<p>When ever I see the courtroom photos, I am distracted by how upscale the furnishings are compared to courtrooms in my county.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.co.morris.nj.us/history/courthouse.asp”>http://www.co.morris.nj.us/history/courthouse.asp</a></p>
<p>Not as much upscale as it is historical. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t get this.
We are talking about 2 days here.
The parents originally said no, she appealed to the disciplinarian at school who contacted the parents and “consent was given”.</p>
<p>It didn’t matter if the parents gave consent or not after she turned 18 - so she may have returned home for an hour and then gone out and returned home at 2am for an hour, then turned 18 and never returned.</p>
<p>^^^^That’s probably why they “consented.” How do you FORCE a teen to come home on the 11th hour .9999% of her status as a minor? Seems to me by that time the parents felt helpless to control her, and it seems that was a pretty valid emotion.</p>
<p>Besides, I am not even sure what the consent was for?</p>
<p>It seems that this was much more of a “can she stay are person’s X house for a while” (no different than a field trip or a sleep over).</p>
<p>It isn’t as if they filed papers for her to be adopted or put in a foster home for those 2 days.</p>
<p>We don’t know exactly what was said in the conversation between the school and her parents. I do NOT think this was like consent to a sleep over—at all. </p>
<p>The school called her parents. If her parents had said at that point that Rachel did NOT have permission to go to her boyfriend’s home, she would never have gone because if she had BOTH she and the BOY would have been kicked out of the school. I doubt very much that the boyfriend’s parents would have taken Rachel in, even temporarily, if it meant that their son would get kicked out of school. If Rachel’s parents had said she had to go home and she hadn’t, Rachel would have been kicked out of school. Rachel’s parents didn’t care about her staying at Morris Catholic but Rachel obviously did. </p>
<p>It’s the SCHOOL, NOT Rachel’s parents, who said she could not live with her boyfriend’s family on a long term basis. There is NO indication whatsoever that her parents’ consent for her to stay with her boyfriend’s family was limited to 2 days. When the SCHOOL said she couldn’t live with her boyfriend’s family on a long term basis, she moved into the Inglesino home. </p>
<p>Again, to me it’s apparent that the SCHOOL was convinced that the Cannings didn’t want Rachel to return home. </p>
<p>Maybe the school was convinced by Rachel. But, who cares? In what world does a private high school get to decide where a student lives? Especially, a student whose parents have had it with that school, anyway. Rachel does not have many supporters and is widely considered a brat which is probably why sleazy politician lawyer sent her home. This is not complicated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are missing the point.
After those 2 days, Rachel was 18 and it didn’t matter if the parents gave consent or not. She could have stayed with the boyfriend or the boyfriend’s cousin Fred who is in a rock band and will make it big one day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite, you are missing the key point. The school said that in their role as disciplinarian who was enforcing rules for Rachel. Rachel agreed to it so that she is following the rules of the disciplinarian and can return to school. After she turned 18 she could have stayed where she wanted - the school then could have said that she is not allowed to return for not following their rules. Funny how that works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, look. The school was wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting question. </p>
<p>Probably the same world that can tell students what they are allowed to wear to school ;)</p>
<p>I would expect that given her disciplinary problems at school that the school contract has some terminology about making sure that the student is not a further disciplinary problem and they can evaluate stuff, blah, blah, legal words, blah, blah ;). </p>
<p>Fluffy, I am NOT “missing the point.” In fact, you make it yourself in your 12:59 post. Sure, Rachel could have gone and lived with someone unaffiliated with Morris Catholic HS IF she was willing to drop out of school. But she obviously wasn’t. If she’d gone to live with your mythical “Fred,” she would have been kicked out of school. It did not matter in the least to the high school whether or not she was 18.As long as she was enrolled in the school, she had to abide by its decisions. I do not even remotely follow your “funny how that works” statement. </p>
<p>Her parents weren’t utterly powerless in this situation. They COULD have said she doesn’t have our permission to go to her boyfriend’s house or anywhere else other than home. IF they had done that, Rachel would have had to go home OR go elsewhere AND get kicked out of school. My guess is she would have gone home. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And if her parents were trying to bring the situation under control and not dramatize and complicate the situation and alienate her EVEN FURTHER then they had no choice other than to consent.</p>
<p>Presumably they want their D to have a future ad go to college, and the last thing she needed was yet another suspension from school on her record. </p>
<p>My guess is that if the school said she didn’t have consent to be at the BF’s house, then she would have gone to the another friend’s house. That is what my friend’s kid did. That is what Rachel did. Neither of them went home. Both of them went to stay with a family that ultimately ended up being enablers of the kid’s dysfunction. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They did do that.
The father said the mom vehemently said no.</p>
<p>The school then intervened and “consent was given”. </p>
<p>Of course the parents could have still said no, and that would have lasted for 2 DAYS until Rachel turned 18. Actually, I take that back. I believe that by the time the school intervened Rachel was already over 18.</p>
<p>OK let’s take a look at the events which took place immediately prior to the parents granting permission for Rachel to stay with the boyfriend’s family: </p>
<p>All this took place on Oct. 30, as detailed in the parents’ certification filed with the court - </p>
<ol>
<li> Family met w/school officials and learned that Rachel was to be suspended from school for truancy (this was in addition to the suspension for alcohol at the Homecoming event earlier that same month). </li>
<li> Rachel was taken with father to his workplace where she was to keep busy while out of school on suspension. </li>
<li> Instead of staying at father’s workplace she contacted her boyfriend (who was also suspended at that point), he came and picked her up and took her to his home. </li>
<li> Boyfriend’s mother contacted mother and tried to convince her to tell Morris Catholic that Rachel had permission to stay at their home. Mother declined.</li>
<li> Shortly thereafter, Rachel appeared at Morris Catholic HS claiming abuse, so school officials contacted DCPP.</li>
<li> School officials contacted mother seeking permission for Rachel to stay with boyfriend’s family and at that point permission was granted. </li>
</ol>
<p>She wore them down and then backed them into a corner with a devious plan which looks like it was hastily hatched with help from her boyfriend - and possibly even his mother. </p>
<p>Many parents would have slammed the door on her for all these stunts - and wished her a happy life. I hope some day Rachel realizes how much they must love her. </p>
<p>@mondut</p>
<p>Good summary.</p>
<p>I forgot about DCPP. At that point, it makes perfect sense that the parents, even after saying no, give consent to having Rachel stay someone else for those 2 days before she turn 18.</p>
<p>It’s not accurate. The Cannings did NOT know that social services had been contacted when “consent was given” for Rachel to go to her boyfriend’s house. It’s not even clear that the school contacted soical services before it called Rachel’s parents.</p>
<p>Look, I’m not saying Rachel isn’t to blame. I AM saying a lot of you are reading a heck of a lot into the record that just isn’t there and forgetting that these are not court findings, but merely her parents’ version of events. </p>
<p>Well, I think people are applying common sense and some experience with snotty teenagers. For a trouble-making kid to scream abuse to a school and take her parents to court for college funding cannot be explained any other way.</p>
<p>“these are not court findings, but merely her parents’ version of events.”…which if anything is proved to be incorrect opens them up to perjury charges. </p>
<p>Given the attitude of the girl and the lawyer, I am sure they looked really hard at all of the statements.</p>
<p>@flossy. Yeah, it does boil down to common sense and experience and an appreciation that simplest solution is more likely to be correct. </p>
<p>Yes, it is possible that Rachel was kidnapped by aliens and implanted with a device that caused her to act irrationally since the aliens were after a secret device that the dad and his brother Phil were working on in the basement. </p>
<p>Of course, the only reason the people from DCPP gave the environment a clear bill of health is that they are actually working for the Alien Defense Organization (ADO) and were protecting the parents. Is it a mere coincidence that the dad was a police officer and maybe a member of the ADO? I think not.</p>
<p>By gosh, I think you may have figured out the mystery, fluffy! And here I thought the ADO was a secret…might be time for you to prepare to be assimilated.</p>
<p>There you go fluffy! I know that my H and I spent less than $100 a week excluding medical and dental raising our kids - roughly $5000 a year each for food, clothing and sports paraphernalia and pay to play…Rachel lost my respect when she “demanded” $600 a week…if she’s not simply a spoiled little girl then the aliens are involved. It doesn’t matter who said what, strip away all of that and it’s a teenager demanding something quite outrageous. But then we’re more of a spare the rod, spoil the child family so have a hard time imagining the entitlement mentality. </p>