Happier Abroad Forum Community

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... n/5967279/

An honor student and athlete who claims her parents threw her out of their home when she turned 18 has taken the highly unusual step of suing them for immediate financial support and to force them to pay for her college education.

Sean Canning, a retired Lincoln Park police chief who currently works as Mount Olive's township administrator, said his daughter's representation of the facts is not accurate and he fears she is being "enabled" by well-intentioned but ill-informed people who include the Inglesinos. Sean Canning said that Rachel voluntarily left home in October and was never thrown out.

"We love our child and miss her. This is terrible. It's killing me and my wife. We have a child we want home. We're not Draconian and now we're getting hauled into court. 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,'" Sean Canning said.

"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," ... reminds me of ... something.

The father contended that Rachel moved out because she didn't want to abide by simple household rules — be respectful, keep a curfew, return "borrowed" items to her two sisters, manage a few chores, and reconsider or end her relationship with a boyfriend the parents believe is a bad influence.

Rules? Respect? Chores? No bad boys? Oppression, I tells ya.
They live in New Jerksey, Daddy'd better hope Mommy doesn't want "fun & games", too.

Hard to say something either way without knowing the actual situations referenced. I've got to say: it IS entirely possible that her parents are trying to run her life & might have thrown her out of the house because they see it as disrespectful for her to do that. Some people are like that- they see having a higher degree of command of someone's like compensation for something. "Oh, you want some help moving things around this weekend? Well, if you'll let me tell you what to do from 8 to 10 on Monday, sure- that'll be fine."

Wolfeye wrote:Hard to say something either way without knowing the actual situations referenced. I've got to say: it IS entirely possible that her parents are trying to run her life & might have thrown her out of the house because they see it as disrespectful for her to do that. Some people are like that- they see having a higher degree of command of someone's like compensation for something. "Oh, you want some help moving things around this weekend? Well, if you'll let me tell you what to do from 8 to 10 on Monday, sure- that'll be fine."

That's their right though. Their daughter is an adult and has no right to the funds of her parents. If she wants to be treated like their child still, and receive the benefits of being a child, she has to follow rules. If she wants to be an adult and do what she wants, she has to live with that decision and pay her own way. This is absolute bull****. I pity the man she marries someday- if she'll do this to her own parents, imagine what she'll do to a husband in a divorce!

Maybe they promised something & then choked it back later (like when they weren't getting their way)? I DID say that it's hard to say either way without knowing more details.

It's not the parents' right to persecute their daughter for growing up (if that's what the case is). It's something that isn't right to do, so her using a "low-ball tactic" to get around that isn't a problem. Another point is that she can very well be an adult & get help from her family. Being an adult doesn't mean that they're enemies- perhaps they're treating her as such? Maybe they think it's some kind of an assault on them for her to break free of their command? It's not really unheard of for parents to feel somehow betrayed by their child reaching adulthood- it's also not right for them to feel that way. There was no betrayal that took place for them to retaliate for.

Taking your married & divorced example: If he decided to do something to screw up her account so she couldn't leave (being a controlling enemy), she could rightfully steal his stuff & use it to get her where she needs to go. Legal or not, she is right to circumvent his activities. Same as if he steals her car to dodge warrants for hitting her, when him hitting her never happened. Is it theft? Sure. Is it illegal? Probably (might be one of those "mitigating circumstances"). Is it wrong? Hell no!

I suppose it would be seen as wrong for her not to pay for their old age, because they're family- but for them to not help her get to that level is beyond question? It's easy to say someone shoud "pay their own way," but it doesn't happen magically or from hard work. Lots of people were raised with the belief that if you work hard, you'll get there- wherever "there" happened to be. This is untrue. Being lazy CAN get in the way, but it's not the only reason someone doesn't "make it."

Wolfeye wrote:Maybe they promised something & then choked it back later (like when they weren't getting their way)? I DID say that it's hard to say either way without knowing more details.

It's not the parents' right to persecute their daughter for growing up (if that's what the case is). It's something that isn't right to do, so her using a "low-ball tactic" to get around that isn't a problem. Another point is that she can very well be an adult & get help from her family. Being an adult doesn't mean that they're enemies- perhaps they're treating her as such? Maybe they think it's some kind of an assault on them for her to break free of their command? It's not really unheard of for parents to feel somehow betrayed by their child reaching adulthood- it's also not right for them to feel that way. There was no betrayal that took place for them to retaliate for.

Taking your married & divorced example: If he decided to do something to screw up her account so she couldn't leave (being a controlling enemy), she could rightfully steal his stuff & use it to get her where she needs to go. Legal or not, she is right to circumvent his activities. Same as if he steals her car to dodge warrants for hitting her, when him hitting her never happened. Is it theft? Sure. Is it illegal? Probably (might be one of those "mitigating circumstances"). Is it wrong? Hell no!

I suppose it would be seen as wrong for her not to pay for their old age, because they're family- but for them to not help her get to that level is beyond question? It's easy to say someone shoud "pay their own way," but it doesn't happen magically or from hard work. Lots of people were raised with the belief that if you work hard, you'll get there- wherever "there" happened to be. This is untrue. Being lazy CAN get in the way, but it's not the only reason someone doesn't "make it."

No adult is entitled to the work of another. A parent providing for their child's education is a gift, not a requirement. If her parents decide, for whatever reason, not to provide that gift, that is their right. Many trust funds, for instance, are gifts with specific legal requirements- you must be married by X age, you must get a degree, you must have a child, things of that nature, before the money is awarded. Financial support for your children beyond the age of adulthood is provided to those that will support your legacy. This girl is engaging in behavior they believe to be detrimental to their legacy and thus have said she is on her own.

I paid my way through college, and I'm paying my way through medical school. Anyone can do it if they're smart enough and work hard enough. This generation's dependence on their parents post-adulthood is quite pathetic. If you aren't willing to follow your parent's rules in exchange for their support, you are choosing to be independent. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I hope her case is thrown out and she's left with a few tens of thousands in legal fees as a lesson, but you never know in Jersey. They have the most backward family court system in the nation.

How can she sue her parents? It costs a lot of money to sue. Did she find a lawyer who will work for free?

Also, if she's 18, then her parents are not obligated to support her anymore. So she has no case.

She's hot though. Check out her photo.

Winston wrote:How can she sue her parents? It costs a lot of money to sue. Did she find a lawyer who will work for free?

Also, if she's 18, then her parents are not obligated to support her anymore. So she has no case.

She's hot though. Check out her photo.

She's a 6/10 on a good day. That looks like a prom picture, so it's literally about as good as she'll ever look in her life.

She is hot and she's American, so therefore it is very likely she feels entitled to everything. I think the article also said that she was a cheerleader and she's probably very popular so she probably feels entitled to everything and thinks she's invincible. I think that her actions prove she feels entitled to everything. According to the articles, her parents said they kicked her out because of poor behavior and also didn't like the girl's boyfriend because they felt he was a bad influence.

Relating to that "boyfriend issue," that girl is probably with a trashy bad boy and she's probably being a slut.

Her best friend's father is a lawyer, and she's staying with her best friend's family. Her best friend's father found another lawyer that would represent the girl and that lawyer would probably get paid the girl wins the lawsuit. It said that she is also suing for the legal fees to pay her lawyer.

It looks like she lost the first round.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... 2381.story

Here's what the judge said:

"Judge Peter Bogaard spoke out about his decision, saying ruling in favor of Rachel could have potentially opened Pandora's box: "We have to ask ourselves, do we want to establish a precedent where parents live in constant fear of enforcing the basic rules of the house. If they set a rule a child doesn’t like, the child can move out, move in with another family, seek child support, cars, cell phone and a few hundred grand to go to college. Are we going to open the gates for 12-year-olds to sue for an Xbox? For 13-year-olds to sue for an iPhone? We should be mindful of a potentially slippery slope."

I hope she and the parents of her friend go down in flames. Doesn't she feel any shame or guilt for suing her parents? How can she face them after this? How can she deal with the whole world being against her?

An Asian or Mexican would never sue their parents like this.

I've got to say: They don't get into specifics of things at that house. You all might be right about her being spoiled & everything (and that honestly the first place my head went), but I've known a bunch of parents that acted like they were the "gold" & everyone else is the "mold" and they were just polished garbage. They'd accumulated items & had money, but were not anywhere near respectable people- it was like they thought having a job & gathering some resources meant that they were off the hook as far as quality of conduct went. They figured had a "get out of being an asshole free card" and used their assets as camouflage. Never mind that people sometimes saw the presence of assets as evidence of good character. It was a lot like priests using their social image to get away with bad shit.

On a different note: Judges not making situational decisions bothers me. Someone (or a group of people) making decisions based on whether or not it sets a precedent can be very double-edged. Maybe they think it'll "open Pandora's Box" for someone to defend themselves against cops. Maybe the cops were setting the stage for something severe by using "law enforcement tactics" (like cuffing someone so it's easier to attack them or arresting them so they have access to them later when that person is trapped). There's a bunch of stuff that can happen when someone's going to act under the assumptions of different situations.

Winston wrote:It looks like she lost the first round.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... 2381.story

Here's what the judge said:

"Judge Peter Bogaard spoke out about his decision, saying ruling in favor of Rachel could have potentially opened Pandora's box: "We have to ask ourselves, do we want to establish a precedent where parents live in constant fear of enforcing the basic rules of the house. If they set a rule a child doesn’t like, the child can move out, move in with another family, seek child support, cars, cell phone and a few hundred grand to go to college. Are we going to open the gates for 12-year-olds to sue for an Xbox? For 13-year-olds to sue for an iPhone? We should be mindful of a potentially slippery slope."

What was basic discipline a couple generations ago will now get a parent arrested.
They're going to eventually do to parental/mother's authority what they did to husband's authority.
See early 20th century Soviet Union as an example.
If not this case, then another.

Winston wrote:An Asian or Mexican would never sue their parents like this.

Only while living in those regions... and I wouldn't say "never". Places & cultures change.

The judge is off on one thing, though.
In the future, it won't be the 13 year-old formally suing in court for the latest iCrap; it'll be the 13 year-old DEMANDING whatever, under threat of claiming "Daddy (or Mommy's boyfriend) 'touched' me".
Same lies the previous generations use/d, to get favorable divorces.

Winston wrote:How can she sue her parents? It costs a lot of money to sue. Did she find a lawyer who will work for free?

Also, if she's 18, then her parents are not obligated to support her anymore. So she has no case.

She's hot though. Check out her photo.

if what you crave is american white meat, then yeah this girl might do it.... I like european, colombian, and many more kinds of meat so this girl does nothing for me.

That is shameful, how you gonna sue your parents for money?

Her parents need to relinquish all Parental rights concerning that girl, problem solved ! ... we're no longer responsible for your idiocracy or you.

HouseMD wrote:No adult is entitled to the work of another. A parent providing for their child's education is a gift, not a requirement. If her parents decide, for whatever reason, not to provide that gift, that is their right

The thing is that her parents' generation disagrees with you given that they borrowed lots of money for their cushy lifestyle and then handed the bill on to their infant or unborn children to pay as adults. Not satisfied with this predation, the parents are now likely to want their healthcare and retirement bills taken care of by younger people. Moreover, they are not asking for this as a gift. They want it taken by force. Hence this chick is really just giving her parents a taste of their own medicine.

Renata wrote:That is shameful, how you gonna sue your parents for money?

Her parents need to relinquish all Parental rights concerning that girl, problem solved ! ... we're no longer responsible for your idiocracy or you.

Last I read, she was back home with the parents, had a scholarship. and had filed a restraining order against the bf, so ... I don't believe there's much "shame" involved.