That 18-Year Old Suing Her Parents for Tuition

[kenny]

Talk about a sense of entitlement!

I don't know even know where to start here …

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/living/nj-teen-sues-parents-for-college-education/

 

[AprilBaby]

Re: That 18-Year Old Suing Her Parents for University Tuitio

I assume it's the one living with the rich lawyer and carrying on drunk? Ridiculous!

 

[vintagelover229]

I saw that but I thought the judge already ruled in favor of the parents? I thought it was pretty messed up that she would think she could even win

 

[mary poppins]

I saw that but I thought the judge already ruled in favor of the parents? I thought it was pretty messed up that she would think she could even win

This week the judge ruled in favor of the parents as to private Catholic school tuition for high school. A hearing is scheduled in April regarding college tuition.

 

[JewelFreak]

This is so screwy, it defies description. Besides, the chick is 18 now, the age of majority. On her own, if that's how she wants it. I hate to kick the victim, but I do wonder about her upbringing that she feels so entitled & so little responsibility.

--- Laurie

 

[luv2sparkle]

I have been watching this one with interest to see what the court would do. Thankfully, the judge doesn't want to open this very large can of worms. However, I wouldn't have been at all surprised if it had gone the other way in the first ruling, making the parents finish paying her tuition for the year. What really ticks me off is the girlfriends dad footing the whole bill for this legal shindig. Seriously, who does that? Instead of paying the 12K for the legal fees, why doesn't he pony up for the tuition if he is so danged concerned about her education?


This little girl has a huge sense of entitlement.

I am watching this mostly because I have a 17 year old who is not pulling the grades but wants me to pay to send him to college. We have always told him, college is a privilege that is earned.

Isn't there a college fund (52 in which the money is owned by the kid? She does have a college fund which is what she is asking for. We have alway kept all of our savings in one account and kept a record of the amount deposited for the kids. If they were not doing their best there was no way the money was just going to be handed to them. If the money is in the kind of account that the money is basically the kids, they may lose this battle in the end.

 

[kenny]

Instead of paying the 12K for the legal fees, why doesn't he pony up for the tuition if he is so danged concerned about her education?

Publicity is like printing money.

 

[luv2sparkle]

I know that is true, Kenny, but that really seems so messed up to me.

 

[lyra]

I know she's 18, but she's obviously immature and somewhat gullible perhaps. She should be able to finish her senior year. This kind of scandal can ruin a kid's life and follow them forever. So I question the integrity of the best friend's father who helped her with this case. She probably wouldn't have even attempted such a silly thing if an adult weren't coaching her, encouraging her and footing the bill. Shame on all parties involved.

I don't think her parents should pay for her college tuition. She should do that on her own.

What a mess. Kenny, you're right, everyone (as far as I can tell) enjoyed the publicity for whatever reason motivates them.

 

[ChristineRose]

I think the real question is whether or not her parents have the right to take her college fund and spend it on themselves. I really don't know--I suspect it depends on how the fund is set up. If she had legal access to it I assume she would not be suing. I think it could be construed that the setting aside of a college fund is an implicit contract, i.e., if she goes to college, they have already agreed to give her the college fund.

 

[LaraOnline]

I think the real question is whether or not her parents have the right to take her college fund and spend it on themselves. I really don't know--I suspect it depends on how the fund is set up. If she had legal access to it I assume she would not be suing. I think it could be construed that the setting aside of a college fund is an implicit contract, i.e., if she goes to college, they have already agreed to give her the college fund.

How can one person force a gift from another? If the fund is in her own name, I could see that. But if the 'fund' is merely another bank account in the parents' names, that the parents contribute to, and the child does not, how can she have any claim?
You cannot force generosity and good will...can you? Additionally, if the parents have already contributed sustantial amounts of money to the child's upkeep as a normal part of their parenting, can't they argue that the day-to-day cost of maintaining the child over and above a very basic level is 'owed back' to them in the form of the trust fund they themselves set up?

I know that in Australia, there is a very small tax benefit when money is funnelled through family trusts. Minors have a (very minor) tax benefit when money is attributed to them. It is not unheard of for spoilt college children to then want to 'claim' that attributed money from the trust. However, it would also be reasonable under those circumstances, as I understand it, to claim in response that that attributed money was spend on private education, educational trips, physical recreation and cultural interests, etc etc.

 

[mary poppins]

Here's the issue:

New Jersey case law requires parents who are financially capable to support their children and pay for college if the children are "within the sphere of parental influence" and are dependent on them for support, he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/04/student-sues-parents-college-tuition/6024457/


As the Daily Mail notes, the current legal dispute is about whether Canning has emancipated herself from her parents' care, and thus dissolved their legal duty to provide for her. New Jersey law doesn't automatically emancipate minors who turn 18.

The Mail quotes Canning's lawyer, who "says her client has not 'moved beyond (her parents') sphere of influence' and per New Jersey law may be deemed non-emancipated. ... But the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Canning ... is claiming Rachel removed herself from that 'sphere of influence' when she voluntary left her parents' home."
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/03/03/after-leaving-home-nj-cheerleader-sues-parents-for-tuition/20842046/

Daughter says parents kicked her out. Parents say daughter voluntarily left home but is welcome back if she follows rules. There is an existing college fund.

 

[TooPatient]

This is so screwy, it defies description. Besides, the chick is 18 now, the age of majority. On her own, if that's how she wants it. I hate to kick the victim, but I do wonder about her upbringing that she feels so entitled & so little responsibility.

--- Laurie

That sums up my thoughts on this pretty well.

 

[ChristineRose]

I think the real question is whether or not her parents have the right to take her college fund and spend it on themselves. I really don't know--I suspect it depends on how the fund is set up. If she had legal access to it I assume she would not be suing. I think it could be construed that the setting aside of a college fund is an implicit contract, i.e., if she goes to college, they have already agreed to give her the college fund.

How can one person force a gift from another? If the fund is in her own name, I could see that. But if the 'fund' is merely another bank account in the parents' names, that the parents contribute to, and the child does not, how can she have any claim?
You cannot force generosity and good will...can you? Additionally, if the parents have already contributed sustantial amounts of money to the child's upkeep as a normal part of their parenting, can't they argue that the day-to-day cost of maintaining the child over and above a very basic level is 'owed back' to them in the form of the trust fund they themselves set up?

I know that in Australia, there is a very small tax benefit when money is funnelled through family trusts. Minors have a (very minor) tax benefit when money is attributed to them. It is not unheard of for spoilt college children to then want to 'claim' that attributed money from the trust. However, it would also be reasonable under those circumstances, as I understand it, to claim in response that that attributed money was spend on private education, educational trips, physical recreation and cultural interests, etc etc.

Say I say to you "If you volunteer at the homeless shelter, I will give you $10." You volunteer at the shelter. Do I owe you $10? Is it still a gift, or an implied payment? If they told her that the money was hers if she met certain conditions and she met them, I think she has a case. But, if Mary Poppins says, the real case is whether she is emancipated from parents who may or may not be abusive and neglectful, then we're in very murky waters. There are many cases of adults suing their abusive parents and winning, by the way. It's actually not supremely hard to do from a legal POV. It completely devastates what is left of your family life of course.

The media loves a good story, and to make a good story you have to have victims, heroes, and villains. Having been sort of close to a media circus in the past, I always assume that the media are leaving out huge chunks of detail in an attempt to make one of the parties look like a psychopath. Phrases like "welcome back if she follows the rules" are broad enough to be more than a bit scary.

 

[Lulie]

I think the real question is whether or not her parents have the right to take her college fund and spend it on themselves. I really don't know--I suspect it depends on how the fund is set up. If she had legal access to it I assume she would not be suing. I think it could be construed that the setting aside of a college fund is an implicit contract, i.e., if she goes to college, they have already agreed to give her the college fund.

This is pretty sad; one more reason not to talk about money prematurely with kids.

When you have a College saving plan for your kids' or anyone else's college education the kid does NOT have control or access to the account. When you have a rotten kid like this you can roll the account over another family member. In my state there are no age limits for when the money has to be used.

If she's fighting for Pre-paid tuition plan, those have limited age and enrollment period. Installments and fees have been paid for years, I would let the greedy kid have it and wish her well.

 

[Amber St. Clare]

Here's the issue:

New Jersey case law requires parents who are financially capable to support their children and pay for college if the children are "within the sphere of parental influence" and are dependent on them for support, he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/04/student-sues-parents-college-tuition/6024457/


As the Daily Mail notes, the current legal dispute is about whether Canning has emancipated herself from her parents' care, and thus dissolved their legal duty to provide for her. New Jersey law doesn't automatically emancipate minors who turn 18.

The Mail quotes Canning's lawyer, who "says her client has not 'moved beyond (her parents') sphere of influence' and per New Jersey law may be deemed non-emancipated. ... But the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Canning ... is claiming Rachel removed herself from that 'sphere of influence' when she voluntary left her parents' home."
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/03/03/after-leaving-home-nj-cheerleader-sues-parents-for-tuition/20842046/

Daughter says parents kicked her out. Parents say daughter voluntarily left home but is welcome back if she follows rules. There is an existing college fund.

Well, if she's removed herself from the parents because she feels that they set down unreasonable rules {like curfew, grades} that I my book is has "removed herself from their sphere of influence".

The lawyer ought to be ashamed, however, it is becoming clearer and clearer to me that we as a nation have lost the "shame" gene.

 

[partgypsy]

Here's the issue:

New Jersey case law requires parents who are financially capable to support their children and pay for college if the children are "within the sphere of parental influence" and are dependent on them for support, he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/04/student-sues-parents-college-tuition/6024457/


As the Daily Mail notes, the current legal dispute is about whether Canning has emancipated herself from her parents' care, and thus dissolved their legal duty to provide for her. New Jersey law doesn't automatically emancipate minors who turn 18.

The Mail quotes Canning's lawyer, who "says her client has not 'moved beyond (her parents') sphere of influence' and per New Jersey law may be deemed non-emancipated. ... But the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Canning ... is claiming Rachel removed herself from that 'sphere of influence' when she voluntary left her parents' home."
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/03/03/after-leaving-home-nj-cheerleader-sues-parents-for-tuition/20842046/

Daughter says parents kicked her out. Parents say daughter voluntarily left home but is welcome back if she follows rules. There is an existing college fund.

It could very well be, that she is spoiled and deluded. But it could also be, that she legally has a case. I also agree, ruling in her favor may open a can of worms, and that's why they ruled against her. Obviously, she should have just had some counseling or therapy with her family to resolve these issues, because their relationship will never be the same after this!

And if you are going to blame her, she is only 18, and according to some articles the school advised her not to return home because of concerns, and the friend's father encouraged and funded her to do this. If the friend's father wasn't footing the bill, do you really think it would have gone this far?

The facts are, just because you are 18 does not mean you are legally emancipated. If she is still dependent on them (for example parents enrolled her in private school and she herself cannot pay tuition) then they are obligated to fulfill that obligation so she can complete HS.
The college issue is more murky. I don't know what kind of fund they put the money in. If the student is 18 years or older and is going to college, I don't think at that point for some funds, the parents can take or re-direct funds. Just depends on what funds they are. If it is simply suing them for college support because "they can afford it", no she will lose.
Realistically, the parents are making it extremely difficult if not impossible for her to go to college by doing this at this point. For financial aid the parents have to fill out paperwork. And until the student is 24, the student is STILL considered a dependent, financially speaking and the parents are assumed to be responsible for the parental contribution. If they don't pay that portion, or even refuse to fill out the paperwork, most likely she will have to decline the colleges that accepted her and defer college for a year.
So I guess I'm more sympathetic to the girl than most of you, especially as I personally knew friends, fellow college students who had similar situations, where well off parents kicked them out of the house when they were 18 years old, reneged on agreements to pay a portion of college even though they were well off, and even one case stole money from the student's personal accounts. So adults can be jerks as well.
I think we don't know the whole story.

 

[luv2sparkle]

I don't really think there is any scenario where the parents should be 'obligated' to pay for a kids college education. It seems more and more choices are taken away from the parents. In California public schools when a kid turns 18 the school is no longer required to inform parents of anything involving the child. When my son was injured in an accident at 18, the hospital was coming to us for the bills but was reluctant to allow us to make any decisions regarding his care. We had to hire a lawyer and go to court in order to take care of him and make decisions regarding his medical care. He was living at home and finishing his senior year of high school.

Why shouldn't a parent be able to renege on paying a kids tuition if they feel it is warranted? When did the money that they earn and save belong solely to their children and the kids whims? I can think of quite a few reasons a parent would change their mind. Why should it be a given that kids have this 'right'? I find that the most disturbing. That the government would have any say whatsoever about this issue is amazing. You can't say, on one hand, that at 18 a kid is recognized as an adult, and then on the other hand say that they are still in the
'parents sphere of influence' (whatever the heck that means) and they are still obligated to pay for stuff like college.

I don't think that they should be obligated to pay for her high school tuition either. The courts didn't either. She can go to a public school and finish her education. The parents are not obligated to fund a high dollar education for a kid who doesn't want to follow the rules at home. Why on earth should she be entitled to that benefit of her family now?

 

[movie zombie]

she's 18.
she can join the military and "continue her education"..........
I'm only halfway kidding.
this kid needs a real wakeup call about how the world works.

 

[aljdewey]

I don't really think there is any scenario where the parents should be 'obligated' to pay for a kids college education. It seems more and more choices are taken away from the parents. In California public schools when a kid turns 18 the school is no longer required to inform parents of anything involving the child. When my son was injured in an accident at 18, the hospital was coming to us for the bills but was reluctant to allow us to make any decisions regarding his care. We had to hire a lawyer and go to court in order to take care of him and make decisions regarding his medical care. He was living at home and finishing his senior year of high school.

Why shouldn't a parent be able to renege on paying a kids tuition if they feel it is warranted? When did the money that they earn and save belong solely to their children and the kids whims? I can think of quite a few reasons a parent would change their mind. Why should it be a given that kids have this 'right'? I find that the most disturbing. That the government would have any say whatsoever about this issue is amazing. You can't say, on one hand, that at 18 a kid is recognized as an adult, and then on the other hand say that they are still in the
'parents sphere of influence' (whatever the heck that means) and they are still obligated to pay for stuff like college.

I don't think that they should be obligated to pay for her high school tuition either. The courts didn't either. She can go to a public school and finish her education. The parents are not obligated to fund a high dollar education for a kid who doesn't want to follow the rules at home. Why on earth should she be entitled to that benefit of her family now?

1000% agree with everything here - especially the bolded

 

[partgypsy]

Wow, guess I'm in the minority here. Parents certainly have the right to not pay any portion of college. But I want to point out it is MUCH more difficult than when many of went to college for a student to "work their way" through college. Even public schools are in the tens of thousands of dollars a year.

Second, the way that college financial aid is set up, the system calculates what the parents can "afford" and assumes that parents will pay their parental contribution. I'm not sure she can even get financial aid in the form of loans to cover what is asssumed to be paid by the parental contribution. So their refusal to both allow her access to that money, and if they refuse to fill out forms, sabotages her ability to attend college.

You can't have it both ways.

She is an independent adult that should fund her HS, college education because she is 18 and is an adult. If that is true, if she is outside their sphere then she shouldn't be affected by their withdrawal of financial support (which she obviously is). You are not considered an adult just because you turn 18. She may need to go to court to be considered emancipated. They do not give these automatically often there needs to be evidence of abuse or neglect in the home. However on the plus side she does not need to listen to them regarding her boyfriend curfews, other life decisions.

Second, that she is a dependent of theirs still, as reflected in the reality that she is financially dependent on them, the opinions that she DOES need to listen to the parents regarding curfew, boyfriends, etc. If that is true, then they are still legally obligated to support her.

ANYWAYS from my nutshell, parents, whatever you do, PLEASE make it clear what you can and what you cannot pay for college. If you do pay for college what are the requirements. I have known far too many kids who are doing well in school, maybe even in the midst of being in the process of applying for school when they get a bombshell from parents that they cannot or are unwilling to pay, when that is the first they have heard of it. And then it is really hard to make alterative plans at that point, and cruel besides.

 

[luv2sparkle]

Part Gypsy, I would have to disagree with you on many points. You are considered an adult by 18. In every legal way possible. You can have a 28 year old who is financially dependent on his parents but simply because he is doesn't mean the parents should foot the bill. Ms. Canning is not fighting to be emancipated but to be non-emancipated. She doesn't need to be emancipated because she is 18. If she was in the foster care system she would be ousted at 18. I am not saying that an 18 year old doesn't need some help and financial assistance, just that the parents should not and are not by law obligated to pay for it. They should have a choice in the matter. You said that if she listens
to her parents then they are obligated to help her. There is not financial obligation here. It is up to the parents.

In my own family, we have always told our kids, if they worked hard and did there best work, we would do whatever we could to help them with college. But it is earned and not an entitlement. Poor choices, rebellion against the few rules we have would have made a difference in whether or not we would be willing to foot the bill. Paying for college is a huge sacrifice for most parents. Only in the super wealthy would it be a non issue. All these things come in to play, but the bottom line is, it should be the parents choice, not the states.
They earned it, they saved it, they have discretion over how the funds are spent. Although it may be difficult for a young person, I don't think it is ever cruel as you say, to make them work for something that is important to them. If there is a will, there is a way. Ms. Canning is not humble enough to admit to her parents that she needs them and their help and certainly not willing to abide by their rules so she really shouldn't expect their help. She would rather sue them.

Her private high school education was a blessing they extended to her not her right. She has a right by law to a PUBLIC high school education. She should have taken that fact into consideration when she was being a rebellious spoiled brat. Many kids do quite well on a public school education and go on to lead successful lives. I'm sure she would too if she wasn't so focused on 'getting what she deserves, and it being a free ride". All of our choices come with some kind of cost, I think she had better learn that sooner rather than later.

 

[partgypsy]

Yeah I know that I am seeing this with very colored lenses, from people I knew who were given a raw deal by their parents, and her case is different than that (I don't know anyone who would think to sue their parents!)
I guess I just feel that maybe we are not hearing the whole story, but who knows maybe we are.
Hopefully she can reconcile with her parents.

Edit- read some pretty damming stuff about it on the Daily Mail, so she doesn't sound like such a sweetheart! What the heck!

 

[luv2sparkle]

I have my own biases as well. I wouldn't want to be a parent in New Jersey. It is impossible to know all the facts in this case and who is really telling the truth. If the parents are verbally abusive should THAT mean that they have to pay for college? Maybe their demands of Rachel are unreasonable, should that mean they have to pay? It makes it more understandable why she would want to leave. If I were a parent in NJ, I would want to challenge the whole 'sphere of influence' thing in the Supreme Court.

This is a hot button issue to me for sure. I can't even remember the last time something has affected me this much.

 

[aljdewey]

I agree 1000% with what L2S says.

Yes, it's true that it's much more difficult for a kid to work his way through college today, and it's also true that most parents wouldn't want that for their kids. Neither of those things should legally obligate parents to foot the bill, though - it's still a choice (or it should be.)

I went to college 25 years ago, and financial aid worked the same way then that it does now - they assume how much parents can afford to contribute because they are looking for the easy funding. That in no way obligates parent to pay for it.

I LAUGHED when my college counselor suggested how much they thought my parents 'could' afford to pay; it wasn't anywhere near realistic but they calculated it anyway. At the end of that first year, having performed exceptionally well, I marched my behind back into that same counselor's office and said "you said my parents could contribute X. What I got this year was $250 to fix the heating coil in my car - that's it. You can see I've done incredibly well here; if you want me here next year, you need to do better." Guess what? There's ALWAYS money in the budget for good students. Not only did they change the calculation going forward, they went back and applied grant money to that initial year to lessen the amount owed. And I worked my butt off at jobs to earn the rest.

This little lady is WAY out of line. She is not entitled to education at a private HS, and she's not entitled to attend college on someone else's dime. Those are privileges, and as with most privileges, they come with responsibilities. If she's unwilling to meet those, she better come up with a new funding plan.

 

[lambskin]

Without knowing all the facts, I think that things really must have gotten out of hand for it to escalate to this point. We all get mad at our teens and their defiance. But to cut her off as they did really shows that some bad behavior was going on-for a long time. Since she was going to a Catholic school, one would think that the shool and its counselors would have set up a meeting to see if things could be rectified as forgiveness as well as respecting elders are tenants. If there was abuse, neglect, substance abuse or domestic violence in the household the media would have been all over that. It seems that the parents' warnings and ultimatums and the teen's threat of leaving finally came to a head. I do not think that the family who took her in should have become so involved- it just added fuel to the fire. Now it is war and no longer a family matter. Interestingly, I have not seen any reports of any college acceptance on her behalf. IMHO the teen has shot herself in the foot and the lawsuit has barred any future reconcilation in the near future. I feel sorry for her parents but they have to take some responsibilty for raising a spoiled brat.

 

[kenny]

I feel sorry for her parents but they have to take some responsibilty for raising a spoiled brat.

We have to train and pass a test to get a driver's license but any human with genitals wandering an alley has a legal right to make babies … the most important job a person can take on.

IMO parents have too much freedom to screw up their kids, as this story demonstrates.

I don't know what the answer is, but this is a HUGE problem.

 

[aljdewey]

Speaking of not knowing all the facts......it's equally a stretch to presume that adult spoiled brats must be the result of faulty or uninvolved parenting. It may be true, but it's not a given at all.

My closest friend has 2 adult kids, and both were raised with the same values. Both were expected to display respect for family members; both were expected to contribute to household chores; both were expected to keep curfews. Both were given the same excellent foundation - love, guidance, and expectations on how to behave appropriately. During teenage years, one kid went so far off the rails in high school it wasn't even funny - drugs, all kinds of fresh, rebellious to a fault. The other - compliant and respectful as could be. Both had the same foundation, but each had personal choice as to how much they were going to live what they learned.

It's easier to look at parenting as the source for behavior (or lack thereof) when kids are younger because they are largely under the control of and influenced by their parents. It's not quite as easy when they become young adults; they are influenced as much (if not more) by peers, schoolmates, etc. And some of those teenagers today know very well how to wrangle the system to their advantage in threatening to allege abuse, etc if their every whims aren't met. At some point.....especially when one is approaching legal adult age......he has to become responsible for his OWN behavior.

I'm not a parent, but from my front-row observing seats, it's a damn tough enough job already. It would be nice if we didn't make it that much harder by assuming parents must always be at fault.

 

[partgypsy]

It's mentioned in at least one article that she got accepted to multiple colleges and got a $20,000 scholarship. With all this coming out though who knows if she will keep those acceptances/scholarship.

 

[ame]

I saw that but I thought the judge already ruled in favor of the parents? I thought it was pretty messed up that she would think she could even win

This week the judge ruled in favor of the parents as to private Catholic school tuition for high school. A hearing is scheduled in April regarding college tuition.

Yep--after all the deadlines for acceptance of her offers, as I understood it, which to me read as he threw her case on that out also.

From what it sounds like, she moved out, and she just wants them to keep supporting her after the move out. It also sounds like her friend's lawyer daddy thought this was an easy win, despite having any actual facts and is taking full advantage of her emotional state, and the disaster this situation is.