<p>
</p>
<p>It appears that that was based on NJ guidelines which seem to be independent of need…e.g. if the parents earn X, then after some calculations, the child gets Y. I would also be surprised if she needs a lot of additional clothing. I would expect, but don’t know, that her closet is probably pretty full. Someone clearly needs to re-look at those equations.</p>
<p>I am not saying it is right, or deserved, but that is where that seems to come from.</p>
<p>I’m just thinking of how awkward it must be for all of them to be in the same house together! </p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Correct and that has been mentioned upthread, more than once, that the amount she was seeking was based on NJ child support guidelines. The child support guidelines are income based because the legal system wants children of broken homes to have the same lifestyle that they would have had if there family had stayed intact. If a father makes $200,000/year and his ex-wife makes $40,000 then he’ll owe significantly more in support than in a case where the father makes $40,000 and his ex-wife makes $40,000 because in the first case the legal system wants the child to still be able to have the lifestyle of a child of a family making $240,000 vs a famiy making $80,000 per year in the later case. It’s a case of the legal system not wanting to punish a child for their parents failed relationship. As far as I know those guidelines have never been used to provide support for a child of an intact family, which is part of the reason this case made the news. But that’s where her lawyer got the amount from and it didn’t stem from the fact that she’s a self-entitled, greedy, brat, trying to take her parents for all they’re worth…I mean maybe she is or maybe she’s not, but the amount she asked for is no indication either way.</p>
<p>^^^ </p>
<p>Agree.
But that is why it is a flawed system.
It is based on the assumption that the lifestyle is directly correlated to the amount of money people earn.</p>
<p>I know people who try to live like kings on low salaries (over spend, build up credit card debt, etc). Keeping up with that level of support in a case of a divorce makes no sense. Also I know people who live modestly on large incomes (see the book “The Millionaire Next Door”) since (a) they are saving for a long, high quality retirement (b) give a lot of money to charities (c) are not particularly flashy spenders. Secondly, a family, especially in Silicon Valley, may live modestly for many years since they are working for a lot of equity in a start-up. There can be a huge swing in the income from a family with no corresponding change to the actual lifestyle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that that is the goal, but it really makes no sense. The issue should be what is the proper level of support based on reasonable needs. Because you were given $1k/week clothing budget as a child, doesn’t mean you are still entitled to them. Just because a parent gets a new job, promotion, finally has his company go public and makes a lot of money, does not mean that a child “deserves” to share in that upside.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I agree. And to be honest I don’t “get” the concept of child support - it’s really household support, the checks go to the parent who uses the money to maintain a household or attempt to maintain a household – or at least with the people I know who got divorced that is how the payments went. They do not go directly to the child or into a trust account for the child… so the concept of awarding a child of an intact marriage money makes no sense…and then to have an amount that would support 6 kids is crazy. </p>
<p>What would be the salary of a parent who is expected to contribute $2400 per month child support per child?</p>
<p>Based on <a href=“http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/app9f.pdf:”>http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/app9f.pdf:</a></p>
<p>For a divorced/never married couple, when the combined income is $187,200 then the parents should jointly be providing $571/week for a child, however if the family income is greater than $187,200 annually then the court must add a discretionary amount of child support to the minimum basic award based on the factors specified in N.J.S.A. 2A:34</p>
<p>In those cases the $571 would be divided between the two parents based on income to determine what percentage the non-custodial parent would owe. So for a single parent to owe $600 in support they would need to earn somewhere in excess of $187,200/year and the other parent would need to have no income.</p>
<p>However in this case since it’s an intact family, the lawyer was probably arguing that if the total family income was higher than that amount, say $200,000/year then that’s what the parents needed to jointly provide.</p>
<ul>
<li>Not arguing that this would be right, just providing justification to how her lawyers computed the amount that she requested.</li>
</ul>
<p>@jrcsmom - thanks for the chart. Interesting.</p>
<p>What I found interesting is that if you are at the top level of the chart and paying support for one child it is $571.
But if you have to support two, it goes all the way up to $589. And for 6 kids it goes to $973.</p>
<p>I guess two can live as cheaply as one.</p>
<p>Well there you go, it costs less than $100 bucks a week per child…The extra dollars is for the ex…alimony called something different to be PC and it still doesn’t add up to what Rachel wanted. What ought to happen whether it’s Rachel or anyone else is the money would go to a trust with a trust administrator. The bills go to the trust administrator to be paid. I guess I’m jaded because I’ve witnessed much “child support” abuse where the kids got the short end of the stick or the parent was totally irresponsible about how the money got spent. </p>
<p>We must be bad parents. Our beloved D is living on her own in LA on a fraction of what Rachel was claiming for her support–paying for rent, utilities, food, and nearly everything else. Funny thing is D says she has enough and is very grateful! :)</p>
<p>Heck, one of H’s retired work buddies only gets about $2400 for his retirement and seems to be living OK on that (though he’s looking forward when social security kicks in and more than doubles his income.</p>
<p>Rachel has dropped her lawsuit against her parents.</p>
<p><a href=“NJ teen Rachel Canning agrees to dismiss lawsuit against her parents - nj.com”>NJ teen Rachel Canning agrees to dismiss lawsuit against her parents - nj.com;
<p>I’m glad both parents and Rachel have new attorneys and glad the case is now over. Rachel’s previous atty really did everyone no favors by creating the media frenzy; am hoping he will be sanctioned by the bar for his conduct, especially if it’s proven that he had alcohol-fueled parties with minors at his home.</p>
<p>Rachel has dropped her suit. However, I note that according to the link above (Repeated here <a href=“NJ teen Rachel Canning agrees to dismiss lawsuit against her parents - nj.com”>NJ teen Rachel Canning agrees to dismiss lawsuit against her parents - nj.com; ) when asked if the allegations of abuse she made were truthful, she said yes. And Rachel does NOT have a new attorney. She told her attorney she was ending the suit. </p>
<p>I hope that this family heals, whether or not her allegations were true. The parents went through a separation during part of the events that seem to have lead to the suit, so there’s lots of healing that needs to be done. </p>
<p>I’m going to defend Inglesino here. Again, he was NOT her attorney. She was represented by a female attorney who tried and failed to get a guardian appointed. I don’t think there is any evidence that Inglesino created the media frenzy. He gave a teenage girl a place to live for several months–which didn’t get any publicity at the time AFAIK- and he paid the legal fees for her to bring the action. Many of you think that makes him a horrible person. I don’t think we have enough information to reach that conclusion. Among other things, remember that Rachel had already left home and was living with another family before she moved into the Inglesinos’ and that, while the Cannings said he interfered with their right to discipline her, he did try to work some sort of settlement out with the Cannings before the action was filed. </p>
<p>I’m an attorney–though not in NJ and I don’t practice or know much about family law. However, I’m more than a bit surprised by the extent that some of you think that people never lie in court proceedings and, if they do so, they will invariably be caught and charged with perjury. I lived through a horrible divorce and my ex H said a lot of totally untrue things about me. A lot of my divorced mom friends had similar experiences. I’ve never heard of a judge actually charging someone in a family law case with perjury unless it’s in filling out forms about income and assets and other financial info. It’s more often a matter of “He says this; she says that. Based on all of the evidence, I find her (or his) version more credible.” The person whose version is less credible isn’t charged with perjury. </p>
<p>Again, I’m not saying that Rachel is right here, just that we don’t know. And the fact that the Cannings say that the Inglesinos hosted parties at which minors drank booze does NOT prove that happened…just as the fact that Rachel said her father woke her up to play beer pong in the middle of the night or her mom called her “porky” and constantly demeaned her for her weight to the point that it contributed to an eating disorder is true or untrue. We just don’t know–and we almost certainly never will. </p>
<p>Did you see Rachel sitting between the obviously spoiled and bratty looking Inglosino sisters? Who cares if her mom commented on her weight or her dad played beer pong? LOL! </p>
<p>Wait, someone is objecting to beer pong? Tell me a better drinking game than that!</p>
<p>It was announced today that Rachel chose Western New England to attend this fall. </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how Rachel fares now that she is finally out on her own. Hate to say it, but I bet her parents are exhaling a sigh of relief.</p>
<p><a href=“'Spoiled' cheerleader who lost lawsuit against parents picks a college and brags about $56,000 scholarship - even though tuition is just $47,000 | Daily Mail Online”>'Spoiled' cheerleader who lost lawsuit against parents picks a college and brags about $56,000 scholarship - even though tuition is just $47,000 | Daily Mail Online;
<p>I saw this on another message board. I postulated that perhaps she received $14K per year for 4 years.</p>
<p>She may discover that the lawsuit will continue to garner her increased scrutiny and attention which she doesn’t actually want.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jonri,</p>
<p>One thing you seem to be ignoring is that the local CDS did investigate the allegations of abuse lodged by Rachel against her parents and found them to be unwarranted. </p>
<p>While there’s a possibility CDS may have overlooked something or the Canning parents were great actors, that seems to be a remote possibility considering what has been publicized so far. </p>
<p>On the other hand, there is much evidence Rachel was acting out of control as shown through being suspended twice by her school. </p>
<p>In light of all that, Rachel has much more of a credibility problem in the eyes of the judge and most reasonable people looking at this case. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Spotted this: <a href=“Western New England University: SAT Scores, Admit Rate”>http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/western-new-england-university.htm</a> and wondered…how much higher would her SATs need to be to get a merit scholarship from this school if her HS GPA was a 3.4 as stated in court records? </p>
<p>It doesn’t seem like this U’s selectivity or moreso…its SAT profile is very impressive. </p>
<p>I think that it would behoove Rachel to stay off Facebook for a year.</p>