Turning 18 - Adult or Not?

[DGS49]

High school cheerleader, 18, sues her retired police chief father for at least $17,500 after he 'kicks her out for refusing to live by his rules' | Mail Online


The linked story is about an 18-year-old high school student who either left or was thrown out of the family domicile because of her purported refusal to abide by household rules. It is disputed whether she was thrown out or just left in a huff, so to speak. She is living with friends. She continues to attend a parochial high school, and has accumulated about five thousand dollars in unpaid tuition expense since she left her family’s home.

She is suing her parents to (among other things) force them to pay for her current private school tuition, and her total college expenses when she goes to, presumably, the private college of her choice in coming years. She is, for what it’s worth, an honor student and a cheerleader.

All other stuff aside (I don’t care if she’s “spoiled”), should her middle-class parents be legally compelled to fund her costly education choices until she chooses to declare herself to be an emancipated adult, presumably after graduating from college? Based on what law or equitable principle?

It may be presumed that New Jersey would provide the balance of her high school education FOR FREE, in a public high school – an option that the majority of New Jersey residents choose. It may also be presumed that by a combination of community colleges and state universities, she could get a four-year degree at a modest cost. Or she could join the Army and ultimately pay for her own education. She’s an “adult,” right?

When I was back in law school a lifetime ago, there was a precedent in divorce cases that a child of a parent paying child support was entitled to be supported until such time as the child reached the top level of education that had been achieved by the supporting parent. So a dad with a bachelor’s degree had to support his kid until the kid got a bachelor’s degree (assume normal progress was being made). Doctorate? Same principle.

But that’s a different state (PA), and a different situation. Here the kid is no longer a member of the household and the parents are not only still together, but they both concur with cutting the kid off.

As far as I’m concerned, even if she stayed at home, her parents have no obligation to fund her education, other than the obligation to pay New Jersey taxes to fund public schools and universities. They could have legally and without recourse, pulled the rug out from under their daughter – for any reason or no reason at all – and told her, "Finish HS in the local public school, and you are on your own for college."

Does anybody disagree?

Why does the fact that she either moved out or was thrown out of her parents’ home change anything?

Is 18 an adult or is it not? If she were the daughter of a single mother on welfare, she would certainly be on her own, so why does the situation change just because her parents are middle class? Does the fact that her parents apparently have a savings account for her college matter? It is not a trust fund, it's just a savings account.

This case should be thrown out of court, with enthusiasm.

 

[whitehall]

The issue is pretty confusing when the ironically named Affordable Health Care act allows parents to keep children on their insurance policies until they are 28 years old.

 

[Wry Catcher]

High school cheerleader, 18, sues her retired police chief father for at least $17,500 after he 'kicks her out for refusing to live by his rules' | Mail Online


The linked story is about an 18-year-old high school student who either left or was thrown out of the family domicile because of her purported refusal to abide by household rules. It is disputed whether she was thrown out or just left in a huff, so to speak. She is living with friends. She continues to attend a parochial high school, and has accumulated about five thousand dollars in unpaid tuition expense since she left her family’s home.

She is suing her parents to (among other things) force them to pay for her current private school tuition, and her total college expenses when she goes to, presumably, the private college of her choice in coming years. She is, for what it’s worth, an honor student and a cheerleader.

All other stuff aside (I don’t care if she’s “spoiled”), should her middle-class parents be legally compelled to fund her costly education choices until she chooses to declare herself to be an emancipated adult, presumably after graduating from college? Based on what law or equitable principle?

It may be presumed that New Jersey would provide the balance of her high school education FOR FREE, in a public high school – an option that the majority of New Jersey residents choose. It may also be presumed that by a combination of community colleges and state universities, she could get a four-year degree at a modest cost. Or she could join the Army and ultimately pay for her own education. She’s an “adult,” right?

When I was back in law school a lifetime ago, there was a precedent in divorce cases that a child of a parent paying child support was entitled to be supported until such time as the child reached the top level of education that had been achieved by the supporting parent. So a dad with a bachelor’s degree had to support his kid until the kid got a bachelor’s degree (assume normal progress was being made). Doctorate? Same principle.

But that’s a different state (PA), and a different situation. Here the kid is no longer a member of the household and the parents are not only still together, but they both concur with cutting the kid off.

As far as I’m concerned, even if she stayed at home, her parents have no obligation to fund her education, other than the obligation to pay New Jersey taxes to fund public schools and universities. They could have legally and without recourse, pulled the rug out from under their daughter – for any reason or no reason at all – and told her, "Finish HS in the local public school, and you are on your own for college."

Does anybody disagree?

Why does the fact that she either moved out or was thrown out of her parents’ home change anything?

Is 18 an adult or is it not? If she were the daughter of a single mother on welfare, she would certainly be on her own, so why does the situation change just because her parents are middle class? Does the fact that her parents apparently have a savings account for her college matter? It is not a trust fund, it's just a savings account.

This case should be thrown out of court, with enthusiasm.

Are the parents taking an income tax deduction for their daughter? If they are, I would side with the 'child'. Even if that does not play into the legal issues, I don't understand the 'parents'. In our home both bedrooms are and will always be referred to as their rooms, they still have house keys and are welcome at anytime.

 

[Katzndogz]

That's 26 years old not 28 years old. There is a body of opinion that modern man does not mature as fast as earlier counter parts and remain in a state of extended adolescence until age 30. If so, the solution to this girl's difficulties is simple. Judge her legally a minor until age 26, find her home with its rules unfit and put the girl in foster care until she reaches her newly adjudged age of majority.

 

[Pop23]

An 18 year old should be considered an adult in every way (unless they are special needs).

The two most important things that we can do as Citizens is to fight for our Country and Vote. Both are afforded to 18 year olds. Those being true, 18 year olds should be considered Adult in every aspect, including purchasing adult beverages.

 

[The Professor]

Parents have a legal obligation to support their minor children and cannot lawfully “kick them out” of their homes. However, the flip side of the law is that minor children cannot tell their parents to “kiss off'” and go live elsewhere. Once a child is no longer a minor, the parents have no financial obligations toward the child (there are some exceptions) and the child is free to leave her family behind. In the present case, it appears the young lady left her home because she couldn't/wouldn't abide by her parents' rules.

Even if the young lady were less than 18, the parents would have no liability to support her if she left home. A minor child can be compelled to live with her parents unless the child is emancipated.

“Emancipation of minors is a legal mechanism by which a minor is freed from control by his or her parents or guardians, and the parents or guardians are freed from any and all responsibility toward the child. In some cases, emancipation can be granted without due court granting when the minor is bound to make a decision for themselves in the absence of their parents (who may be already dead or who may have abandoned the minor).

“The exact laws and protocols for obtaining emancipation vary from state to state. In most states, minors must file a petition with the family court in the applicable jurisdiction, formally requesting emancipation and citing reasons it is in their best interest to be emancipated. Minors must prove financial self-sufficiency. In some states, free legal aid is available to minors seeking emancipation, through children law centers. This can be a valuable resource for minors trying to create a convincing emancipation petition. Students are able to stay with a guardian if necessary.”

Emancipation of minors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The law is very clear. Parents have no financial liability for their children who are no longer minors (as I said there are exceptions but these exceptions are not relevant to the case at hand). As far as minor children are concerned, their parents are responsible for their welfare. Parents cannot kick their children out of their homes and their children are not free to leave their home.

This young lady is asking the courts to do something I have never heard of before. There was a time when such cases were tossed out and the attorneys were admonished for wasting the court's time. But now ..... who knows.

Edited to add:

A special message to the young lady: I hope for your sake you have forgiving parents. If not, as the years pass you may need their support and it may not be forthcoming. You have rejected and insulted your parents and you will soon learn there are consequences to your actions. I would not count on an inheritance, except perhaps the common token of $1.00.

A special message to the young lady's boyfriend: Whatever you do, don't marry this gal. If you ever divorce her she will spend the rest of her life trying to get everything you've worked for.

 

[NLT]

18 and under my roof, eating my food, watching my cable, surfing my wifi, then it is my rules, dont like it get the fuck out.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't see any legal obligation for parents to pay for a college education. If the "college fund" that the girl is suing for was saved by the parents, I see her having no legal right to that either

 

[Pop23]

I don't see any legal obligation for parents to pay for a college education. If the "college fund" that the girl is suing for was saved by the parents, I see her having no legal right to that either

The fund, if there actually is one, likely was set up with rules attached, such as, obeying the house rules.

bye bye fund

 

[RosieS]

The girl is living with her friend's family.

The reason for filing the suit is obvious. The suit is being discussed on TV, on boards such as this, and all over social media.

The father of the family friend is an attorney. Do the math: the lawsuit is in furtherance of the attorney's career, not the girl's academic one.

The suit should be tossed as frivolous and the girl needs to enroll in the School of Hard Knocks. Free tuition there.

Regards from Rosie

 

[longknife]

Government determining what adulthood is another case of do-gooder politicians doing their best to establish their rules for the rest of us.

Throughout the history of this race, adulthood was determined solely by the ability to have and support children!

Therefore, when a girl reached puberty, had a menstrual cycle, and was able to bear children, she was considered adult.

When a boy reached the age where he could impregnate a female, he was considered adult and expected to support and protect that child.

In this case, we have a spoiled, highly emotionally childish female who is having nothing more than a tantrum that should be totally ignored by the rest of society. I just hope the judge who finally get the case throws it out.

 

[Disir]

High school cheerleader, 18, sues her retired police chief father for at least $17,500 after he 'kicks her out for refusing to live by his rules' | Mail Online


The linked story is about an 18-year-old high school student who either left or was thrown out of the family domicile because of her purported refusal to abide by household rules. It is disputed whether she was thrown out or just left in a huff, so to speak. She is living with friends. She continues to attend a parochial high school, and has accumulated about five thousand dollars in unpaid tuition expense since she left her family’s home.

She is suing her parents to (among other things) force them to pay for her current private school tuition, and her total college expenses when she goes to, presumably, the private college of her choice in coming years. She is, for what it’s worth, an honor student and a cheerleader.

All other stuff aside (I don’t care if she’s “spoiled&#8221, should her middle-class parents be legally compelled to fund her costly education choices until she chooses to declare herself to be an emancipated adult, presumably after graduating from college? Based on what law or equitable principle?

It may be presumed that New Jersey would provide the balance of her high school education FOR FREE, in a public high school – an option that the majority of New Jersey residents choose. It may also be presumed that by a combination of community colleges and state universities, she could get a four-year degree at a modest cost. Or she could join the Army and ultimately pay for her own education. She’s an “adult,” right?

When I was back in law school a lifetime ago, there was a precedent in divorce cases that a child of a parent paying child support was entitled to be supported until such time as the child reached the top level of education that had been achieved by the supporting parent. So a dad with a bachelor’s degree had to support his kid until the kid got a bachelor’s degree (assume normal progress was being made). Doctorate? Same principle.

But that’s a different state (PA), and a different situation. Here the kid is no longer a member of the household and the parents are not only still together, but they both concur with cutting the kid off.

As far as I’m concerned, even if she stayed at home, her parents have no obligation to fund her education, other than the obligation to pay New Jersey taxes to fund public schools and universities. They could have legally and without recourse, pulled the rug out from under their daughter – for any reason or no reason at all – and told her, "Finish HS in the local public school, and you are on your own for college."

Does anybody disagree?

Why does the fact that she either moved out or was thrown out of her parents’ home change anything?

Is 18 an adult or is it not? If she were the daughter of a single mother on welfare, she would certainly be on her own, so why does the situation change just because her parents are middle class? Does the fact that her parents apparently have a savings account for her college matter? It is not a trust fund, it's just a savings account.

This case should be thrown out of court, with enthusiasm.

I think that the reason that the parents will end up paying that unpaid tuition is because she started the semester at age 17. That makes her a minor and the decision to enroll and enter into that agreement makes her parents responsible. Unless the parents can somehow prove that they informed the school that they would not be paying tuition or would be financially responsible for her. They could have said finish in a public school, but did they?

Oooh, and what impact does that have on any kid that turns 18 as a senior in the future at a private school in New Jersey? Who is left holding the bag? For that reason it should not be thrown out. Edited for: AND the school indicated that they were not going to throw her out because she was academically successful. Does this mean that they would have thrown her out if she was a C student or came from a different socioeconomic status? Did they only keep her enrolled with the intent to recoup their losses?

This is what I pulled from the other article in the other thread: “A child is not emancipated until they’re on their own,” Simon said. “Even if a child and the parents don’t get along, that doesn’t relieve the parents of their responsibility.” Laufer noted that under New Jersey law, a child can still be declared nonemancipated even if there is a hiatus between high school graduation and college.

I have only seen that with divorce when the noncustodial parent has to pay child support while a kid attends college. Then the parent petitions the court to end child support. In the state that I live the parents have to pay into a bank account for college if it is feasible-and it is court ordered.

Here is the kicker--I think that in New York and North Carolina all kids above 16 are prosecuted as an adult in criminal courts. The age of majority is left to the states. In Illinois it is 17. Federal is age 18. Even the drinking age is left to the states-don't take the money.

I don't think that parents should be obligated to pay for college. Ever. If parents can and want to that is one thing but forcing them? Nope. I think the car is also a non-issue if the parents kept it in their name.

 

[DGS49]

The reason I raised this is because I assume the attorney for the girl has some basis for the claim, and it is not obvious to me what it is.

The cases mentioned above are cases where the child WANTED to be deemed emancipated, not where the parents evicted the child. And here, the parents are perfectly willing to have her back, on their terms, but she is apparently unwilling to live under those constraints.

The school may have a legal claim against the parents, because they enrolled their daughter, presumably for the entire school year. Did they notify the school that the situation had changed - that their girl was not emancipated and responsible for her own expenses? I suspect this would have protected them from a claim by the school.

But what about the school? If the girl IS emancipated, then she is poor and essentially homeless, and the school should waive her tuition for the rest of the year, under these circumstances.

Regardless, I see no legal basis on which the girl could demand that her parents pay to put her through a private (or any other) college until she is 22 years old. I know many parents who could have paid for their kids' college education but declined to do so, for any number of reasons - which is their perfect right. One because his son wanted to study philosophy. One because he was not satisfied in his son's grades. Any reason is fine.

P.S., whether a child is prosecuted in a criminal proceeding as an 'adult' is totally unrelated to the legal age of majority. Kids as young as 14 have been prosecuted as an adult; it all depends on the circumstances, and there are no hard and fast rules.

 

[Disir]

The reason I raised this is because I assume the attorney for the girl has some basis for the claim, and it is not obvious to me what it is.

The cases mentioned above are cases where the child WANTED to be deemed emancipated, not where the parents evicted the child. And here, the parents are perfectly willing to have her back, on their terms, but she is apparently unwilling to live under those constraints.

The school may have a legal claim against the parents, because they enrolled their daughter, presumably for the entire school year. Did they notify the school that the situation had changed - that their girl was not emancipated and responsible for her own expenses? I suspect this would have protected them from a claim by the school.

But what about the school? If the girl IS emancipated, then she is poor and essentially homeless, and the school should waive her tuition for the rest of the year, under these circumstances.

Regardless, I see no legal basis on which the girl could demand that her parents pay to put her through a private (or any other) college until she is 22 years old. I know many parents who could have paid for their kids' college education but declined to do so, for any number of reasons - which is their perfect right. One because his son wanted to study philosophy. One because he was not satisfied in his son's grades. Any reason is fine.

P.S., whether a child is prosecuted in a criminal proceeding as an 'adult' is totally unrelated to the legal age of majority. Kids as young as 14 have been prosecuted as an adult; it all depends on the circumstances, and there are no hard and fast rules.

It wasn't until I was on a completely different thread that I thought of the high school. It occurred to me that they could have thrown her out but did not. In fact, they encouraged her not to go home. Personally, I think they should eat it at this point.

Why does it not count? I am not talking about a minor waived to an adult court because of the offense. But, if you are considered an adult at 17 then status offenses (except alcohol) don't count. The parent cannot legally force the kid to do what they say. In this instance there is an 18 year old that, if arrested, would go to an adult court. In New Jersey the age of majority is 18. So, the parents can say-abide by the rules in this house or walk but they could not have had her picked up as a runaway and forced her to live under their roof. Now, I wonder if that is how it plays out in New York.

 

[Katzndogz]

The reason I raised this is because I assume the attorney for the girl has some basis for the claim, and it is not obvious to me what it is.

The cases mentioned above are cases where the child WANTED to be deemed emancipated, not where the parents evicted the child. And here, the parents are perfectly willing to have her back, on their terms, but she is apparently unwilling to live under those constraints.

The school may have a legal claim against the parents, because they enrolled their daughter, presumably for the entire school year. Did they notify the school that the situation had changed - that their girl was not emancipated and responsible for her own expenses? I suspect this would have protected them from a claim by the school.

But what about the school? If the girl IS emancipated, then she is poor and essentially homeless, and the school should waive her tuition for the rest of the year, under these circumstances.

Regardless, I see no legal basis on which the girl could demand that her parents pay to put her through a private (or any other) college until she is 22 years old. I know many parents who could have paid for their kids' college education but declined to do so, for any number of reasons - which is their perfect right. One because his son wanted to study philosophy. One because he was not satisfied in his son's grades. Any reason is fine.

P.S., whether a child is prosecuted in a criminal proceeding as an 'adult' is totally unrelated to the legal age of majority. Kids as young as 14 have been prosecuted as an adult; it all depends on the circumstances, and there are no hard and fast rules.

The girl is living with the attorney bringing the lawsuit and he wants some money from the parents.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't see any legal obligation for parents to pay for a college education.

Mine never paid for me.

 

[Rozman]

According to Obama and the Democrats you are still a "kid" up to age 26....

 

[alan1]

She's 18 and doesn't like her parents rules.
Maybe she should join the military and see if she likes those rules better.

 

[Katzndogz]

According to what I saw the girl alleged significant abuse including sexual molestation by her father. All of it was overcome by truly vicious voice mails this girl was foolish enough to leave. She should be prosecuted for perjury. She lost with the issue of college tuition continued until next month. The judge should do two things deny the request for tuition based on the lies in the complaint and sanction the attorney for putting them there.

 

[American_Jihad]

Turning 18 - Adult or Not?

NOT, according to obongo it would be 27...