<p>Islmom, that’s the crux of the larger (societal) problem here; Reaching the age of major doesn’t necessarily mean that one is a legal adult in all matters. Again, I think the “multiple” standards for legal adulthood in the U.S. is nonsense. And if 18-year olds had any sense they would vote and defeat any politician who does not support full and complete legal rights/independence at 18.</p>
<p>Wait. Parents are not required to fill out the FAFSA. Many parents don’t fill out a FAFSA, either because they know they won’t get any aid or because they are not sending the kid to college for whatever reason and that’s that.</p>
<p>Rachel may be a spoiled brat…or she may not. Legally it’s not relevant. My S may have been a brat and disrespectful when he was 10 or 13, but that did not give me the legal right to stop supporting him. This girl is now 18, but in NJ that is also not relevant. It’s not ‘plain and simple she’s an adult’ - NJ law states that a person IS NOT emancipated simply because they turn 18 - and YES, states have the right to make that law - in Alabma and 18 year old can’t even sign a legal contract because the age of majority isn’t until 19. “In New Jersey, emancipation is not contingent on becoming a legal adult at age 18 but instead requires a young person to obtain “an independent status on his or her own” - such as graduation from college, obtainment of employment or marriage.”</p>
<p>The parents may be abusive or they may not. Research on eating disorders shows (and I can confirm being the survivor of one) that most eating disorders are experienced by middle-class/affluent young women who feel that they have no control in their lives. The feel out of control in their environment, so they use the eating disorder to take control of what they can…their body. My guess is even if not abused, Rachel was not happy in her home environment…also demonstrated by the drinking. This is a more legally relevant fact because it would have provided reason of Rachel to leave her home environment. Was she just unhappy or was her situation so bad that a reasonable person would have had to leave the environment?</p>
<p>She doesn’t deserve money because she’s drank alcohol and had some speeding tickets? I’m beginning to wonder how many posters here REALLY have raised teenagers!!! Nearly three quarters of students (72%) have consumed alcohol (more than just a few sips) by the end of high school, and more than a third (37%) have done so by eighth grade. (<a href=“http://www.sadd.org/stats.htm”>www.sadd.org/stats.htm</a>). Maybe a sad fact, but also legally irrelevant. Parents can’t just say, my kid took a drink, I get to stop paying the bills. There are a lot of teens that get speeding tickets, that get in trouble in school, and that use inappropriate language directed at their parents. If parents got the right to stop supporting any kids that got in trouble or made a bad decsion in life, as a society, we’d be suppoting A LOT of young adults.</p>
<p>The lawyer now supporting this girl may be part of the problem or he may be someone sincerely trying to help his child’s friend. What he’s heard is probably very one sided from a teen who was unhappy enough in her home life to have developed an eating disorder. Was court the best option…probably not, but as a lawyer he may have felt that’s where he could be the most help to her. Or maybe he is obnoxious and thinks he has all the answers and thinks he’s better than her parents. It really doesn’t matter in how the case will be decided.</p>
<p>The entire crux of the lawsuit is that in the state of NJ you ARE NOT emancipated just because you reach the age of 18 and that parents do have an obligation to their children they are.</p>
<p>The parents argument is that she sacrificed that right by choosing to move out of their home and that by living independently of them she is now emancipated.</p>
<p>Her argument is that they forced her to leave the house/the conditions were such that she had to leave the house and that therefore she did not did sacrifice that right. </p>
<p>The judge HAS NOT ruled on whether or not she is entitled to current or future support. The judge ruled that since her care and education were currently being provided for that there was no immediate need to make an emergency ruling and that the case would be heard at length in a month.</p>
<p>The judge is definitely the person to pity in this case because any precedent they set is going to have pretty significant impact. If the judge rules that the parents do owe her college expenses because based on NJ law she is not legally emancipated, then that opens the doors for any other students who have parents who didn’t set aside a college fund to start their own lawsuit. If the judge rules that at age 18 a child is emancipated and is no longer entitled to support (aside from being in opposition to NJ law) that impacts non-custodial parents who have been ordered to pay support in that state and could result in them returning to court. </p>
<p>Here’s something else I ran across on that issue:</p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court has never decided whether it is constitutional to make divorced parents pay child support for adult children, even though married parents have no such obligation. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down such a requirement in Curtis v. Kline, 666 A.2d 265 (1995), rightly reasoning that it was irrational discrimination that violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. But the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld such a requirement. In many states that have such mandates, lawyers have simply failed to challenge them, which is mystifying given lawyers’ duty to zealously represent the interests of their clients. (<a href=“Virginia Legislators Kill Bills to Mandate Child Support for Adult College Students - Competitive Enterprise Institute”>A '21st Century Glass-Steagall' Would Be Bad for the Financial System - Competitive Enterprise Institute)</p>
<p>So a decision that the parents simply have no obligation to support her will most likely result in many NCPs in NJ returning to court to dispute the orders in place against them.</p>
<p>Therefore there is a STRONG chance this case will end in one of two ways -</p>
<p>The case will be worked out via mediation. Chances are the girls parents do love her and want whats best for her although are currently frustrated. Now that she’s 18 they are going to have to learn a new set of parenting and communication skills and realize that simply banning their adult child from a relationship is almost definitely going to result in rebellion. They are going to have to accept that she’s an adult and learn to allow her to make some decisions that they may not agree with, but accept that she has the right to make. The daughter will have to accept that there are some basic rules that she will have to abide by that are not put in place to control her, but so that the family can live in harmony. </p>
<p>Or both sides will continue to dig in their heels and won’t agree to mediation or it will fail and the judge will be forced to rule. From what I have read on the situation, the judge is not eager to make a very impactful precedent on this issue. The resulting decision will be worded so narrowly that the decision will not impact many other cases. The judge will avoid ruling if parents have a duty to support their children and instead rule very narrowly on in this situation and say by choosing to move out of the house she sacrifice any rights she may have. </p>
<p>I suspect for all the arm-chair legal analysis going on surrounding this, the resulting decision is going to wind up having very little impact.</p>
<p>Okay, well no parent owes any child college expenses anywhere ever so what about that? Kids can’t just decide they want to go to school XYC and sue the parents to send them and parents can decide that a child is not ready for college for whatever reason. She sounds slightly unready to me. Is she a child or an adult.? If she’s an adult go forth and be happy. If she’s a child, the parents get to make the rules and I can’t see a court deciding the rules are too harsh since a decent case can be made that this kid was trouble.</p>
<p>Do those of you who think there should be a total age of majority of 18 and parents shouldn’t be responsible at all past that age, really think that parents who make really good money should be able to get grants for their 18 year old because they don’t want to pay for college? The system we have now might not be perfect but every parent in the U.S. would refuse to pay and have the taxpayers and schools fund their kid’s colelge education if this were changed.</p>
<p>I’m certainly not saying any parent owes their child a college education, but neither do the taxpayers.</p>
<p>@Flossy:</p>
<p>“Okay, well no parent owes any child college expenses anywhere ever so what about that?”</p>
<p>No, this is wrong. There are several states where there are laws that require non-cutodial parents to pay college costs and have been ordered to do so by the courts and New Jersey is one of them.</p>
<p>Yeah, I understand the NCP complication but in this case neither parent wants to pay. It’s different. imho.</p>
<p>Not every legal case needs to be impactful…only to determine the case at hand. </p>
<p>My firm dislike of attorneys is again justified. This reminds me of the lifetime alimony issues state groups are trying to get reformed, and for good reason. Don’t we have a right to freedom from involuntary indentured servitude, even from our children? </p>
<p>I think Jcrsmom laid it out well. There could be a huge turn of events if the status quo were challenged on legal principal and taken to a high court and the ruling does not uphold the way things are being done. it would take someone with the tenacity and funds to bring such cases to those levels.</p>
<p>At this point, my guess, and it’s my guess only, is that if push comes to shove, the judge here is not going to award this young woman much of anything. It would just open the door for way too much in the way of young adults suing their parents for what they feel is due to them. The rules in New Jersey have been used for child support purposes as have most all support decrees for children, in the situations when a family breaks up. It is unfair, I agree that a divorced parent can be ordered to pay for things and amounts that are not the case for a parent not in that situation. NJ’s law’s are more far reaching than PA’s where the divorced parent’s obligation ends at high school graduation or age 18, unless the parent has signed a contract agreeing to other terms. </p>
<p>It’s a whole 'nother topic and I don’t want to hijack the thread, but it is interesting that NJ was able to include college costs in divorce decrees since historically there is no legal obligation for parents to pay for college. I’m surprised this particular law has not been appealed through the channels. It does open the door a smidgeon for the girl’s lawyer to argue that the intact parents have some obligation toward college costs. But if that happened and was was overturned on appeal it would then also open the door to challenge a NJ law that says a divorced “parent” has a legal obligation to pay for college. </p>
<p>In many states parents can be forced to pay support for a child until the child finishes high school, especially if the child turns 18 during senior year. In at least some states, kids can stay in foster care (and the foster parents will be paid) until they finish high school, provided the child is making satisfactory progress towards a diploma. This is a separate issue from college costs.</p>
<p>Some states do allow for child support for college expenses. Nobody should rely on these charts for his/her particular case, but these link give a summary of the law of various states: <a href=“Termination of Child Support”>Policy Research;
and
<a href=“Policy Research”>Policy Research;
<p>@momofthreeboys</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s hijacking the thread since I think that’s been her lawyer’s argument all along - in NJ divorced parents can be compelled to provide financial support to their non-emancipated children. Almost all my posts in this thread have been on the inconsistencies between married and divorced parents and especially in NJ where courts have ruled that parents do have a financial obligation it definitely seems to violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause if married parents don’t share the same obligations.</p>
<p>Seems about 1/4 of states do allow for college support from non-custodial parents - <a href=“Divorce Support and Advice”>http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/childsupportresources/a/childsupportcol.htm</a></p>
<p>But I suspect that the judge in this case is going to focus on the fact that she moved out of the house and attempt to avoid ruling directly on whether or not an adult child is legally entitled to financial support.</p>
<p>One of the main arguments of the defendants is that you cannot have it both ways-declare yourself unemancipated and due total financial support, but refuse to live within the parent’s “sphere of influence,” refusing to follow reasonable established rules, refusing to allow parental input into college of choice, etc. They are asserting that virtue of their daughter refusing to follow their rules, moving out of the house, being disrespectful and/or refusing any kind of contact, etc., that she has in fact emancipated herself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She didn’t just drink alcohol, but seems to have gotten caught doing so on school grounds which prompted at least one of her suspensions from school. </p>
<p>There are many levels of drinking alcohol as well. This ranges from parents allowing late adolescents/teens to occasionally trying a glass of wine/beer under strict parental supervision (Fine IMO) as opposed to out of control drinking…especially doing so on school grounds (NOT OK). </p>
<p>My extended family and parents raised many teens over the years from the '70s till the late '90s and with one notable exception, none of my older relatives would have tolerated such behavior from their teens as “normal teen behavior” even most of my most assimilated suburban relatives, including some who live in NNJ and are familiar with the “bad influences” of alcohol laden parties and the like.</p>
<p>Behave like that with most older relatives as HS kids without making any amends by end of high school is likely to result in them giving them the following choices:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Get a job and/or move out.</p></li>
<li><p>Join the military.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>as the older relatives would feel this behavior shows a lack of maturity and readiness to go off to college, especially a non-commuter one. Moreover, they aren’t inclined to support ingrates or tolerate disrespectful language/cursing in any form/language(English or a few Chinese dialects). </p>
<p>I suspect Rachel Canning’s police chief father may have had similar minimal standards of acceptable behavior in the house…albeit on a more lenient side than those of most extended family members or many neighbors in my old neighborhood who wanted better for their children. </p>
<p>There are still plenty of parents who practice this on teens who were my aged peers and younger as I found with a recent co-worker whose parents pulled him out of college after he in his words “drank away his scholarship” and after being presented with the choices, enlisted in the Army. Ended up doing very well there and after his honorable discharge, graduated college with flying colors. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As with my previous post, this is the complete opposite of the common practice among religious/private schools in the NYC area back in the '80s and early '90s. </p>
<p>There, it was the religious/private schools who expelled kids with such behavioral issues* and the public schools which had to accept everyone. A reason why many parents preferred sending their kids to the former rather than the latter…especially in neighborhoods with crime-ridden public schools. </p>
<ul>
<li>If anything, those would be considered severe behavioral issues which religious/private schools were eager to expel due to fear of getting a reputation as a “drug/alcohol ridden school” which would prompt many parents to pull their kids out for schools which don’t have such a reputation.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>My 0.02</p>
<p>I think this girl is an entitled selfish brat who is determined to do what she wants. When the judge asked why the girl could just return home, her lawyer responded because her home life was an unhealthy one, but didn’t elaborate. How is her home life unhealthy? Is she being abused? Are the parents strung out all of the time? The lack of elaboration made me suspicious. </p>
<p>This family she’s staying with bothers me. I can’t understand why the father of this household would fund her case. It makes me there there’s some kind of relationship going on there, most likely a sexual one.</p>
<p>This girl’s parents have said time and again she’s welcome to come home as long as she abides by their rules. So far, their rules have consisted of chores and a curfew. If she has a problem with that, then, yeah, she needs to get a job and pay her own way.</p>
<p>I do think the parents are responsible for the $5200 high school bill. That was an agreement made between the school and the parents when the girl was still a minor. But I don’t think they’re responsible for anything else. Let them take a trip with her college fund, or use it on their 2 other daughters. This girl will not go far in life with her sense on entitlement. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is actually in dispute as the parents stated in their filings that they gave notice to withdraw Canning from the Catholic school back in October right before she ran away and thus, aren’t contractually bound to pay for her final semester. The contract seems to be so long as previous semesters are paid up and they give reasonable notice of withdrawal, the parents are well within their rights and the school cannot credibly say there was a contract for the next semester. </p>
<p>If this account is correct, their point that the Catholic HS is allowing their D to continue on the administration’s own volition is valid and thus, they’re not legally responsible. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. But it is totally irrelevant in this case and I don’t get why so many people keep going back to that.</p>
<p>This is not a divorce proceeding in which college expenses or medical expenses or some other expenses are considered as part of the settlement. I get why in a divorce, one parent, who really wants to support their kid going to college, wants help to make that happen from the other parent.</p>
<p>By the way, in a divorce, it is possible that neither parent asks for money for their child’s college education. They may decide that they want the money more for themselves or for a different child or for travel or for any other reasons.</p>
<p>If BOTH parents don’t want to pay for another adult’s expenses, too bad.</p>
<p>^^^^^True, and besides those facts, apparently money was donated to cover the tuition, so that shouldn’t have even been an issue in court, imo. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. She doesn’t money because she didn’t earn it - it ain’t her money. Period.</p>
<p>She certainly doesn’t “deserve” it because her parents happen to have money.</p>
<p>Money given to an 18 year old adult is a gift. Not something “deserved”.</p>