TBD

TBD on Ning

MORRISTOWN, New Jersey (Reuters) - A New Jersey student who says her parents abandoned her when she turned 18 lost a first round on Tuesday in the lawsuit she filed against them for school costs and living expenses, a case that could set a precedent for a family's obligation to support a child who has left home.

A family court judge denied a request by Rachel Canning of Lincoln Park, New Jersey, to have her parents temporarily resume paying her tuition and living expenses. He set another hearing date for next month.

Canning, 18, wants her parents to pay the remaining $5,000 in tuition owed to the Morris Catholic High School, where she is a senior, and she wants access to a college fund that was set up for her.

The cheerleader and lacrosse player claims her parents kicked her out of the house in November 2013 after she turned 18, the age of legal adulthood. She wound up living with a friend's family, she said, and the upheaval has jeopardized her educational future.

Judge Peter Bogaard rejected her request for a temporary payout of about $600 a month in support as well as tuition for her private high school, which has waived fees while the case is settled.

In court, the teen said her parents remain obligated to help her with food, transportation, high school tuition and her college education.

She filed the lawsuit last week claiming that she is still dependent on them for support because she is still in school and not yet legally emancipated under state law.

"They left her high and dry because they didn't want to pay," attorney Tanya Helfand told the court. "Now at the age of 18 is not the point to do this."

Her parents, Sean and Elizabeth Canning, said their daughter left home voluntarily, telling the court that she had severe behavioral problems, including underage drinking, and had been suspended from school.

In court papers, they said she did not want to follow the rules of the house that included doing chores and a curfew.

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.

Family law experts in New Jersey say Canning's case might set legal parameters on whether non-divorced parents in the state are obligated to pay for their children's college education and provide other financial support after the child has left home.

New Jersey is one of several states that require divorced parents to pay for their children's education through college, or legal emancipation, said William Laufer, a family law expert in New Jersey. So far, there is no parallel decision for intact families.

"This case is certainly unique," Laufer said. "The question is, a kid at the age of 18 says he or she is moving out of the house - do parents have a legal obligation to support their kids until emancipation?"

An attorney for Canning's parents said in court that she was welcome to return home and under the financial care of her parents, should she abide by house rules.

"She can come home tonight. There is no abuse. There is no neglect," attorney Laurie Rush-Masuret said.

Sean Canning, a former police chief in Lincoln Park, told local television station WCBS-TV on Monday he was "dumbfounded" that he was being sued by one of his three daughters.

He called Rachel "rebellious" and said her college fund was not in jeopardy.

"We have a college that's available to her - there's no doubt about that. But it's the equivalent ... of going shopping at a high-end store and sending somebody the bill," he told the station.

(Reporting by Victoria Cavaliere in Morristown, New Jersey; Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst, Barbara Goldberg, Gunna Dickson and Lisa S


Views: 136

Replies to This Discussion

I was going to post about this!  Glad you did, Carrie. Yes, I watched a little yesterday.  To me it seems clear cut that the parents should NOT have to pay, by law. because the law only applies to divorced parents.  Now it's up to them if they want to see her life become harder without college.  I wonder what I would do?

My parents never hit (spanked) me, but I honestly think if I pulled something like this, they would have beaten me.  I think she is a very entitled brat.  She can pay her own way through college.

I agree.  We helped our kids with college as much as we could and they were always thankful, never expected us just to hand over everything.

I would never even have THOUGHT to pull something like this.  I really and truly loved my parents and respected their sovereignty.  That doesn't mean I was the perfect child, but anything I did that they might not like, I never let them know about, ever.  I omitted a lot, lol.

I've had students say they would slap their mothers if this or that happened.  It's a whole new world now.

I don't work in  schools, I do have an 8th grader and the stories I hear from parents about some of her friends,  makes me very thankful for mine.

well just a different perspective for a second .. i think whats at stake here is bigger that whats just on the surface .. case in point .. i have a buddy who has a daughter and him and his wife split up .. well the daughter wanted to go to college and the court said he had to support her till she was through college .. and she went till she was about 26 and wasn't a thing he could say about it .. i don't think she ever got a degree . i think she was shootin for a phsycologist .. and they just took the money right out of his pay every week like it or not .. now if they slap this girl down and say she don't deserve it then they'll have to reopen quite a few other cases too because of the precedent it will set .. at this point they put the dads on the hook for their kids college and they like that just fine .. but this one ruling could change all that .. just my 2 cents but i think once a kid is old enough to vote then it should be up to the parents to either help them with college or not .. its time them kids learned the big bad world doesn't owe you a thing .. get over it ..

 

It is different if you are divorced, my brother was obligated to pay for his daughter's college, he was able to prove hardship on his half.  The court never pursued it.   The Judge did rule with the parents.

yeah it might be different but i think a case like this will give someone the precedent to say hey why am i payin for my kids college when she won't even talk to me or respect me and these parents don't have to ?? tell me what the difference is ?? and so a whole new can of worms gets opened cause in truth there really is no difference or there shouldn't be anyway .. don't get me wrong here if a parent wants to pay or even contribute what they can for their kids education why not ?? if they deserve it .. but it shouldn't be like a strong arm robbery if the kids don't appreciate it or aren't thankful .. bein married or divorced should have no bearin on weather or not you're financially obligated to your offsprings adult education .. and 18 and over is an adult .. cause thats bein biased .. and the a.c.l.u. would have a field day with that ..    

here's the deal....in new jersey, it isn't just the age but whether or not the 'child' is emancipated. the judge essentially ruled that the girl was emancipated and of her own choice because she moved out rather than follow rules. therefore the parents don't owe her a thing

Why does she have a whole year of school when she is already 18? Did she flunk a few years?

I graduated when I was 17, it sounds like she's a total brat with her hands out feeling like she's entitled. The parents might be total asshats (no idea) but it's still their house their rules.

Lots of seniors are 18.  I also was 17, but I started school at 4/12.  Depends on the district.

Anyway, I heard this on Curtis and Kuby today.  The girl's father was police chief in Lincoln Park, NJ.  The lawyer with whom she lives and who instigated this lawsuit, the father of her friend, was a freeholder.  Maybe there was some bad blood between the two men and that's why this case came to court.

Okay, so I start from the point that a college education is indeed a privileged and not a right.    There are probably no cost and low cost options available to her if an education is really important to this you woman.  And at 18, she is indeed a young woman.  She could attend a community college or apply for scholarships (apparently she is a good student and plays plenty of sports) and would likely get plenty of financial aid if she was truly independent from her parents from colleges to which she applied.  And if she left her parent house of her own accord because she did not want to live by her parent rules, curfews and behavior standards, then she is choosing to be independent.  Now to Frenchy's point about divorced parents and the courts forcing fathers (usually) to pay child support and college without end.  In my book it is wrong. The court order child support should end at the age of 18.  I go back to my first statement, college is a privileged  I would hope divorced parents would want to support their kids efforts, but it should be their choice and not a requirement.  I know that leave kids from first marriages at a disadvantage and they do end up paying the heaviest price of an acrimonious divorce.  But men should not be held hostage like Frenchy's buddy.  Just my two cents.

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service