Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Hybrid View

  1. #1 UPDATED!: New Jersey teen sues parents because they won’t pay her college tuition 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,737
    (See update here.)

    I wonder if she can also sue because they are not keeping her on their insurance?

    New Jersey teen sues parents because they won’t pay her college tuition
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/04/sp...#ixzz2v1tr3FZf

    A high school senior at Morris Catholic High School in New Jersey’s suburban sprawl is suing her parents because, she claims, they threw her out of the house when she turned 18 and have refused to pay for her college education.

    The plaintiff in the novel lawsuit is Rachel Canning, reports the Daily Record of Parsippany, N.J. She is a cheerleader, a lacrosse player and an honor student. She wants to major in biomedical engineering.

    Canning filed her lawsuit in New Jersey family court against her parents, Sean and Elizabeth Canning.

    In the lawsuit, Canning claims that her parents cut her off when she turned 18 and that they have been mean to her. She has also claimed abuse, but there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of abuse other than a yelling match a school official witnessed between Canning and her mother.

    The 18-year old adult is seeking a declaration from a judge preventing her emancipation into the cold, cruel world under the theory that she must remain a nonemancipated dependent.

    Specifically, Canning and her attorney, Tanya N. Helfand, are asking a New Jersey court to force Canning’s parents to pay a $5,306 Morris Catholic High tuition bill that is currently outstanding. Helfand will also ask the court to order the grown woman’s parents to pay for their daughter’s living and transportation expenses for the foreseeable future.

    The attorney will also ask the judge to compel the Canning parents to use an existing college fund previously set up for Canning to pay for at least some of her college education, even though the parents say the college fund is freely available for Canning to use for tuition wherever she likes.

    Finally, Canning’s lawsuit asks a judge to make her own parents pay her legal bills, which total $12,597 so far.

    “I’m dumbfounded,” father Sean Canning told CBS New York. ”So is my wife. So are my other daughters.”

    The retired police chief has called his daughter “an incredibly rebellious teen.” He also said didn’t kick her out at all. Instead, he explains, she up and left on her own in late October because she didn’t want to abide by her parents’ rules.

    An undercurrent in the family matter-turned-lawsuit also appears to involved a tale as old as time: the daughter’s boyfriend. She likes him; her parents do not.

    “She’s demanding that we pay her bills but she doesn’t want to live at home and she’s saying, ‘I don’t want to live under your rules,’” Canning told the Record.

    “Living in our house, there’s very few things,” he also said, according to CBS New York. “There’s minor chores. There’s curfews. When I say curfew, it’s usually after 11 o’clock at night.”

    Last edited by Elspeth; 03-05-2014 at 05:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,573
    It's been clearly established in divorce courts around the nation that parents are not financially responsible for their children if the kids are over 18.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,737
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    It's been clearly established in divorce courts around the nation that parents are not financially responsible for their children if the kids are over 18.
    I thought that was the case. Could something like this erode that standard?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Eupher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mizz-uhr-ah
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    I thought that was the case. Could something like this erode that standard?
    In the justice system we've seen recently, I have no doubt that the parents could be held liable. It's preposterous from the ground up, until you consider that the girl is staying with her friend's family -- the patriarch of which happens to be an attorney.

    Ka-CHING!!!
    U.S. Army, Retired
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,030
    Spoiled brat needs to be dropped at the nearest skid row for a night or two...
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,417
    Since the ACA allows kids under 26 to be covered under their parent's policies, I could see some ambulance chaser convincing a judge that parents are obligated to provide continued education until they reach that age as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,681
    There are some screwy cases in NJ, but mostly involving the interpretation of support agreements after divorce. She has at least a supportable argument over the balance of the high school tuition, since courts (Especially in a place with judges as Lefty as Jersey's) will often continue support obligations through the end of the school year even though a kid is 18.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,056
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    It's been clearly established in divorce courts around the nation that parents are not financially responsible for their children if the kids are over 18.
    You'd think so but from what I understand, this isn't the case. I heard on the news that just because a child turns 18 doesn't mean they're emancipated.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    You'd think so but from what I understand, this isn't the case. I heard on the news that just because a child turns 18 doesn't mean they're emancipated.
    Not necessarily but, it appears to me, if you packed your bags and walked away, you just emancipated yourself.
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    Live every day as if it were your last, because one of these days, it will be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,681
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    You'd think so but from what I understand, this isn't the case. I heard on the news that just because a child turns 18 doesn't mean they're emancipated.
    Correct. NJ in particular has had some very strange outcomes on things that just wouldn't fly in most other states.

    A big factor here would be whether her parents are actually paying her living expenses away from home, and whether they claimed her as a dependent on their State and Federal income taxes. If they did those things, they're probably sucking wind on the high school tuition in a NJ court.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •