I had to follow the rules until I moved out, now I have even more rules to follow.
Being respectful wasn't even an issue with me. Following curfew was normal practice. And my boyfriend was stupid even I knew that, I constantly reconsidered my relationship.

Their statements shouldn't be taken as gospel.

I guess she better get a job, though.

If they owed HER money, that'd be a different story.

Absolutely. I was just saying it's possible the parents aren't being absolutely truthful about why the kid left the house. Could be she had good reason.

As bravenak said, she needs to get a job.

But the second she left the home at 18, refusing to live according to the parental rules, well, she emancipated herself.

There's a few things going on here.

Two things should jump out here:

"Retired cop"

"College fund"

unless her parents fill out the financial aid papers.

Even if the student is financially independent and files her own tax return.

Hopefully this lawsuit, whichever way it goes, will allow her to qualify for a "dependency override," which is sometimes given in connection with the FAFSA requirement.

(except a hideous community college where the teaching level was BELOW high school level)
because my mother said her finances were no one's business and refused to fill out the forms.
My teacher's were livid; they said I could have gone to ANY college I chose. But there was
no budging my mother.

But if this young girl has some scholarships, wouldn't those forms have been filled out? I don't know
how scholarships work.

not demanded, and absolutely not when acting out.

I think the same of lawsuits against estates. For example, if someone is not present emotionally, or physically to give care to elderly parents, he/she should have the decency not to demand an inheritance in court or anywhere.

I filled out my own FAFSA for college back in the 90s. My mother wasn't on it. I was in my 30s perhaps that is why. I ended up just going with grant monies in the end.

When you applied they probably asked (since you were above the age of expected parent help) if you wanted to include your parents income and you selected no. When I first fileld out a FAFSA in 1999 it was on it. I've been filling it out again since 2008 and it's an option on there but since I'm in my 20s I select no.

1. She's 18. Who she picks as her boyfriend is not something the parents can control. No matter how awful he may be.
2. She's 18. Which means her parents are legally able to kick her out and not have to financially support her.

She may potentially have a case as far as her college tuition savings account is concerned. Maybe even a case with the tuition with the private high school. But the parents are not obligated to pay for her living expenses and transportation costs anymore.

As for the car, whoever the title is made out to and whoever pays the insurance and registration is who the court will likely declare the owner.

Ultimately the best advice for the daughter....get a job.

Parents are not obligated to pay for college. If it's just a form of savings, and not say a trust in her name, they are not obligated to spend those funds on tuition. What if she didn't even go to college, they could just remodel their kitchen if they wanted.

At best she may have a shot at her current school tuition, but I think that's a long shot.

If it's a 527 or Coverdell and the account is titled in her name or even jointly, the money ceased to be in any part her parents upon her 18th birthday (unless she drops dead in which case it reverts back or to a named beneficiary) but there are substantial restrictions upon how it may be disbursed and what for.

If it's a regular old college savings account, yeah...they can do whatever they want with the money.

The money belongs to the owner of the plan. The owner can decide to change the beneficiary at any point or not give it to the beneficiary (in which case the untaxed earnings basically fall under IRA rules). The owner is in charge.

She has no claim on the money in that type of plan.

For another child, another relative, a friends kid, etc. it is an asset of the parent for the benefit of who they designate. My parents set up a 529 for each of the grand kids. If one doesn't go to college, they can roll it to the other grand kids.

ownership of the parents, and can end the savings plan any time they desire, and can even refuse to hand it over. I know this for a fact.

She does need to get a job.

and they can't transfer it to anyone else. It all depends on what kind of account they put the money in.

In fact, in this still-difficult economy, I've seen plenty of college savings accounts cashed out by the owners because the family ran into some financial trouble. We'll see how this pans out.

Yes, she's 18, but she's living in her parents' house & should abide by their rules. Just because you're an adult doesn't give you the right to do as you please in someone else's house. Don't like the rules? Move out.

Same for the college tuition account, unless it's in her name only (which I doubt it is).

Any of the tax-deferred accounts like a Coverdell, it'll be a mess but she's prevail. They get the tax break for the deposit, she gets the contents for qualified educational expenses after the age of 18 tax-free.

They have no legal access or right to the money anymore. It ceased to be any part theirs, even if jointly-titled, when she turned 18.

The 529 is an asset of the parent. They can elect to use it for her college costs, withdrawal it and pay the penalty or roll it over to another 529 for the benefit of whoever they choose.

I bet that's what it is, since the parents are saying now that they haven't touched the money.

The are not uniform gift accounts
http://www.irs.gov/uac/529-Plans:-Questions-and-Answers

And the schools rely on those contracts when they budget for the following year. They don't let parents renege on those contracts because the parents are mad at their kids.

Since the school is allowing the daughter to continue going to school, what
standing does SHE have on this matter?

According to the school, the parents signed a contract, and that is how the school
is entitled to be paid.

unless the state has a child support statute that covers it. child support does not stop at 18 if they are still in high school. It is 18 or graduation or age 19, whichever comes first.

A few states had college support statutes, but mosts of them fell because intact families were not liable for college.

If she is not emancipated the law might say they have some duty to support her. My state has a duty to support a poor person statute, if they fall into the categories of close relatives defined. Never seen it enforced, though. Most parents just don't use the 18 and you're out card, so how often will it come up? Not enough to create case law.

Pretty fucking ridiculous

now they think they're kings and queens, and everyone should bow to them.

They look like spoiled little brats from mean girls. Her parents should have done this a long time ago.

We'll see what comes of this.

See, we can find common ground

"Sean Canning said that a DCP&P representative visited his home for about three hours last fall, found nothing amiss, determined that Rachel was “spoiled” and discontinued the investigation. He said that he and his wife are beside themselves that discord with their daughter has reached this level."

Because she had said shit at school about how bad her life was, the school reported it to authorities and they sent someone to check the parents and home out.
All they found was a spoiled brat.
That's some serious bullshit by that kid.

There were witnesses to what was considered abusive behavior on the parents' part -- and these witnesses encouraged the girl to contact authorities.



http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20140302/NJNEWS/303020017/Morris-Catholic-HS-senior-suing-parents-who-won-t-pay-college?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

Rachel Canning filed a certification with the court that contends her parents jointly decided on Oct. 29, 2013 that as of Nov. 1 — her 18th birthday — she would be cut off “from all support both financially and emotionally.” She said in her papers that Morris Catholic advised her not to return home and contacted the state Division of Child Protection and Permanency (known as DCP&P and formerly as DYFS) after Rachel alleged abuse.

“My parents have rationalized their actions by blaming me for not following their rules,” Rachel said in her court papers. “They stopped paying my high school tuition to punish the school and me and have redirected my college fund, indicating their refusal to afford me an education as a punishment.”

Morris Catholic President Michael St. Pierre said in a certification to the court that the school did call DCP&P based upon some allegations by Rachel and “some difficult meetings between Rachel and Mr. Canning.”

The court record also includes a letter from Morris Catholic English instructor and campus minister Kathleen Smith, who wrote that she was a witness to a rough encounter between Rachel and her mother in mid-October 2013 and heard Elizabeth Canning call her daughter a foul name and say she didn’t want to speak to her daughter again.

“Rachel has excellent grades and will not be removed from the school for this nonpayment; however, her parents do have a contractual obligation to pay. . . . . "

Get her out of that house! The poor dear....

My Mother kicked me out of the car about 2 miles from home once because I mouthed off to her. I deserved it. I walked home. I learned my lesson.

Come on. Let parents parent.

We are raising spoiled, selfish brats.

the retired cop, and the daughter, that they were worried about. And they advised the girl not to go home.

If this school was worried about their tuition money, they'd have probably been pushing this girl to go back to her parents. The fact that they're supporting her in this is a pretty big red flag, I think.

Not every set of parents deserves the children they have. I don't think we have enough information about this family to know who is in the right. I certainly wouldn't jump in on the side of the parents, just because they were the first to put out their story.

I am inclined to not judge this girl quite yet either. We haven't heard all of her side. Just because parents have been shelling out money for private school and providing a car for her (until her 18th b-day) doesn't mean there isn't some kind of abuse taking place. It's way to easy to see a kid that has "stuff" and think, they should just shut up, nothing could be going wrong in that family, that kid has it easy..... Not necessarily so.

the worst things people are capable of every day. Besides, she's over 18 so she's no longer their problem.

what authorities can do to them if they don't report absolutely any possibility of abuse
and counsel the student to find protection. They have to exercise caution. That doesn't
mean they thought there was real relevance to the accusations of abuse. It means
that the school wanted someone to check it out to be safe.... and actually, with some
children, the children need to be told by the authorities that things the children perceive
as abuse, really is not abuse. We just don't know the facts.

On edit: the actions that the school chose to take result in not only clearing themselves
of any issues at all, but insure that a third party outside of the home investigates fully,
so that both child and parents will hopefully obtain whatever assistance is required.
But it doesn't incriminate anyone in my opinion.

are condemning the girl. We just don't know. But there ARE two sides to the story.

I don't think the school is just protecting themselves. She's over 18 now and they no longer have a special reporting obligation -- and yet they're still supporting her. (Which is why the parents stopped paying the tuition they owe.)

Also, the father is claiming in the DM article that the girl was alleging physical and emotional abuse. I don't know why people are dismissing that claim so easily, without us knowing anything except that CPS is no longer involved. They wouldn't be, since she's over 18 and is no longer at risk from them.

It will be interesting to hear how this works out, if we ever do.

Once Rachel 'alleged' abuse, the school was required to report that information to protective
services. There might have been abuse, or not.

There were also statements to the effect that Rachel had been seeing a therapist and was
supposed to be taking medications, but was not doing so.

I raised a son with bipolar, and let me tell you, when you are dealing with someone who
can argue non-stop for over 12 hours at the top of their lungs, yep, some names get slung
around, until/unless you learn to accept that when a person's brain is in that mode, arguing
with them is doing nothing but escalating the situation. There is no way anyone can outlast
in energy or effort the biochemical, neurological forces motivating someone with bipolar
who is in a rage. And they always feel in the right and persecuted.

I'm not saying Rachel has bipolar, though. I'm just saying, we don't know the facts.

Just like my description above, most of the DUers commenting on this story are drawing
from THEIR life experiences, NOT from Rachel's, because there isn't a full presentation
of facts. Just a news story written with JUST enough information to get everyone
tantalized enough to comment.

Oh my, Heavens to Betsy. Goodness gracious! My stars and garters, how ever shall this poor waif endure such abuses?

*vigorously fans self*

This girl would have hated to live in the town I grew up in. The cops were called when my father was having a "rough encounter" with me and called me "foul names" because I was acting like a punk.

He explained to them why he had initiated the "rough encounter" and after investigating one of the cops pulled me aside and told me that he saw nothing wrong with the "rough encounter" and that I needed to "grow up" before hopping in the cruiser and driving off.

I still thank dad for squaring me away with that "rough encounter".

There's more to the story. She's probably FAAAAAAAAR from being the abused, neglected angel the lawyer and the school are making her out to be.

I don't think any conclusions should be drawn based solely on his statements.

thinking they can sign a contract with the school in the spring and then renege on it in the fall.

It doesn't matter what problems they're having with their daughter, or even whether she goes to the school. The parents still have a contractual agreement with the school. Schools have to budget months in advance, and can't suddenly have parents deciding not to pay.

She's a grown woman now and she can do as she pleases, but it sounds like she may have to pay for it herself. Just as her parents can do as they please with their money. Unless she funded the account, it's not her money. Her Parents may be controlling which sucks for her, but she seems to be quite expensive and they may not like her enough to pay for her lifestyle. If she wants to live the lifestyle she's accustomed to she has to either pay for it herself, or make up with her parents. Life's not fair or easy, she will be a better person for learning that now as opposed to later.
If you want to run your own life as an autonomous adult it costs money. If you want to go to a private school and university it costs lots of money, and nobody owes that to their child. Most can't afford it and she has been very fortunate in her lifestyle up until she reached her majority. Very fortunate.

which means the legal gift was already made, was final at that time, and can't be taken back now.

If you are a parent you can save money on Federal income taxes by gifting money to your child that you intend to use to pay for college. However, once you do that, you're stuck. You can't take back the gift if you're mad at your child later, because you already had the tax benefit.

So if this money is in that kind of account with her name on it, then her parents will be required to turn the money over to her eventually -- the issue to be decided is whether that will happen now or when she turns 21, or sometime in between.

Since her school apparently told her to report her parents' abusive behavior (that school personnel witnessed), it doesn't sound to me like she has been all that fortunate. Having parents with money isn't everything.

If they put it in a gift account for her she should have access to it upon reaching her majority. It's unlikely that it was done that way, as she can't access it now.
Usually parents put money into an account that is in their own name to be used for college with tax benefits, if it's not used in the correct manner they would just have to pay the appropriate taxes and they can use it as they see fit.

If she feels that the money was an unconditional gift, she would have the burden of proving that in court, and the documents for that account and her parents tax forms would show that it was gifted over to her and taxed accordingly.

As far as owing for her transportation, and money for living expenses while staying at her friends house as an 18 year old woman, I don't believe she has a case at all. She is seeking more money than some people make in a year just on lawyers fees.

When I was 18 I saved up 1500 bucks working at a market research firm to buy a 1990 ford escort, and I kept it for a couple of years. If she needs a car to get around she may need to consider working for it as many youth do today. It's hard, but worth it to be able to do as you please.

If you and your parents dont get along, you can't expect them to pay your way through life. Sometimes parents are cruel and won't pay for college even if they can afford it. Just because they have the money, doesn't mean they have to spend it on her. They may want to just put it away for retirement so they won't need her to care for them. If this is how they act, they better be putting the money away for the future, because if doesn't look like they will have much help coming from the daughter they dont like.

So she wouldn't automatically control the money at 18. But they, OTOH, couldn't spend it on anyone except her. A judge could rule however, that under the circumstances, someone else might be a more appropriate custodian.

If it's in a UGM account, there will be no problem proving that in court -- it's a specific kind of account all banks have, with standard paperwork.


Putting money in a UGM account means that it's taxed at the minor's tax rate rather than the parents, so some people do that to save money. But once they put the money in that kind of account, the gift is final.

I was stiffed out of my social security initial settlement when my dad died, because my mom had gone off the rails ( hs shot himself in front of her)and withdrew all of the money out our joint account ( I had been saving since I was 11, all of my permanent fund checks, my work money from weebees, and the 8000 I had gotten from social security). I was legally unable to do anything about it, so I moved out and shared a 1 bedroom with a couple of friends from foster care. It was supposed to be my college money, but I didn't gave enought money to go after that. I had to go to the social security office and show that my mom was not supporting me and gad moved to another town before I was able to start getting the checks in my name. I also had to pay back an overpayment that she had gotten in my name. That's why I think she won't win. Not because I'm unsympathetic, I've just been throughout it before.

I get along with my mom just fine now, and she fully admits that she had lost her mind for a few years. It sound to me like the whole family will be needing extensive therapy in the future.

So you can understand well the kinds of things that can happen.

I am so impressed that you're able to get along with her now--you must be a very forgiving person, and I admire that. She suffered terribly after your dad's death, so going off the rails is understandable, but you were hurt so directly by her choices that I would also find it pretty easy to understand if you'd chosen to cut her out of your life. And to have to deal with such a dramatic reversal of fortune at such a young age... well, you're admirable all the way around.

My life wasn't too bad, not as hard as if I had been lacking in intelligence. I hit the jackpot in the natural intelligence department so I never had a problem finding good jobs if I wanted them. My sister too. She could never take that from us so she really didn't take anything that was important.
I just pretended I was 18, told them I had just graduated and started working. I never knew what I wanted to study in college anyway, I had always wanted to be a stegosaurus when I grew up , never figured out another plan.

She's 18, an adult. Parents have no financial obligations once the student reaches 18.

to support the conservative agenda - right wingers have been jumping on it.

I hope this can be reconciled in a way the family can be reunited, but even if the parents are the heavies here, I don't see where an eighteen year old gets standing to force her parents to pay anything to her or for her.

I think that might be different

likely enrolled her there. Past that she might be out of luck.

I was lucky in that I had pretty great parents. They were also very poor. Sorry Rachel - you may have to get a job like the rest of us.

They signed an enrollment contract in the spring and they can't renege on it, no matter how mad they are at their daughter.

nt

You might be wrong about the college money, in any case, if the money was gifted into an account with her name on it.

And that is interesting about the college $$. I hope she is able to keep that. She is not used to surviving on her own and is going to have a pretty rude awakening. In the end it may well make her a stronger person, but I'd like to know what the parents are really doing behind the scenes here. My guess is that they are trying to force her to break up with the boyfriend by pulling the purse strings (controlling parents have done this for ages) - nobody kicks anyone out over borrowing a sister's sweater.

Off the top of my head, there might be a duty to fulfill a promise to pay for the child's schooling - breech of a promise can be actionable if the recipient relied on the promise to her own detriment (i.e. enrolled in a fancy school)

but I'm no lawyer.

But your point is good about Rachel possibly relying on the promises of her parents to her detriment.

Parents sometimes purchase a car and its registration and insurance for their child on condition that their child do something in exchange. Promises like that can be upheld in court if the child was meeting the conditions at the time the parents took the car away.

It's likely that Rachel's lawyer has decent legal grounds to pursue if those were the circumstances. We'll see.

Could be that she violated the terms of the oral contract with her behavior and she is a spoiled brat and thinks she should get it for nothing.

Which is not dependent on any oral agreement the girl had with her parents.

In the spring, private schools require parents to sign enrollment contracts for the coming fall. Parents can't suddenly change their mind in the fall and not pay. They owe the funds no matter what their student does -- even if the student dies. If that is a problem, tuition insurance can be purchased. This is because schools have to set budgets just like any business, so they have to be able to count on getting the tuition payments parents have promised to pay.

Most currently, the school our kids go to.

That said, that is a different argument from the idea that they owe her one penny beyond the high school tuition (which they owe the school and not her).

as far as her high school. It's just a collections issue between the school and parents.
She would have no standing.

to register her for her senior year, and the school relies on those contracts when it hires teachers. Schools that rely on tuition can't afford to let parents renege on their contracts.

then there likely isn't much of a detriment there.

in a Uniform Gift to Minors account.

If there is such an account with her name on it, they can't take it back or spend it on anyone except her. If they put the money in her name, they got a tax benefit from doing that, so they can't change their minds now.

...and to make a penny doing it

They're not asking for damages from these parents -- just the college fund the parents had already put aside from her.

"He’s also requesting in the lawsuit that the Cannings reimburse him for the legal fees, so far totaling $12,597, according to the paper."

Which may explain his spending $12K to fight over a $6K private school bill.

since you are a reasonable person, will leave you feeling the same as I do -- we don't know what the truth is here. I'm certainly not going to call her a spoiled brat based on these articles.

The school is apparently backing her up on abuse allegations, and advised her not to return home.


http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20140302/NJNEWS/303020017/Morris-Catholic-HS-senior-suing-parents-who-won-t-pay-college?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

Rachel Canning filed a certification with the court that contends her parents jointly decided on Oct. 29, 2013 that as of Nov. 1 — her 18th birthday — she would be cut off “from all support both financially and emotionally.” She said in her papers that Morris Catholic advised her not to return home and contacted the state Division of Child Protection and Permanency (known as DCP&P and formerly as DYFS) after Rachel alleged abuse.

“My parents have rationalized their actions by blaming me for not following their rules,” Rachel said in her court papers. “They stopped paying my high school tuition to punish the school and me and have redirected my college fund, indicating their refusal to afford me an education as a punishment.”

Morris Catholic President Michael St. Pierre said in a certification to the court that the school did call DCP&P based upon some allegations by Rachel and “some difficult meetings between Rachel and Mr. Canning.”

The court record also includes a letter from Morris Catholic English instructor and campus minister Kathleen Smith, who wrote that she was a witness to a rough encounter between Rachel and her mother in mid-October 2013 and heard Elizabeth Canning call her daughter a foul name and say she didn’t want to speak to her daughter again.

“Rachel has excellent grades and will not be removed from the school for this nonpayment; however, her parents do have a contractual obligation to pay. . . . . "

Please explain exactly what this abuse was.

Thanks.

Do we really think those allegations shouldn't at least be seriously considered?

But the article I linked to before just says that the school observed the father's interactions with the girl, that the school advised her not to go home.

All I'm saying is that we don't have the facts, and it bothers me that so many here are automatically jumping to the conclusion that the parents are telling the truth and the girl isn't. Let the judge decide.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572711/Father-spoiled-high-school-cheerleader-18-suing-parents-claims-daughter-ran-away-believed-better-own.html

The girl is 18. She made her bed, now she has to lie in it.

IMHO, she is going to regret filing this lawsuit for many reasons.

Don't you think those allegations should at least be investigated?

What physical abuse?

Wasn't this abuse already investigated? Nothing was found, no?

Parents should pay HS tuition and college too....but nothing else.

I believe the friend's father/attorney should have stayed out of the entire situation.

And CPS did investigate, but we only know what the father said about the investigation (that she was "spoiled" -- which doesn't sound like something a social worker would say -- to me.). But in any case, CPS is tremendously overstretched and is not going to spend its resources on a girl who was almost or already 18. She's not their problem anymore.

Why should the attorneys have stayed out of the situation? If money that was gifted to her is being withheld now, the only way to get it is through legal action.

It's easy for me to believe the daughter's story is true because I know that having a wealthy family doesn't protect a child from abuse. We have a young woman living with us right now who was abused -- no question -- her other relatives confirmed it to me. No one in her extended family ever offered to help her though, so she finally escaped and came to us. What did her relatives tell me? That her adoptive mother put her to work for her wealthy relatives -- that she was treated like an indentured servant -- while she was in high school. As a consequence, she didn't graduate. Since coming to us she's gotten her GED and she's almost finished an Associates Degree.

So now I see this other wealthy family, determined to keep this girl from finishing her education. I don't see much love there. Rachel's family seems to be all about control. I'm glad she has allies in her school and in the families of her friends.

her parents' problem.

Sure, sue for the college tuition money, but nothing else.

She needs to get a job.

She didn't like her parents' rules. Lets see how she like the rules in the real world.

immediately discounting that?

Her parents should pay her HS tuition and ethically, should pay for college. Other than that.......

Just read that she was suspended from school twice last year, ignores her curfew, bullies her sisters and is supposed to be taking medication.

Not being argumentative, but I really don't understand why it's a moral obligation for parents to pay for an adult child's college education.