with them taking her in.</p>
<p>The issue is how they “helped” to resolve the situation.</p>
<p>I can think of 20 things that they could have done to help this “rebellious and head strong teenager”, but filing a lawsuit is on the very bottom of the list.</p>
<p>The family was investigated for the child abuse claim and it was not an issue - if the Inglesino’s knew that, then that makes this even worse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is odd about that? An 18 year old adult wants to live with and be supported by someone else. They say okay as long as she removes what they believe is a significant negative influence on her life.</p>
<p>I have seen how people can get completely derailed by another person in a relationship. You want to just take them completely away from them, pour cold water on their head and yell “wake up, don’t you see what he is doing to you?!”. </p>
<p>^^^Except trying to control your (almost) adult daughter’s relationship as a condition of her living at home is pretty darn messed up, especially since there is not evidence that I have read that the boyfriend has done something illegal or even immoral. Yes, they can set it as a rule, since it’s their house, but then they shouldn’t be surprised she doesn’t want to come back.</p>
<p>I have known people, one person my parents’ age now whose parents cut him off because he dated a girl of a different religion in college, who try to control their college kids’ relationships through college funds, etc. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people like that. Even if the relationship is not an ideal one, I don’t think it’s the parents’ place to interfere by making it about money or support or living at home - I don’t have a lot of sympathy for controlling people.</p>
<p>I don’t know enough about one party or the other to definitively say who is the ‘bad’ guy. I think leaving may have been the right decision for the girl, but maybe she should have just left and not sued - I would be much more sympathetic if that were the scenario.</p>
<p>I do think there are two sides to every story, and it is very rare that just one side is at fault. I think that people are way too quick to take the “poor parents” stance.</p>
<p>But as I said, I know nothing about either party, so I am going to hold on from forming any conclusions.</p>
<p>^^^ The parents made the determination that he is a bad influence, it has nothing to do with a different religion or just not liking the guy. I know people who went through this when their child went completely off the rails due to a relationship.</p>
<p>Whoever was influencing her and “helping” got her to a point where she is suing her parents, estranged from her parents, sisters and rest of family, and is a joke for many people in this country. I don’t view that as a good influence.</p>
<p>“The parents made the determination that he is a bad influence” - that’s pretty subjective in itself. I have seen it over and over - parents assume that someone is a bad influence, because they don’t want to believe their precious baby could be the one making the bad choices, and it’s not the friends’, boyfriend’s, etc. fault. Is there any evidence the boyfriend did something horrible (like being abusive, pressuring her into drugs)? If not, maybe they did just “not like the guy”. Telling your 18-year-old - don’t be with your boyfriend, or you can’t return to the house, strikes me as incredibly controlling.</p>
<p>Plus, how long do they get to make the determination of who she should or shouldn’t see - is money enough reason to control someone else’s life? Through college? Later, if the ‘child’ can’t find a job right away? I really have no sympathy for that. Again, keep in mind, “bad influnce” is just something they are saying - there is no real evidence of that, like a police report for domestic violence, for example.</p>
<p>As I have said, I don’t really think she should have sued - I think if things were bad, she should have just left and left it at that. BUT, I am also not in the “poor parents” camp. And I just think there isn’t enough information all around.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that only applies to cases of divorced couples, not intact ones like the Cannings. </p>
<p>It’s a reason why some legal commentators have said if the judge rules against the Cannings, this could really set a bad precedent where parents in intact marriages will now have to worry about being sued by their near-adult or actual adult children if they don’t get college tuition or other desired item du jour without any parental strings attached. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The boyfriend’s family are alleged by the Cannings to be bad influences for condoning and even encouraging their son and his friends to attend alcohol laden parties and even offering alcohol to Rachel Canning when she and boyfriend were legal minors. Some of those alleged incidents took place when she was 15. </p>
<p>If that’s as alleged, the boyfriend’s family’s actions are not only immoral, but also a criminal offense in many jurisidictions. </p>
<p>^^^That’s his family, though. Plenty of good people have come out of bad families (and yes, I know, many people follow their family’s example, but that doesn’t mean you can automatically judge someone by their family). Based on some of the stories even on CC, I wonder how many people here would like to be judged by what their family does.</p>
<p>Maybe a more sensible thing to do would have been to agree they can’t meet up at his house or something like that. I stand by what I said - telling your 18-year old not to see someone because you don’t like their family is absurd and controlling, in my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You would have a point if the boyfriend himself wasn’t an active participant in going to those alcohol-laden parties or joining his family encouraging Rachel to join him in attending him as alleged by Canning’s family. </p>
<p>Moreover, he was also suspended with Rachel according to the court record so it doesn’t sound like he’s an innocent party being unfairly tarred by being associated with his family. </p>
<p>Also, she was still under 18 when she ran off from her family…albeit two days before her 18th birthday. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which won’t help with preventing her from continuing to associate with a “bad influence” as her parents and if the allegations are true, many reasonable people would perceive it. </p>
<p>I’ve personally known of too many older neighbors and childhood friends from my old NYC neighborhood get into drugs/drinking/crime because they fell into the wrong crowd of “bad influences”…including friends with parents who condoned or even encouraged such activities. </p>
<p>A part of a parent’s job is, if at all possible, to avoid having their children fall with such “bad influences”. Unfortunately, like my old neighborhood or in many parts of NNJ…that can be hard if there’s a critical mass of families who are neglectful with supervision when needed and/or worse, condone allowing their children and their friends to participate in such activities. </p>
<p>Regarding the drinking - from brief searches of articles, there seems to be a lot of “he said, she said”. He parents are claiming one thing. She is claiming another. Her boyfriend’s parents are claiming another. And the family she is staying with has their own take.</p>
<p>That’s why I think there is simply not enough information.</p>
<p>Was the girl troubled? I can see that being possible. Were parents just victims of a bad kid? Maybe, but I don’t readily believe that, just based on what we know now.</p>
<p>Bringing my HS daughter home drunk at 3:30 am would be just about enough for me to stop her from seeing everyone she hangs around with not just the boyfriend. If I knew a parent of one of her friends gave her wine coolers when she was a freshman in HS, I think that friend would be blocked certainly - as much as I can manage it. For the record, I have 4 kids - 12 up to 21 yrs old. We live in the community that is described and while it might seem completely tabloid and unbelievable to the rest of the country, there are people like this in my kids school, down my street, everywhere around here. The parents accept that middle school kids will mock them publicly, roll their eyes and talk back. They don’t show their parents respect and the parents don’t demand it. To get their affection, parents take great vacations to Aruba and Paris, they give them wine and tropical drinks "for fun. They are deluded into thinking by giving their kids alcohol, supplying alcohol to their kid’s parties, they are “training” them to drink responsibly - they convince themselves that this will prevent kids from binge drinking when they go away to college. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Commenters have linked a PDF which contains a court record of all information the court has allowed to be released as part of the public record. I’d recommend reading that to get a deeper glimpse into the allegations. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there is a very likely possibility that the parents have made their share of mistakes, if not more, in their raising/handling of Rachel. But think there is plenty of evidence in the PDF of court documents to support the conclusion that Rachel is a “brat,” and I think that is a generous term.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remember that this is way beyond a dispute at school, or work. This is now a court case. Many of the press accounts and comments from people here are based on the statements made in the affidavits filed with the court.</p>
<p>Of course people can still lie then, but the potential penalty for lying is being charged with perjury Far different from an argument at school or work where people can make all sorts of claims without fear of any retribution.</p>
<p>It is interesting to see how detailed the parent’s affidavits are with respect to things that could be proved wrong and how little of Rachel’s affidavits deny many of those allegations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like the phrasing of “their share of mistakes”. I think very few parents, even with the help of professional councilors and well meaning friends, have any sort of realistic roadmap about what to do when their child rapidly heads into the wrong direction and the child completely loses respect for the parents. That coupled with kids are different and have different issues means that parents need to try different things - there is no one size fits all solution - so yes, they will absolutely make mistakes along the way. </p>
<p>I hope the judge puts any funds that have been saved for Rachel’s college into a fund for counseling for the entire family (including the other children that are not in the dispute)–they will all surely need it. This case is very sad to me, on all levels and I cannot see any good resolution for any of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, but that is totally irrelevant. They don’t like the kid. The fact that they don’t like the parents is a bonus.</p>
<p>Have you actually read the allegations? </p>
<p>They had no problem with her previous boyfriend, but after the activities that got her kicked off of cheerleading, the suspension, the drinking, the cutting of school, they decided this one was a bad influence. </p>