Teen Sues Parents for Cash and College Tuition. Does She Have a Case?

[TemplarKormac]

Are all conservatives that vacuous? Being a liberal parent does not necessarily mean you are a liberal politically. They are Catholic, so probably politically conservative. I'm a conservative parent....in that I was rather strict, that doesn't make me a Tea Partier....get your facts straight and quit trying to make this a Democrat/Republican thing, it just exaggerates your butt hurt.

Alas, here you are, committing the same offense as I have been accused of. No, you may not cast the first stone.

No idiot, I was asking him if they were. I'm glad you verified it.

That is called broad brushing, Mertex. Please don't.

 

[BDBoop]

Uhh huh. Until you stop broad brushing other people, you will get the same in turn. It is unfair for you to judge when alas, you have committed the same offense elsewhere. I'll be perusing your comment archive for evidence of such.

I'm sure you will since you have nothing better to do than sit by your computer 24/7.

And your talking about liberals being moochers....most of the libs here arguing with you have contributed to this Forum, and there you sit 24/7 doing it for free. Who's the moocher here? So, don't talk to me about Liberals liking "free" stuff, it seems to me you like free shit yourself, or you would have sent in some money to USMB by now.

Im sure I don't sit by this computer "24/7" Mertex. In fact I have posted sparingly on this board for the past week or so. So don't go making assumptions about me.

I never called you moochers. Another mischaracterization. I said that you actively advocate entitlement programs. Big difference. Some of you are sitting there defending this girl.

Hey, I can enjoy full benefit of this board without having to pay money to it to look important, as clearly you and BD have.

This is sparingly!? Christ on a crutch.

By the way, coward. There's a page for you downstairs. Coward.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I only do it when they are....you are doing it on a thread where they are not...that's the difference. You want to settle some score, and are taking out on every liberal, that is not only petty it is immature....but then, you have been acting rather immature lately.

"I only do it when they are."

So, if they jumped out of an airplane with no parachute, would you do it too? Geez. What a paltry excuse.

Gosh, do I have to draw you a picture? I only broad brush when I can see that every conservative on the thread is defending an issue.....you claimed that every liberal was defending the girl, and that is a flat out lie.....so, find me a thread where I accuse every conservative of agreeing on something where there is one conservative that isn't.....and then you can say I broad brush like you.

And quit making sophomoric analogies, it makes you look like a jr high kid....on the other hand, maybe you are one....

Ahh, the name calling makes you just as likewise, Mert! So, when are you going to stop being a hypocrite?

 

[CaféAuLait]

No, there is no such thing as "Thus emancipated." She's a high school senior and if she did not sue to be emancipated, she is not emancipated.

Idiot.

It's more complicated than that tho Boop. She says with one breath she can't support herself, but then contends she has been - with jobs, buying her own school uniforms, buying her own car, thusly supporting herself. Her claims that she and her friend had fund raisers to pay her 6k tuition.

Her claims in the court case about being self-sufficient hurt her.

How can she afford to buy a 35,000 dollar car but not afford to live on her own?

Her exaggerations showed she was indeed capable of being emancipated and that she emancipated herself by leaving her parents sphere of influence.

No. Law doesn't work that way. She doesn't want to be emancipated, she has not taken steps to be legally emancipated. She is not emancipated.

However, the law does work that way when she choose to leave her parents home and she refused to return home. She does not need to take steps to be legally emancipated as an adult in NJ. She choose to leave, and removed herself from their sphere of influence.

The NJ law is listed in the 150 page complaint. She showed she was capable of caring for herself with her exaggerations and that she had indeed left her parents sphere of influence and was caring for herself.

I'm no lawyer, but whoever charged her over 13k, as of yesterday was really screwing her over, looking at her pleadings compared to her parents, it looks like a kindergartner vs a Rhodes scholar. It's a shame they took advantage of her.

A shame they decided to advise her to sue instead of trying to reconcile the family.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, what you fail to understand is that you can't sit there and blame this girl's issues on her parents. It's what you people do. Always blaming someone else other than the person who brought their plight upon themselves. Naturally, you defend people who have clearly done something wrong, as opposed to the people who are actually being wronged.

You carry your sense of entitlement wherever you go. I think you believe this girl is entitled to mooch off of her parents, take them for every penny they're worth. Funny, wasn't I (points to self) being lectured for being a "moocher" a couple of days ago?

Utterly laughable, BD. Take your hypocrisy elsewhere.

Ok, this time my irony meter exploded and shattered into about a zillion fragments.

Note to TK: when stirring a large pot of scalding water, do not stick your arms in it.

Question:

Why are all the liberals here DEFENDING HER (Rachel Canning)? Naw I don't think so. I find it ironic that the liberals are demanding higher minimum wages and access to government assistance, then defending a snot nosed little brat who thinks she is entitled to everything her parents make in money. Seriously?

Dude, you are absolutely not firing on all thrusters today.

There is a malfunction somewhere.

I recommend you turn your engines off and do some maintenance work.

On this thread I have seen (mostly) more unanimity between Cons and Libs than on any other thread in USMB in in the 3+ months since I've come on board.

It's not a matter of defending the girl or her parents. And it sure as hell is not a Conservative vs. Liberal issue. It's also not a Red State vs. Blue State issue.

Family tragedies of this nature (not necessarily identical to this one) are happening all over the place. It's a HUMAN issue, not a political one. It is also a LEGAL issue, not a political one.

BTW, in many other countries, a child is considered a "minor" in many ways until he or she is 26. In Germany, France, the Benelux countries, just to name a few, parents pay for their "children" until they are 26. The logic behind this: Abitur (High School Diploma) at 19, 5 years college or 3 years of lower level college + 2 years apprenticeship, +1 year job search = 26 years of age. It doesn't mean that 25 year olds don't have adult responsibilities, but it does mean that they get a good start and then do the same for their kids.

And supporting your child until he or she can fly on his/her own -the person you and your partner brought into this world - should be about the most self-explanatory thing out there.

This case is just one case. There may be thousands of similar cases out there, but there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of families out there. This stuff is, statistically speaking, a drop in the bucket.

Now, get that through your thick skull before you hurt something.

 

[Meathead]

Parasites obviously support each other.

 

[BDBoop]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/343603-why-did-you-upgrade-at-usmb.html

 

[TemplarKormac]

In her parent's affidavit, they left her $300.00, ensured proper supervision was enforced while on their trip, stocked two refrigerators full of food, and gave them all contact numbers where they could be reached. I'm reading this affidavit, and it seems to me that this couple is happily remarried. There was no divorce. In fact the parents make the claim that Rachel had on many occasions tried to cause a divorce between the two. There was no tragedy, just a malfeasant rotten little child that thought she could toy with people's emotions.

 

[Mertex]

Uhh huh. Until you stop broad brushing other people, you will get the same in turn. It is unfair for you to judge when alas, you have committed the same offense elsewhere. I'll be perusing your comment archive for evidence of such.

I'm sure you will since you have nothing better to do than sit by your computer 24/7.

And your talking about liberals being moochers....most of the libs here arguing with you have contributed to this Forum, and there you sit 24/7 doing it for free. Who's the moocher here? So, don't talk to me about Liberals liking "free" stuff, it seems to me you like free shit yourself, or you would have sent in some money to USMB by now.

I'm sure I don't sit by this computer "24/7" Mertex. In fact I have posted sparingly on this board for the past week or so. So don't go making assumptions about me.

I never called you moochers. Another mischaracterization. I said that you actively advocate entitlement programs. Big difference. Some of you are sitting there defending this girl.

Hey, I can enjoy full benefit of this board without having to pay money to look important, as clearly you and BD have. How elitist.

Freaking liar....what do you think "entitlement mentality" means. You must also be illiterate?

You know what I've see for the past couple of pages here?

Liberals arguing for this girl. Your entitlement mentality knows literally no bounds.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8726462-post222.html


And your lame excuse for not sending money doesn't erase the fact that you are a moocher, yourself.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Parasites obviously support each other.

I see that once they dropped you on your head as a baby, you never quite recovered. Probably explains the "Meat" part.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Don't be an ijit. Go read my posts, I was not defending her. You are lying and probably don't even realize it, you're so used to it.

Uhh huh. Until you stop broad brushing other people, you will get the same in turn. It is unfair for you to judge when alas, you have committed the same offense elsewhere. I'll be perusing your comment archive for evidence of such.

I'm sure you will since you have nothing better to do than sit by your computer 24/7.

And your talking about liberals being moochers....most of the libs here arguing with you have contributed to this Forum, and there you sit 24/7 doing it for free. Who's the moocher here? So, don't talk to me about Liberals liking "free" stuff, it seems to me you like free shit yourself, or you would have sent in some money to USMB by now.

No, this is not the way it works. One can contribute via the donate button and ones tag is never changed. However, if you do the re-occurring yearly membership via "upgrade your membership" then you get the "supporting member" tag.

The lack of a tag does not mean one has not contributed money to this site. I have many a time, but because I choose not to do the membership, and only use the "donate" button by the monthly contributions line, as I do not like re-occurring charges, does not mean I don't contribute or others do not.

 

[Meathead]

Parasites obviously support each other.

I see that once they dropped you on your head as a baby, you never quite recovered. Probably explains the "Meat" part.

Wow! Did you come up with that all by yourself? Come on, you had help, fess up!

 

[gallantwarrior]

She has already lost the case.

Judge Denies Tuition Money, Child Support For NJ Teen Suing Parents

Judge Denies Tuition Money For Rachel Canning, NJ Teen Suing Parents « CBS New York

y
There is a second hearing coming up on April 22, but the judge already said he was ruling in favor of the parents.

Interestingly, in the pleadings her father specifically stated, not only was he a 'liberal' he was also a "liberal parent", but felt that her boyfriends parents and the people she was living with were too liberal in their parenting. I don't think this has much to do with liberal vs conservative. I see many liberals and cons against what this girl is trying to do on this thread.

From information available thus far, I'd say the parents have most likely identified the crux of their (and their daughter's) problems. How well was this young lady doing before the boyfriend and his family came into her life, and what has occurred since?

Unfortunately, what has happened after is almost impossible to know. She is still not home, even after being asked, welcomed and told to come home by her parents. She refused to abide by their rules; "get counseling and stop seeing the boy and show respect". ( which is proved by Rachel's submitted evidence) She said she refused to come back unless she was allowed to see this boy she had been suspended with twice. ( Again Rachel's submitted evidence) There is a file I linked to many pages back, with 150 plus pages of evidence, declarations, and court proceedings.

The parents are pretty upset at the two families enabling her. They stated in their pleadings, they felt the entire situation would have settled on its own, if she had not been enabled by other families and sheltered from their parenting rules. And I agree with them.

According to her parents in their sworn statements, Rachel always compared their rules to the other two sets of house holds, both of which she has lived in since running away. Both sets of parents according to Rachel were allowing many things her parents did not. Additionally, her parents make the claim the home she is living in, is a home with a lot of money, something else Rachel complained about; not being able to live like her friends and having expensive items.

She is still seeing the boy, I have no clue about current school issues, just the past suspensions, her being removed as a cheer leader and from school clubs by the school by school officials.

it would appear she's execising her adult prerogatives, making her own choices. It's glaringly obvious that she's not accepting the responsibility forher decisions like an adult. It is also clear that her parents' rules enabled her to excel prior to her association with these other families.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay, I left for a bit, and did some more digging in court documents pertaining to this case.

Rachel Canning is lying about being abused by her parents. Her parents have signed documents by government authorities confirming that a DCP&P agent did perform an on-home investigation and found that there had been no evidence of child abuse whatsoever. And that Rachel Canning's allegations were false. On page 63 of the court Documents, the letter is attached and says as follows:

Dated December 16th, 2013

To: Mrs. Elizabeth Canning
[ADDRESS REDACTED]
Lincoln Park, NJ 07035

Re: Allegation of Child Abuse/Neglect Concerning: Rachel Canning
Case ID#: 15210722 Intake ID#: 18772018

Dear Mrs. Canning:

New Jersey Law, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.11, requires the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCP&P) to investigate all allegations of child abuse and neglect. On October 30, 2013 the Division's Morris East Local Office received an allegation that Rachel was abused.

The Division conducted its required investigation and determined that the allegation of Emotional Abuse was unfounded. Therefore, the Division will not keep a record of the investigation results on its central registry of confirmed perpetrators of substantiated incidents of child abuse or neglect. The division will not be providing further services to you and your family.

After three (3) years, all Division records associated with this investigation shall be expunged from Division files pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.40a, unless, during that time, the Division receives an additional referral regarding the child, family, or the alleged perpetrator, or the the Division provides services to the family. If the outcome of a child protective service investigation, a criminal investigation or a court proceeding involving the alleged perpetrator, the child or a member of the family is pending, a court orders that the record be retained, or the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services requests that the record be retained, the Division shall retain rather than expunge the record in accordance with N.J.A.C. 10:129A-4.3.
Current law provides that this information may not be disclosed by anyone, including you and the Division, to anyone except as permitted by N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a.

Sincerely,

Signature of Leena George

Leena George, FSSII
Intake Investigator

Signature of Loretta Houston

Loretta Houston
Intake Supervisor

http://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/rachel-canning.pdf

 

[Againsheila]

Seems yours is as well, not to mention you seem to wish to label her parents as racists, and her father as a rapist. I base my conclusions on the email exchanges and the SWS findings. The email was perfectly reasonable, if these were some insane parents then the email would not have been worded in such a manner, they would have been condescending and just outright jerks. Not to mention her suspensions from school, and he claims where she has obviously made stuff up, such as her fridge being 75 percent full of alcohol at all times.


Did you read the link I supplied which includes all of the court paperwork and her 'evidence'? Do you know one of her claims to SWS was her parents were stealing her college fund ( which she did not contribute to) by going on a vacation? This was before she moved out BTW. Additionally, she says her parents need to pay for her school since her fathers job paid for his education. Her reasoning is plain silly.

If you continue to read, I have written I believe her parents had or have issues which were caused by their divorce/separation, which probably caused issues with their kids as all divorces will do, but ironically she was probably one of the reason for their separation given she got on a dating website to try and get her parents to divorce. AND if you read the court papers you will see she wanted to live with her dad. She wanted nothing to do with her Mom. The issues are mainly with her and her mom.

This email here is the heart of the case, her parents claim she refused to move back home because of her boyfriend. And this email is the one Rachel submitted as HER evidence they kicked her out of the home, it shows the exact opposite and back the parents contention she refused to move back home because of her boyfriend.

All teenage girls have problems with their mothers. It's an unwritten law. Even I had problems with my mother and I was the good kid. Of course, my smart assing my mom didn't start until I was 18 where as my older sister's started much younger.

I agree many do have issues. It's a shame the other families became involved instead of allowing this family to work out its issues. Their intervention made things much worse IMO.

That's basically what I said. One has to wonder why those parents enabled her. If they'd just sent her home, this whole court case would never have happened and the family would have been able to work out things on their own. Now this young lady has ruined her life, along with help from the parents of her best friend and boyfriend. Who will hire her now?

 

[Againsheila]

Yeah, he feels safe behind Sheila's skirts.

Wonder where he's getting all this money, though. I mean - suddenly he's a trust fund brat!

That does it, now I'M putting you on ignore. Grow up, will you!

 

[R.D.]

All teenage girls have problems with their mothers. It's an unwritten law. Even I had problems with my mother and I was the good kid. Of course, my smart assing my mom didn't start until I was 18 where as my older sister's started much younger.

I agree many do have issues. It's a shame the other families became involved instead of allowing this family to work out its issues. Their intervention made things much worse IMO.

That's basically what I said. One has to wonder why those parents enabled her. If they'd just sent her home, this whole court case would never have happened and the family would have been able to work out things on their own. Now this young lady has ruined her life, along with help from the parents of her best friend and boyfriend. Who will hire her now?

They believed her lies is my guess. There are some darn good liars out there. A few years back a neighbor girl friend of my daughter pulled the same thing. The only difference was we didn't believe her stories. No family is perfect and troubled teens make it even harder. Blaming the parents for this kind of behavior is not productive imo.

 

[martybegan]

No, there is no such thing as "Thus emancipated." She's a high school senior and if she did not sue to be emancipated, she is not emancipated.

Idiot.

It's more complicated than that tho Boop. She says with one breath she can't support herself, but then contends she has been - with jobs, buying her own school uniforms, buying her own car, thusly supporting herself. Her claims that she and her friend had fund raisers to pay her 6k tuition.

Her claims in the court case about being self-sufficient hurt her.

How can she afford to buy a 35,000 dollar car but not afford to live on her own?

Her exaggerations showed she was indeed capable of being emancipated and that she emancipated herself by leaving her parents sphere of influence.

No. Law doesn't work that way. She doesn't want to be emancipated, she has not taken steps to be legally emancipated. She is not emancipated.

So she basically wants to live her life the way SHE wants to, and she wants her parents to pay for it?

Reality sucks, and this idiot is going to learn it the hard way.

 

[martybegan]

so is theirs

1- she had to take care of the kids so they could go to Vegas during homecoming week. Not so they could work or conduct business, but so they could play in Vegas. She was a cheerleader. You do know that there's more to homecoming week besides the dance, and participation by the cheerleaders is mandatory? Who are the parents?

2-

3 - "According to her parents," and shouldn't be given any more credence than you give to Rachel's side of things.

4 - "Her parents contend," and shouldn't be given any more credence than you give to Rachel's side of things.

1- She had a job, right? A car too? So, who is Ms. Rachel Canning? An independent young woman capable of taking care of herself and her siblings in a spot. Thus "emancipated."

2 - You're giving Rachel more credence than her parents. Really now?

3 - See 2

No, there is no such thing as "Thus emancipated." She's a high school senior and if she did not sue to be emancipated, she is not emancipated.

Idiot.

She's 18, she doesn't have to be emancipated, because she is now an adult and that concept no longer applies.

 

[Againsheila]

It's more complicated than that tho Boop. She says with one breath she can't support herself, but then contends she has been - with jobs, buying her own school uniforms, buying her own car, thusly supporting herself. Her claims that she and her friend had fund raisers to pay her 6k tuition.

Her claims in the court case about being self-sufficient hurt her.

How can she afford to buy a 35,000 dollar car but not afford to live on her own?

Her exaggerations showed she was indeed capable of being emancipated and that she emancipated herself by leaving her parents sphere of influence.

No. Law doesn't work that way. She doesn't want to be emancipated, she has not taken steps to be legally emancipated. She is not emancipated.

So she basically wants to live her life the way SHE wants to, and she wants her parents to pay for it?

Reality sucks, and this idiot is going to learn it the hard way.

She's 18, legally an adult, she doesn't need to be emancipated.