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

[Againsheila]

Uh, no I've read all 150 pages of proceedings and evidence presented by both sides.

My bad, meant to say you're only repeating statements from her that bolster their case, and in such a way that it especially does so. You're mind is made up.

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.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Alas, Barb, so is yours.

I just got done reading Rachel Canning's affidavit. It is full of unsubstantiated "he said, she said" allegations. One thing that caught my eye was at the beginning:

7. There was an incident where I was accused of being intoxicated at my high school's homecoming dance. 1. I was found not to be intoxicated. To be readmitted to the dance, I was required to call my mother in the presence of Kathleen Smith, a teacher at Morris Catholic High School. My mother, who was in Las Vegas for the week with my father, first hung up. 2. My parents, in fact, left me alone and in charge of my two little sisters for the week of my Homecoming. 3. When I called my parents back again, she and my father were screaming obscenities at me. The teacher heard it on the speaker phone. 4. It was obvious gross parental misconduct (Exhibit E). DCP&P was called by my school when I complained of my parent's behavior. 5. My parents, to retaliate, refused to pay my high school tuition and have continued to do so, as well as cutting me off financially. 6. As indicated above, they are using my college funds elsewhere.

(Bolded)

1. By whom?

2. She was being trusted with a major responsibility. How is this a bad thing? She was the big sister in the home, was she not?

3. What obscenities? Is this call recorded? Without hearing what her parents said to her, this is merely hearsay and should be dismissed as evidence.

4. According to her parents, the DCP&P agent saw nothing wrong, and indicated to Rachel that she was "spoiled." The agent then discontinued further investigation of the issue.

5. Her parents contend that the fund was and is still open to her. Moreover, this claim was rejected by the judge yesterday in the first round of arguments. Looks like she will be paying for that on her own.

6. This is a pretty bold claim, just what does she suspect her parents are using it for?

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

 

[Barb]

Alas, Barb, so is yours.

I just got done reading Rachel Canning's affidavit. It is full of unsubstantiated "he said, she said" allegations. One thing that caught my eye was at the beginning:

7. There was an incident where I was accused of being intoxicated at my high school's homecoming dance. I was found not to be intoxicated. To be readmitted to the dance, I was required to call my mother in the presence of Kathleen Smith, a teacher at Morris Catholic High School. My mother, who was in Las Vegas for the week with my father, first hung up. My parents, in fact, left me alone and in charge of my two little sisters for the week of my Homecoming. When I called my parents back again, she and my father were screaming obscenities at me. The teacher heard it on the speaker phone. It was obvious gross parental misconduct (Exhibit E). DCP&P was called by my school when I complained of my parent's behavior. My parents, to retaliate, refused to pay my high school tuition and have continued to do so, as well as cutting me off financially. As indicated above, they are using my college funds elsewhere.

(Bolded)

1. By whom?

2. She was being trusted with a major responsibility. How is this a bad thing? She was the big sister in the home, was she not?

3. What obscenities? Is this call recorded? Without hearing what her parents said to her, this is merely hearsay and should be dismissed as evidence.

4. According to her parents, the DCP&P agent saw nothing wrong, and indicated to Rachel that she was "spoiled." The agent then discontinued further investigation of the issue.

5. Her parents contend that the fund was and is still open to her. Moreover, this claim was rejected by the judge yesterday in the first round of arguments. Looks like she will be paying for that on her own.

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-

I was required to call my mother in the presence of Kathleen Smith, a teacher at Morris Catholic High School. [...] When I called my parents back again, she and my father were screaming obscenities at me. [/B][/I]The teacher heard it on the speaker phone.

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.

 

[Mertex]

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. Making the case that she was "entitled" to this money. Luckily, a judge told her to grow up today, she lost her suit, and will have to welcome real life whether she wants to or not:

Rachel Canning Loses Effort to Make Parents Pay High School Tuition - ABC News

You know what I see here? You making this a political issue. I wasn't arguing for the girl, so quit broad brushing every liberal.....makes you look petty.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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. Making the case that she was "entitled" to this money. Luckily, a judge told her to grow up today, she lost her suit, and will have to welcome real life whether she wants to or not:

Rachel Canning Loses Effort to Make Parents Pay High School Tuition - ABC News

That's a broad stroke to make all inclusive "liberals".

Barb and Boop are discussing why they feel they way they do, based on their lifes' experiences growing up at home, nothing which any of us would have wanted.

No, they are vouching for a girl who was trying to blackmail her parents. By all accounts she is a miscreant! And by all rights, her parents now have legal standing to sue her for slander and libel under applicable Tort Law for falsely accusing her father of sexual abuse and lofting other false accusation against them. Utter nonsense to sit there and defend a spoiled teenager like that.

The things she wanted A) Child Support B) High School Tuition and C) Overall Living Costs can be seen as entitlements by liberals in particular. There are government programs that subsidize these things already. I couldn't help but notice that Jake. I read what both of them wrote.

I don't know, TK. I am somehow thinking that you should not be screaming so loud about entitlements.

Furthermore, I know lots of divorced couples from CONSERVATIVE families where child support is a big issue. This may shock the hell out of you, but in the middle of a nasty divorce, people usually are not thinking things political...

Your broad brush needs pruned back, and while your at it, you may consider cleaning it out as well.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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. Making the case that she was "entitled" to this money. Luckily, a judge told her to grow up today, she lost her suit, and will have to welcome real life whether she wants to or not:

Rachel Canning Loses Effort to Make Parents Pay High School Tuition - ABC News

the girls parents are quite liberal according to dad

“I’m a liberal, liberal parent,” he said. “I wish I could have grown up in my house. I was tougher on my cops at work than I’ve ever been at my home, that’s for sure.”

Runaway sues parents for child support!

 

[Meathead]

It is likely that parasitism starts at home, learned from parasitic parents, or, as in this case spoiled to the point of feeling entitled by birth.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Alas, Barb, so is yours.

I just got done reading Rachel Canning's affidavit. It is full of unsubstantiated "he said, she said" allegations. One thing that caught my eye was at the beginning:

7. There was an incident where I was accused of being intoxicated at my high school's homecoming dance. I was found not to be intoxicated. To be readmitted to the dance, I was required to call my mother in the presence of Kathleen Smith, a teacher at Morris Catholic High School. My mother, who was in Las Vegas for the week with my father, first hung up. My parents, in fact, left me alone and in charge of my two little sisters for the week of my Homecoming. When I called my parents back again, she and my father were screaming obscenities at me. The teacher heard it on the speaker phone. It was obvious gross parental misconduct (Exhibit E). DCP&P was called by my school when I complained of my parent's behavior. My parents, to retaliate, refused to pay my high school tuition and have continued to do so, as well as cutting me off financially. As indicated above, they are using my college funds elsewhere.

(Bolded)

1. By whom?

2. She was being trusted with a major responsibility. How is this a bad thing? She was the big sister in the home, was she not?

3. What obscenities? Is this call recorded? Without hearing what her parents said to her, this is merely hearsay and should be dismissed as evidence.

4. According to her parents, the DCP&P agent saw nothing wrong, and indicated to Rachel that she was "spoiled." The agent then discontinued further investigation of the issue.

5. Her parents contend that the fund was and is still open to her. Moreover, this claim was rejected by the judge yesterday in the first round of arguments. Looks like she will be paying for that on her own.

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-

I was required to call my mother in the presence of Kathleen Smith, a teacher at Morris Catholic High School. [...] When I called my parents back again, she and my father were screaming obscenities at me. [/B][/I]The teacher heard it on the speaker phone.

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.

You know what? I agree her parents should not have left her with the kids, but not for the reasons you put up. I see nothing wrong with older siblings babysitting at all. However, I do find problems with their leaving them for a four day out of town getaway. Even if the get away was to repair their marriage as they and Rachel claim.

The reason I find their leaving her with the kids wrong, is they were aware she was having issues, AND they contend they were told she might have a party when they were away. They also state they had 6 families living within a few blocks or next store checking on the kids and several police officers, but I disagree with their decision, given she was having issues.. Not because a 17 year old can't care for 2 sisters who are older and not toddlers themselves.

 

[Statistikhengst]

One thing the jobless wonder appears to be missing is this: I never once mentioned tuition, money, support - any of that. I addressed the issues in the family home and the chance that all is not as her parents would have you believe.

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.

 

[Mertex]

The only one in this thread who is too good to work is not a lib.

What do you expect from ignorant butt hurt people? They have to make it political so they can get their digs in....no surprise here. I've worked all my life, probably harder than any of the soft Stepford wives, here.

 

[CaféAuLait]

My bad, meant to say you're only repeating statements from her that bolster their case, and in such a way that it especially does so. You're mind is made up.

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.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The only one in this thread who is too good to work is not a lib.

What do you expect from ignorant butt hurt people? They have to make it political so they can get their digs in....no surprise here. I've worked all my life, probably harder than any of the soft Stepford wives, here.

Ditto that!

 

[TemplarKormac]

10. My therapist indicates that I should not return home (Exhibit G). I do not believe it is a viable option. 7. I am not willingly and voluntarily leaving a reasonable situation at home to make my own decisions. I had to leave to end the abuse. My parents simply will not help me any longer. They want nothing to do with me and refuse to even help me financially outside the home although they certainly have the ability to do so, as indicated below in #12. My friend's parents, the Inglesino's have kindly and generously taken me into their home.

11. The actions of my parents make it unsafe for me to return home. The actual obscenities they call(ed) me and the hostility towards me was confirmed by my teacher.

12. The peer ministers at Morris Catholic have decided to raise funds to pay my tuition so I don't have to leave early. I have been a full time student and have excellent grades, as indicated above. 8. My school should not have to give me charity. I believe my parents together earn between $250,000 and $300,000 per year. My father is a retired Chief of Police in Lincoln Park. He receives, I believe, a lifetime pension and health benefits from the State of New Jersey. He is also the current business administrator for the Township of Mount Olive, receiving taxpayer dollars for his employment. He also owns a consulting company, Blue Shield Consulting (Exhibit H). My mother is a legal secretary at McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter. I believe she earns about $60,000 a year.

13. 9. In addition to being a full time student, I work part-time as a hostess at TGI Friday's. I have worked there since just after Thanksgiving. Before that I worked at American Eagle and Aerie. I paid for my own car, uniforms, etc. as required by my parents (Exhibit I). My CIS is also included with this application. Although I made the payments on my vehicle, they still took it away from me 10. when I was thrown out of my house.

7. As indicated in Rachel's own e-mails, she voluntarily and willing left her parent's home and "sphere of influence." Meaning that she is fully emancipated, contrary to her statements here.

8. Nor should her parents. This is a ludicrous claim to insist upon charity from others when she is a fully capable young woman, capable of venturing out her own and earning her own salary.

9. She has a job. Meaning, that as of Thanksgiving, she is earning money to use for her own benefit and other things. This means under the definition of "emancipation" that she is fully and wholly emancipated. Furthermore meaning her parents owe no further financial obligation to their daughter.

10. "My house?" In fact, it is her parent's house. This is a disturbing statement, a child feeling entitled to a home that she does not help make the payments for. So far a faulty case and a bad line of reasoning from a girl who has barely met real life head on.

 

[TemplarKormac]

One thing the jobless wonder appears to be missing is this: I never once mentioned tuition, money, support - any of that. I addressed the issues in the family home and the chance that all is not as her parents would have you believe.

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?

 

[BDBoop]

Read, you moron. Learn to fucking read. All the liberals aren't defending her. Not even close.

Why are you trying to make this political? Do you get extra neo-con reps if you demonize the opposition?

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's a broad stroke to make all inclusive "liberals".

Barb and Boop are discussing why they feel they way they do, based on their lifes' experiences growing up at home, nothing which any of us would have wanted.

No, they are vouching for a girl who was trying to blackmail her parents. By all accounts she is a miscreant! And by all rights, her parents now have legal standing to sue her for slander and libel under applicable Tort Law for falsely accusing her father of sexual abuse and lofting other false accusation against them. Utter nonsense to sit there and defend a spoiled teenager like that.

The things she wanted A) Child Support B) High School Tuition and C) Overall Living Costs can be seen as entitlements by liberals in particular. There are government programs that subsidize these things already. I couldn't help but notice that Jake. I read what both of them wrote.

I don't know, TK. I am somehow thinking that you should not be screaming so loud about entitlements.

Furthermore, I know lots of divorced couples from CONSERVATIVE families where child support is a big issue. This may shock the hell out of you, but in the middle of a nasty divorce, people usually are not thinking things political...

Your broad brush needs pruned back, and while your at it, you may consider cleaning it out as well.

I don't know about you Stat, but you can stop playing the judge. I have not demanded a damned thing from my family. I've paid for everything I own. My PC, my TV, most of the clothes on my back, I've even paid off my Grandmother's car with the last bit of money I had to my name. Don't you dare even think of going there.

Divorces have zero relevance to this case, as Rachel Canning said her parents reunited after she left the house. I've got the affidavit right here in front of me.

My broad brush is fine where it is Stat. You, Gracie, and BD need to put away the gavel and the gown, get out of the leather chair and step down from the bench.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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. Making the case that she was "entitled" to this money. Luckily, a judge told her to grow up today, she lost her suit, and will have to welcome real life whether she wants to or not:

Rachel Canning Loses Effort to Make Parents Pay High School Tuition - ABC News

You know what I see here? You making this a political issue. I wasn't arguing for the girl, so quit broad brushing every liberal.....makes you look petty.

Sure, but you sit there broadbrushing Conservatives all the time! So where do you get off lecturing me about such?

 

[Gracie]

No, they are vouching for a girl who was trying to blackmail her parents. By all accounts she is a miscreant! And by all rights, her parents now have legal standing to sue her for slander and libel under applicable Tort Law for falsely accusing her father of sexual abuse and lofting other false accusation against them. Utter nonsense to sit there and defend a spoiled teenager like that.

The things she wanted A) Child Support B) High School Tuition and C) Overall Living Costs can be seen as entitlements by liberals in particular. There are government programs that subsidize these things already. I couldn't help but notice that Jake. I read what both of them wrote.

I don't know, TK. I am somehow thinking that you should not be screaming so loud about entitlements.

Furthermore, I know lots of divorced couples from CONSERVATIVE families where child support is a big issue. This may shock the hell out of you, but in the middle of a nasty divorce, people usually are not thinking things political...

Your broad brush needs pruned back, and while your at it, you may consider cleaning it out as well.

I don't know about you Stat, but you can stop playing the judge. I have not demanded a damned thing from my family. I've paid for everything I own. My PC, my TV, most of the clothes on my back, I've even paid off my Grandmother's car with the last bit of money I had to my name. Don't you dare even think of going there.

Divorces have zero relevance to this case, as Rachel Canning said her parents reunited after she left the house. I've got the affidavit right here in front of me.

My broad brush is fine where it is Stat. You, Gracie, and BD need to put away the gavel and the gown, get out of the leather chair and step down from the bench.

Wanting my attention again, do ya?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Alas, Barb, so is yours.

I just got done reading Rachel Canning's affidavit. It is full of unsubstantiated "he said, she said" allegations. One thing that caught my eye was at the beginning:

7. There was an incident where I was accused of being intoxicated at my high school's homecoming dance. I was found not to be intoxicated. To be readmitted to the dance, I was required to call my mother in the presence of Kathleen Smith, a teacher at Morris Catholic High School. My mother, who was in Las Vegas for the week with my father, first hung up. My parents, in fact, left me alone and in charge of my two little sisters for the week of my Homecoming. When I called my parents back again, she and my father were screaming obscenities at me. The teacher heard it on the speaker phone. It was obvious gross parental misconduct (Exhibit E). DCP&P was called by my school when I complained of my parent's behavior. My parents, to retaliate, refused to pay my high school tuition and have continued to do so, as well as cutting me off financially. As indicated above, they are using my college funds elsewhere.

(Bolded)

1. By whom?

2. She was being trusted with a major responsibility. How is this a bad thing? She was the big sister in the home, was she not?

3. What obscenities? Is this call recorded? Without hearing what her parents said to her, this is merely hearsay and should be dismissed as evidence.

4. According to her parents, the DCP&P agent saw nothing wrong, and indicated to Rachel that she was "spoiled." The agent then discontinued further investigation of the issue.

5. Her parents contend that the fund was and is still open to her. Moreover, this claim was rejected by the judge yesterday in the first round of arguments. Looks like she will be paying for that on her own.

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-

I was required to call my mother in the presence of Kathleen Smith, a teacher at Morris Catholic High School. [...] When I called my parents back again, she and my father were screaming obscenities at me. [/B][/I]The teacher heard it on the speaker phone.

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

 

[BDBoop]

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!