and your point is?
My quote is about GOVERNMENT telling you what to do, not a ban on parents (a private entity) requiring compliance from an ADULT CHILD (another private entity) over an agreement (in this case paying for college).
My parents paid for part of my college, and it came with rules, the most important one being is if I lost my partial scholarship, they would not be making up the difference (my father added the threat of dragging me by my neck to a recruiting office and giving me 4 choices, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines).
The only rules attached to continuing education should be continuing and consistent good grades. She achieved high honors and earned a scholarship that would contribute $20,000.00 a year towards her university costs.That's a pretty solid ******* start.
At what point should parents take a step back from micromanaging young adult lives and start allowing them to learn to be in control themselves? We aren't HERE to keep them under our thumbs forever. We're supposed to let them make and learn from their mistakes from the safety of their parent's homes, and if we do our jobs right, we should have provided the wings to fly away from us, rendering our jobs obsolete.
and
this
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
DIRECTLY addresses
that.
I would sell vital organs to be able to afford to give my own the solid ground these "parents" could easily afford their daughter, and I would do it with no other "conditions" than that they continue to do their best to be happy, healthy, productive adults. But then, I trust my kids, and I trust that listening to them, allowing them to work through things and think for themselves gave them the skills they needed to handle the bumps in the road once I wasn't immediately available.
A little something from Rachel's atty:
Rachels attorney Tanya Hefland hit back, saying: They more than have the ability to pay. In the four months she has been with the Inglesinos they have not called her, they have not offered a penny to her benefactors.
Any normal parent would be so embarrassed
they would reach out to the Inglesinos to sort this situation out.
Mr Inglesino reached out twice to try to sort this out father to father and Mr Canning wasnt interested.
They wanted her to move, they wanted her to fail, they wanted her out of that school. They didnt care, they were more interested in saving their $6,000.
They have failed, they are not interested and it is abundantly clear. They call themselves loving parents
but paint the most disgusting image of their daughter. This is a pretty good kid in my opinion, but all they can do is bad mouth their child.
She added: They met her boyfriend for five minutes and immediately disliked him. When she was at her worst they went to Vegas leaving two minors in her care.
It is irrelevant who is at fault. When families have the ability to pay they should pay. Our tax dollars should not be used.
When asked why she didnt go home, she replied: Because it is an abusive relationship.
Everyone here quotes her parent's as if whatever they accuse her of is gospel. I have my doubts.
I do believe because people have had pasts such as ours we are quicker to say it must be the truth and not weigh all the facts presented, in many a case. This is not an attack in any way upon you at all. It's just harder to see the Forrest for the trees is all. 
