will never really know if their children love them . . . or their money. I guess that's fine with them.

but rather, parents refusing to enable a spoiled child.

For a brief moment, at the age of 16, BabyGirl 1SBM fell under the spell of a slightly of a classmate who fed her with thoughts of "you have rights", "you don't have to let your parents control your life" and "you're grown ... You can make your own discussions."

The immediate effect was BabyGirl 1SBM began talking back, refused to do her assigned chores, refused to honor her curfew AND demanded that Mrs. 1SBM and I fund her nightly adventures.

My response was to let her know, in no uncertain terms, that if she wanted to be grown, as demonstrated by her conduct, she could go be grown and do what grown folks do ... get a job, find someplace else to live and suffer by/in her own choices and decisions; but she would have to find someplace else to do it and on someone else's dime.

wasn't going to her school and accusing you of physical abuse.

We don't know most of the facts in this case. Maybe this girl was like your daughter, and just going through an entitled phase . . . or maybe she has abusive parents, as her school and the parents of her friends seem to think.

All we have to go on are some conflicting claims in some news articles.

But I think it's telling that after this school fulfilled its legal obligation to report allegations of child abuse, the parents struck back at the school by reneging on the enrollment contract and attempting to disrupt this girl's senior year.

was the schools reporting before or after the young woman left the home. And what the specific allegations of abuse entailed. Timing and details are important.

For example, during this period I got a visit from the local child protective services because the school reported physical abuse. The story behind the abuse: I grabbed BabyGirl 1SBM by the arm and pulled her out of my car after I told her that she couldn't go to a party; but she took the keys and was going to go anyway. She suffered a bruise on her wrist and a skinned knee.

and another between the mother and the daughter, and reported the girl's allegation of physical and emotional abuse to CPS. Also, they advised her to move out, according to the reports.

There aren't any details about the abuse except that the mother was yelling at the daughter using foul language (which is ironic because the parents accused the girl of being disrespectful.) So there's no way for any of us to know.

Maybe this is all overblown and maybe it isn't. But if it isn't, it wouldn't be the first case of a cop bringing thuggish behavior home.

Anyway, to answer your question, I think the school advised her to leave and reported her allegations at approximately the same time. And after that, the parents withheld further tuition payments.

I guess I'll have to pay attention.

That was a month after I graduated.

Without knowing this posters childhood, why wouldn't they expect some help when they get old? Do you know how they treated the poster for the first 18 years of their life? It is kind of sad that you place such little value on that. You keep making grand assumptions with ZERO information.

That said, you are correct that there are a lot of unknowns here. Unfortunately this is exactly what happens to many children in foster care and it is a tragedy, and it is also a tragedy if a family does this to a biological or adopted child. The question of whether or not there is any obligation for a child in that situation to care for the parents in their old age seems almost beside the point. One thing is clear to me though, as a parent I cannot fathom a situation where you would throw out an 18 year old without some really compelling reason - such as violent behavior toward other family members, repeated substance abuse, etc. The reasons cited by the dad - being disrespectful, breaking curfew, bad choice in boyfriend, etc. don't appear to rise to that level but of course we don't know all of the facts. Hopefully the courts will be able to sort it out.

How many children leave their parents house at the age of 18 every year in this country? That is not really significant information with respect to drawing the conclusion of "deadbeat parents" as the post I am responding to suggests.

I do agree with just about everything you posted. It is very insightful that you bring foster children into the mix. Very thought provoking. It would be great if foster children had an account set up for them an funds were put into it each year of foster care(yes, I am pulling this out of my ass).

"The question of whether or not there is any obligation for a child in that situation to care for the parents in their old age seems almost beside the point."

That was the point of my reply. Attempting to link the two is truly a straw man argument. It seems that particular poster will continue to go after others for making judgments all while making extremely harsh judgments herself. They attempted to link two things that are completely imaginary.

Once again, I like how you brought foster care into it. That should be a discussion of its own.

I think you underestimate how often it happens. It's especially common in households with rigid, authoritarian parents, and they'll also be much more likely to hold to the ignorant, outdated notion that 18 is an adult and that's that, bootstraps and all, with no care and consideration. Just because the law is on the side of parents like that doesn't make them morally right. They often rely on the fact that some other softy bleeding heart will probably take care of their kid, probably the parent of a friend, and don't care that it is imposing on them. They're self centered my way or the highway types that basically don't give a crap about anyone else but themselves.

To the point of calling them dead beats and wishing the child ditches them when they get older. That is what this poster is doing. Since you believe there is enough information in this case for the poster to make those claims, please provide it. Not sure how I underestimate how often it happens when my point was that it happens a lot.

Just stating the fact that parents made a decision to kick a kid out isn't zero information. I wouldn't go as far as the poster did. But I certainly wouldn't be gearing up for parent of the year award either.

There is not enough information to go on. There is zero information available that would lead to the parents being called dead beats. There is zero information that would lead an educated person to hope the child ditches her parents in their old age.

"Just stating the fact that parents made a decision to kick a kid out isn't zero information" With respect to the ops claims, it is zero information. The information they are attempting to use is not linkable to their claims. Just because information is offered does not mean that it is relevant.

For one thing, I don't think parents are entitled to anything from their kids. And certainly not if the kids are kicked out of their home. So, not zero information. I think any kid who gets kicked out of their home, for any reason? Is entirely reasonable and forgiven if they give a hearty f you to their parents from that point on. And I kind of feel that way too Grantetd, sometimes things are extreme, and parents feel they were driven to that decision. But at that point? I don't htink they expect anything from that child, do they? I wouldn't think so.

Your post here has gone in a completely different direction from your original argument. I have no comment on this post as it veers from the original reply.

I don't see how that's so. It isn't reasonable and responsible for a parent to kick out an 18 year old. So I'm not seeing how it's "zero information" Your objection to anyone withdrawing support from a parent who has done so, or thinking a child should or would be jistified in doing so, because the fact they kicked them out is "zero information" is what I do not agree with. I might not personally do that myself. But since my parents didn't treat me that way I have no idea. But I do not blame anyone one bit for doing so. How that has left your point? I have not a clue.

that they signed last spring that obliges them to pay the full tuition for the year.

All schools have such contracts because it's the only way they can hire teachers and budget ahead of time.

Making those types of judgments off of this limited information is irresponsible. Why aren't you using the limited information about the young girl in order to tar her?

I don't get how you so easily judge others.

Shocking, huh?

who said that after his birthday he was told it was YoYo time. I wouldn't blame that DUer if he reminded them of that if they ever need help.

With regard to the girl in the OP, I said her parents were deadbeats because, even though they signed a contract and have the means, they're reneging on their contract with the school. Their poor relationship with her doesn't give them the right to cancel the enrollment contract.

And they did that after the school reported the abuse allegation, as they are required to by law. The parents were trying to penalize the school for following the child protection laws. That's not a good idea.

Most 18 year olds are not qualified for anything other than low-paying, minimum wage jobs. In my community, you would not be able to afford a place to live on that, and certainly not be able to support yourself with food, medical care, ect.

So, while it may have once been okay to throw an 18 year old out and say, "Yer' on you're your own now," back when anybody could just go and get a good paying job at a factory somewhere, today it's downright cruel to do so. You're condemning that young person to a very tough existence, and there is nothing responsible or loving in that.

that backs up this posters need to call the parents dead beats and to hope the child ditches them when they get older. That is what I was directly replying to. What information in the articles did you find with respect to this case that I did not?

But I will repeat it to you. The fact that the parents of the individual in question were willing to cut off all support to him at 18 was viewed as a bad parental decision by the poster in question and amounted to child abandonment. Even though in the eyes of the law it is not, many would consider that in today's tough economy and the lack of affordable housing, it is wrong to just abandon young adults and leave them to the mercy of an uncertain world.

I believe that's what led to the poster calling them deadbeats. You may or may not agree with this, but at least try and act like you understand why now.

Or kicked out right after their birthdays. And a parent who would deal harshly with their child should be prepared for the same treatment later on. What goes around, comes around.

who was pissed I was not going on to college immediately at that age allowing her access to Social Security Survivor benefits from me another few years until I turned twenty one.

You are right on how this sort of hard feeling last. I could of gone to her funeral as some of my five siblings bothered to do. But I didn't waste my time.

they shouldn't be surprised when their kids don't love them back.

And children don't need their parents to be perfect. Most children desperately want to be loved. But some parents are too wrapped up in their own problems to be even adequate parents.

Though that's clearly not the case with the parents of the young woman in the OP, I know many kids who were told that they'd be on their own as soon as they turned 18 if they weren't in high school and those that were in high school knew that they were on their own a month after graduation. Families on welfare in particular had this happen, but others did this too. Now they told their kids this years before, it wasn't a birthday surprise.

room and board.

Last edited Tue Mar 4, 2014, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)

The program rules often make it impossible to let the kid stay and pay board. For low income families who aren't receiving aid, it may be an issue of cramped living space. Neither of those reasons is a sign of family dysfunction. Bear in mind I'm not talking about parents who announce that the kid is on his/her own for the first time when the kid turns 18th. Kids grow up understanding this expectation.

You don't see a difference between having your own place and own rent vs cutting a check, maybe, to mommy every month?

It is not a reasonable expectation for an 18 yr old to have to be on their own. Paying room and board to your parents is a reasonable thing to do at 18 - having to be entirely on your own is something else again. There are even situations where all will agree that it is best for the 18 yr old to be out of the house - not the same as cutting off the 18 yr old. As I said, functional families sit down and work out a solution.

... but there has to be a line at some point.

The mere fact that someone is related to you does not entitle them to eternal rights to dictate your life. It's up to each individual and group to determine where that line is.

Only door mats don't have a line because they are "family."

There is a particular American cultural attitude in some areas of the country that once the child gets old enough to "take care of him/herself", the parent is perfectly justified in kicking them out to complete the transference into adulthood. And they consider it easier if the child "didn't turn out" the way they wanted him or her to. Then maybe the child will "learn his or her lesson" and maybe come crawling back like the Prodigal Son for adult approval.

Ultimately, the justification for that sort of thing is the attitude that your parents are only there to raise you to be an adult - now go be an adult, because taking care of a person is something that is done for children or the weak.
It's especially prevalent amongst Libertarians or "adults" who never really grew up themselves and couldn't really handle the responsibility to raise children in the first place. These are the people who honestly feel that once the kid stopped being fun and began being a chore, it wasn't really worth having them around anymore.

Haele

I'm sure there's a story. There always is.

Despite turning 18, few parents kick their newly adult child right out - at that age and because they just reached it. Some kids may want to go, so I suppose that could be a factor. Legally, it is their right, but most of us think more sentimentally of that relationship in our current culture. The 18 year old might want to take off, but the parents usually don't kick an unwilling 18 year old onto the street unless there's some real coldness there. If they are poor, they still don't do that.

Or am I not remembering the parents' version correctly?

than does the previous version. Ao far I have not seen enpugh information to judge who is rightous in this situation.

resolve the question of who is right. It will be interesting to see how the judge rules in light of all the evidence.

But if her college funds are in a Uniform Gift to Minors Account with her name on it, they can't take it back. The only person they could spend the money on would be her.

Since when are parents legally obliged to pay for a college education (and at some very expensive schools)?
Over half of the parents in this nation can't do that right now.

can't afford it. And if they did gift it to her already, they can't ungift it.

When judges have ordered college tuition to be paid, it's affected divorcing, wealthy parents who had raised their children with the expectation that they'd be going to college. The laws in some states support this. The idea is that a parents' divorce shouldn't penalize their children. But it only affects people wealthy enough to pay for college.

If they established an account for her education, and if they gifted it or took any kind of tax deduction, then the money should be used for her further education. The state has a vested interest in seeing her (and all youth) be able to support themselves.

The school can probably sue the parents. I bet they signed a contract.

in the spring. They have to, because they need to know they can count on income before they hire teachers, etc.

They should absolutely be on the hook for any tuition and any withdrawal charges. I would suspect they could have left at the semester (maybe with a withdrawal charge - a lot of students graduate in December). I would have given my daughter the opportunity to register in their local school district at that point to finish her High School education.

If the money was in a 529 owned by the parents, that is the parent's money. They have every right to spend it as they see fit (transfer the name to another family member for example or take the tax hit and remove the money for general use).

You cannot use contract law for a minor. She cannot form contracts prior to being 18. Even statements of desire to help with college would be difficult to prove a contractual obligation.

Can you imagine what this country would look like, with all 18 year olds making financial demands of every sort?

But these particular parents have the money and so it's more of a moral question - quite unusual for parents who spent money on private school not to fund the education, so in this case, it appears to be using money for control. It seems they intended her to have what practically every other middle class family wants their children to have and doesn't do merely because they think they are legally required, which they are not.

Also if she is still in high school they may have a duty to support her in the state's law, up to some ceiling age providing for the cases of those who don't finish high school.

IRA in her name.

kind of 'college fund' there is. There is only a vague reference from the child.

So after that-


Non issue for the courts

She's not in college, nor has she picked a college is what I gather from the articles.

since they signed an enrollment contract last spring.

Unless you have a link saying they signed a contract and what the contract says we don't know what the parents signed between them and the high school. If the parents signed a contract saying they'd pay tuition, then it should be the high school suing the parents for breach of contract.

are obligated to pay teachers and other costs. They have to be able to plan in advance..

Besides, the school has indicated that there is one, and that the parents "stopped paying." Meaning they had partially paid, and then they stopped.

I'm sure the high school will sue for breach of contract if they have to, but they're waiting to see the result of this. If they can get a payment straight from the daughter, they won't have to go to court against the parents.

Least of all someone with enough money to pay even the dumbest financial advisor. First of all, if it is in a UGTMA account, it is included in the financial aid formula at 100%, versus a small percentage if it is deemed to be an asset of the parents. Second, most everyone saving for college in a structured plan with anything significant use a 529 plan, which is CLEARLY defined in IRC Sec. 529.

Drop the UGTMA "point." It is NOT valid.

So do other parents.

She is 18 and I believe 529's came into existence in 1996. If they continued to contribute to a 529 in a this manner instead of setting up a new 529, they are dumbshits.

You most likely give up any state tax benefit of contributions, as that goes to the account holder (non-taxpaying kids in this case). Plus what happens if a kid decides to not go to school or gets scholarships? Given the loss of tax savings and inflexibility using a UGTMA account provides, it would make zero sense to use one.

Has nothing to do with controlling kids. However, I find it interesting that you think kids are entitled to a free college education no matter their behavior.

the girl was being truthful when she said her parents were physically and emotionally abusive. Even though the school reported they saw behavior on the parents part that concerned them.

The CPS closed the case -- because she's 18. Other than that, we don't know anything.

I fail to see how that entitles one to adult expenses being covered for the next 5 years.

they closed the case because they found no merit to her allegations.

You have to take additional steps to intentinally steps set up a UGTMA 529, which is exceptionally rare. No one who knew what a UGTMA is and what it is intended for would do it.

So if they don't use it that way, will have to pay the taxes on withdrawal. Unless they can rollover somehow. See complicated IRS regs to figure that out.

1. Use it for qualified expenses for the designated person
2. Change the designated person to someone else
3. Withdrawal, pay all taxes, plus penalties.

a 529 account unless it was a hybrid UGM/529 account that had her name on it.

So they couldn't change the designee in that case.

Tax breaks ARE however given for contributions to a normal 529.

which would be taxed at the child's lower rate rather than the parent's.

If that account was rolled into a 529, then the new hybrid account would have to have that child's name on it.

Thus, you are wrong. There are no tax benefits to a 529 being in a UGTMA.

That said, you may want to beef up on the kiddie tax. If you took advantage of what you think is true based on your post, you may have some returns that need amending.

Seriously, not to sound bad, but I have 15 years experience as a tax CPA. I am pretty sure I know what I am talking about here.

I described what the benefits were of a UGM with respect to the income -- being taxed at the child's lower rate. Then I pointed out that if the money in an old UGM account got legally transferred to a new 529, then it would still have to have the child's name on it. These are two separate issues.

My response to the original post made complete sense in context. You then came along and posted something about "unless it is in a UGTMA." I said that was not valid, as it was clear from his original post that that would not be the case. And not it has devolved into this.

before then often used the UGM accounts, and kept them.

the family now has a more important place for the money to go.


Their attorneys.

it's a family matter. I could know these people my whole life and still not want to judge who is righteous. Let alone a couple of news articles.

And keep in mind that everything we're hearing is after it's been framed by lawyers on both sides.

to prove that the society that does not follow right wing rules produces horrible people. They are not interested in further details either.

Not that the story is bad but you can't read it on a mobile device? It keeps skipping out of it.

They sound like control freaks. I have a friend whose parents are still control freaks (we are in our 40s). They will offer to help her and her husband pay for big life things if they make choices they'd prefer. It's horrible, and she always says no (now). Though it took her longer than most to start saying no to them.

My father, who had spent my entire teenage years telling me he would disown me if I ever dated outside my race, if I ever had an abortion, if I ever became an atheist, etc. etc., hit me in the face during an argument. He had hit my mother when I was younger and had supposedly reformed. If there's one thing I learned growing up, it's that you can never let a man* hit you twice--not even your father. So I quit my job, dropped out of school, and left the state.

I did not at that time know how to drive, and I was far from capable of being fully independent. Even so, I did not ask for and would not have accepted any financial support from him. As a consequence I lived at times without running water, shared rice with my dogs a time or two...at one point I seriously considered heading to the truck stop to sell my virginity. It was a hard road.

Ten years later, and with a considerable amount of luck and social support, I have graduated magna cum laude from a well-regarded Liberal Arts College and I am working at a job I love that pays me enough to make a living. But I came damn close to death, more than once. I am alive and thriving even because I was damned lucky. That's it.



(*replace gender as necessary. In my own childhood, I primarily witnessed male aggression against women and children, and because I am a heterosexual woman, the potential partners who I need to screen for abusive behaviors happen to be male. I am aware that this is not the case for everyone, and in the case of this story there is at least one independent account of the mother acting in verbally abusive ways towards her daughter.)

I am sorry for what happened to you and proud of what you have accomplished.

antigone. Sorry about the pain you went through. You should be proud of who you are and what you've accomplished!

And she says her first choice for college is a private university in Vermont. If she wants to live by her own rules she needs to learn how to make adult choices--and that includes living within her means. A public high school and a local community college and later a state university will meet her needs.

I doubt that the college fund, if it even exists as a separate account, is set up in her name. Otherwise there would be no argument, she would simply go to the bank and get the money.

In the end I hope the court gives her the advice to move back home, follow reasonable rules, and attend the local community college.

Couldn't have said it better!!!

How is your partner doing?

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1060388

I'd forgotten. Long time ago. Not flamebait.

Partner is doing well. Thanks.

I mean, the point you make is this... If you are required to pay child support, shouldn't you legally be able to just wait it out without actually meeting your obligation to your dependent?

And of course this thought is repugnant. How could it be seen in any other way?

My thread was from almost a year ago.

And that wasn't my point at all.

And I don't care that the post was a year ago. You made a claim that another poster was misrepresenting you, the other poster gave you the link, and you denied the very plain fact that your post was disgusting.

If you were making some other point in the year-old post, it's impossible to see. It simply looks like you think deadbeat divorcees should just get a free pass if child support poses any kind of inconvenience.

have a nice life caveman...

I know it's a radical worldview that requires one to satisfy one's own obligations. Sorry you had to tolerate such talk.

just ask my biological father. I'm 35, D is 33 and Crash is 27 and BioDad will be playing child support until the day he dies because after the original support he withheld, court fees and interest, he'll never make enough money to get out from under the lien against his assets and pension.

Pepperidge Farm remembers!

nt

A post from 2011? Don't you people have lives?

Stick to the issue at hand.

So she has her money for college and is on her own...


Now the court can fine the lawyer filing the case for wasting their time

Have no idea...

I'm sure they will all be okay in the morning though.



Now the young folks in Ukraine and Venezuela.....

And that CPS said she was "spoiled."

CPS wouldn't be involved anymore because she is over 18. But "spoiled" doesn't sound like a real quote to me. And the school, based on its observed interactions, was concerned enough to report them.

No one's asking that you post here instead of limiting yourself to posts about the rest of the world.

I'm deleting memory files from this story...



Replacing with this

GRANDPA BEAT DOWN PRANK (GONE WRONG)

it's titled and what money went into it.

because it's unlikely that she would be accepted for graduation mid-term of the last term of senior year, so she would have to continue in high school next year.

2)University of Vermont is a public university.

If the court declares her emancipated she would be offered more scholarship money than she's been offered now because of her non-existent income. Whether that would be enough to attend a college of her choice, I don't know. The worse situation for her is that the court declares her dependent and that her parents aren't obligated to turn over her college fund.

to the school. So even if she went to a public school, the parents still owe that money. The school hired teachers, etc., based on a certain number of enrollment contracts. Parents who don't want to pay -- no matter what happens -- have the option of purchasing tuition insurance, but even that usually disappears by the time the child has started the school year.

And in NJ college fund accounts might not be fully accessible till a student is 21. Before that, it's in the hands of a custodian, who is usually a parent. They can only spend a UGM account on the child, however.

The father says the daughter accused them of physical and emotional abuse, and the school, having observed her interactions with them, advised her to move out. I don't know why anyone would ASSUME that the parents' story is the truthful one. I don't think we know enough to decide, but I hope the judge will.