-
New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
this is new ... and potentially dangerous ... from
Before reading this, be aware that this latest court ruling won't be the 'end', thus the matter is far from 'over' ...
(snip)"Judge rules against NJ teen who sued parents for financial support
MORRISTOWN — A Superior Court judge today refused to order a Lincoln Park couple to pay private school and college tuition for their 18-year-old daughter who moved out of their house and is suing for financial support.
"Do we want to establish a precedent where parents live in basic fear of establishing rules of the house?" Family Division Judge Peter Bogaard asked.
Rachel Canning, a senior at Morris Catholic High School, went to court to force her parents, Sean and Elizabeth Canning, to pay her child support, her private school tuition, medical and related bills, college expenses and legal fees. Canning is an honor student and athlete, but her parents have stopped paying her bills because, they say, she would not obey their rules.
Bogaard refused to issue the requested emergency order, which would have awarded the teen more than $600 a week.
The judge said no emergency exists because Morris Catholic has said Canning may continue attending the school despite her tuition not being paid, and because the final deadline of May 1 has not yet arrived for college applications. Morris Catholic’s annual tuition is $12,700; Rachel owes $5,306, court papers say.
Allowing the emergency order "would represent essentially a new law or a new way of interpreting an existing law," Bogaard said. "A kid could move out and then sue for an XBox, an iPhone or a 60-inch television."
The judge’s decision followed a more than two-hour hearing in Morristown. The Cannings and their daughter sat on opposite sides of the courtroom, rarely exchanging glances. Both sides appeared tense and sad. Several of Rachel Canning’s friends were seated in the gallery.
Bogaard scheduled another hearing for April 22. The case may be headed for trial on the key issue of whether Rachel Canning was "emancipated" from her parents when she defied their order to stop seeing her boyfriend and instead moved out of their house on Oct. 30, two days before she turned 18.
Rachel Canning said in court papers that she has been living for the past four months at the home of her best friend, the daughter of Morris County attorney and former Freeholder John Inglesino, who has "advanced" her legal fees.
Her parents countered that she voluntarily left home because she didn’t want to abide by house rules, such as being respectful, keeping a curfew, doing a few chores and ending a relationship with a boyfriend they said was a bad influence.
Sean Canning is a retired chief of police in Lincoln Park and current business administrator for the township of Mount Olive. Elizabeth Canning is a legal secretary at McElroy, Deutsch, court papers state.
Rachel remains "unemancipated," or dependent on her parents, because she needs their support to complete her education at Morris Catholic and to pay for her college education, her attorney, Tanya Helfand, said.
Helfand is focusing on getting financial information from the parents that will show they have the ability to pay for their daughter, but are avoiding those responsibilities. Sean and Elizabeth Canning were ordered to produce information about their incomes, including their 2011 and 2012 tax returns and their last three pay stubs. That information will remain private.
"Normal, healthy people want to help their children," Helfand said. "The Cannings simply don’t want to pay. They want to strip their daughter of her opportunities."
She said the Cannings treated their daughter in an "abnormal" way that made it "untenable" for her to stay in the house. For instance, Helfand said, Sean Canning would not allow Rachel to have a boyfriend while a senior in high school.Rachel Canning also claims her parents are abusive, contributed to an eating disorder she developed and pushed her to get a basketball scholarship.
The parents’ attorney, Laurie Rush-Masuret, countered that Rachel could easily have stayed at the house, which she said had "a loving, nurturing environment.
"She voluntarily decided to leave because she didn’t like the rules they were imposing," Rush-Masuret said, and that makes her "emancipated."
If Rachel was granted her emergency order, "other young women will say to their parents, ‘I’m going to live with my boyfriend, no matter what you say, but you’ll still have to pay for my college,’" Rush-Masuret said.
The parents have no obligation to pay child support or their daughter’ private school tuition, Rush-Masuret argued, adding that they don’t want to pay her college tuition because they weren’t consulted about the applications.
However, she said, the parents will continue to pay Rachel’s health insurance and said she is also entitled to money in a college fund, which would pay part of her expenses.
Documents submitted by Rachel Canning and her attorney said she has been admitted to several colleges, and "deadlines to accept are imminent."(snip)
The 'kicker' from this whole incident arguably involves the 'slippery slope' issue of emancipation. IRS / FAFSA rules now define student children to be dependents of their parents up to age 24. The ACA now defines children to be dependents of their parents up to age 26. Thus a previously unasked and unanswered legal question now exists ...
If an 18 year old child decides to move out of the parents' home, the parents have no legal standing to force that 18 year old child to move back home. But does the fact that the 18 year old child has chosen to no longer reside in the parents' home, thus the parents are no longer able to exercise 'control' over that 18 year old child, also 'absolve' the parents of legal / financial responsibility to continue to provide for that child as long as the child legally remains their dependent ?
Obviously the judge in this case recognized the 'slippery slope' precedent a favorable ruling for the 18 year old child could set. As such, this judge 'side-stepped' having to make a decision based on the technicality that no 'emergency' exists because the girl's private high school has allowed her to continue attendance without 2014's tuition yet being paid. However, that 'side-step' won't work for much longer, as the May 1 College Acceptance deadline is fast approaching.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
I couldn't imagine pulling something like this.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
I watched the clip from the news on this, and was in disbelief. I don't know how she could do that to her own family.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
^^^ and if that wasn't 'shocking' enough, this girl is following up with an 'imaginative' PR campaign ... from
(snip)"The spoiled New Jersey teen who took her parents to court is now taking their entire generation to task.
On a Facebook page believed to belong to Rachel Canning, there was a self-righteous Facebook rant Friday slamming her parents’ generation — ironically enough — as greedy and entitled.
“Suburban baby boomer types are the spoiled lot, they make massive amount of money a year, they are used to flying to luxury destinations when they want, and buy things that they don't need, people should be inclined to see things my way,” someone claiming to be Canning wrote in an early morning outburst on Friday.(snip)
The senior honor student at Morris Catholic High School expressed hatred to the children who lived through the summer of love.
The now-middle-aged parents prefer “retiring into some fantasy world rather than provide for their children's college and young adult years,” she said in the unexpected commentary, which expanded to making sweeping statements about the current state of the job market.
“In today's economy there are no more meaningful jobs and without family help it's usually military or bust,” read the rant.(snip)
A follow-up hearing is scheduled for April 22, when the judge will decide if parents Sean and Elizabeth Canning will be required to pay college tuition for their estranged daughter.
But the decision likely will hinge on whether the legal adult daughter willingly left the home - or was tossed out by unloving and potentially abusive parents, as Rachel Canning alleges in court documents.
“I see parents like this every day, children were always an accessory to them and nothing more, once that accessory grew up and went out of fashion, much like a marriage that people allegedly commit to, the child becomes a throwaway, that's just how it is,” Canning wrote on Friday.(snip)
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
“But the decision likely will hinge on whether the legal adult daughter willingly left the home - or was tossed out by unloving and potentially abusive parents, as Rachel Canning alleges in court documents.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
That makes no sense at all. She is an adult. The obligation to support her has ended.. It makes no difference where she lives.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
this is ridiculous, and the college tuition rules are ridiculous as well! 26 fucking years old? i've been outta the house for years, i would hope by 26 i would be considered a legal adult capable of paying my own tuition. this was always the problem i faced when wanting to attend college..they went by what my parents made, although they could not/would not pay for my tuition ( and they shouldn't HAVE to either), so it was always a huge roadblock that kept me from getting into major debt based on what my parents had, not what i MYSELF had. i think the whole thing is a joke.
and i cannot believe she would do that to her own parents.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
Quote:
“But the decision likely will hinge on whether the legal adult daughter willingly left the home - or was tossed out by unloving and potentially abusive parents, as Rachel Canning alleges in court documents.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
That makes no sense at all. She is an adult. The obligation to support her has ended.. It makes no difference where she lives.
^^^ she may be an 'adult' ... but IRS / FAFSA says that, short of getting married or joining the military, if she attends college she is still a 'dependent' of her parents until age 24 no matter where she lives. Similarly, the ACA says that, short of getting married or joining the military, if she is still a 'dependent' of her parents until age 26 for purposes of employer health insurance coverage no matter where she lives. if she is still a 'dependent', does that or does that not create a legal responsibility for the parents to provide for that 'dependent' ?
Also, the 'opinion' about the court decision being heavily dependent on the daughter voluntarily leaving versus being 'tossed out' comes from a news reporter ... and may or may not actually be material to the court's eventual decision. The IRS / FAFSA definition of college student dependent status, and the ACA definition of ( college student ) dependent status, have nothing to do with where the college student dependent actually resides, or with the reasons she decided to no longer reside in the parents' home.
If nothing else, this will be interesting to watch !!!
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
I don't see how that can make her a dependent for child support purposes. That is a matter of state law.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
^^^ well, under NJ state law, college student children are eligible for child support up to at least age 21 ... and she's only 18. There is also family court precedent that college student children have sometimes been allowed ongoing child support until they graduate from a 4-5 year program i.e. age 22 / 23. Newburgh v. Newburgh, 88 N.J. 529, 443 A.2d 1031 (1982) held that the court has jurisdiction to award a payment of support and expenses of a child attending college even though the child has reached the age of majority.
The new curve ball, of course, is that the child support payments are being directly sought by the college student child ( as opposed to a divorced / separated parent on behalf of the child ).
Quote:
this was always the problem i faced when wanting to attend college..they went by what my parents made, although they could not/would not pay for my tuition .... so it was always a huge roadblock that kept me from getting into major debt based on what my parents had, not what i MYSELF had.
Indeed, in this situation, without being legally emancipated via marriage, by joining the military etc., this girl will not be eligible for low income tuition rates, for FAFSA grant money etc. because of her parents' high income. And that remains the case no matter where the girl lives.
However a potential question would be whether or not this girl is a college student. Considering that several colleges have already accepted her application, and considering that the parents have already agreed to 'turn over' the money in her college savings fund ( which would cover at least one semester's worth of college tuition regardless of the availability of low income tuition rates, FAFSA grant money, etc. ), for all intents and purposes yes she is a college student.
Don't you just love 'slippery slopes' !!!
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
Newburgh was modification of an existing order. I have not found the full text, but there is a difference between modification of an existing order and the creation of a new cause of action.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
^^^ Newburgh still established that the NJ family court has jurisdiction to award tuition and other college expense costs to a child who has reached the age of majority. And that position isn't unique to NJ either NY has a somewhat similar precedent
(snip)"most courts today would order college-educated parents to pay for (or at least contribute to) a college education for a child that demonstrates scholastic aptitude, provided they have the financial ability to do so.
When you have your affairs settled by a court, you give up your parental discretion, and the court must substitute its own discretion. As a point of example, Bill and Melinda Gates would be well within their rights to decline to pay for their child's education. They could But in a child support proceeding, the court would substitute its own judgment. And it's overwhelmingly likely that if Melinda sought a court order requiring Bill to contribute to the college expenses (or vice versa), she would get it.
One court described the law, and then the facts before it, as follows (citations omitted for purposes of readability):
"Absent a voluntary agreement between the parties regarding the financing of a minor child's college education, a parent may not be directed to contribute towards his child's college education unless special circumstances exist. In determining whether special circumstances exist, courts should consider (1) the educational background of the parents, (2) the child's academic ability, and (3) the parent's financial ability to provide the necessary funds. Here, although there was no express agreement compelling respondent to contribute to his children's college expenses, respondent concedes that "the parties intended to make some provision for [the children's] college education." Additionally, the record indicates that both parties are college graduates and that respondent possesses the financial ability to pay for his children's education. Under these circumstances, Family Court clearly did not abuse its discretion in upholding the Hearing Examiner's determination in this regard." Healy v. Healy, 3rd Dept 1993.(snip)
One court explained:
"The parents are both college graduates and the appellant has the financial ability to provide the necessary funds to defray college tuition and incidental expenses not already covered by the son's scholarships, grants and loans. The amount of tuition that is not satisfied by scholarships and loans is $1,564 per year and the shortage for incidental expenses, such as the costs of books and commuting, is over $1,500 per year." Haimowitz v. Gerber, (2nd Dept, 1989). (snip)
Nonwithstanding the fact that college tuitions and related expenses have increased greatly since 1989, in this situation the girl's parents are both college graduates ( based on the published parents' job descriptions ) and they obviously have the financial means to cover her college costs without undue hardship. Additionally, the parents had already made some provision for their child's college education via establishment of a college savings fund. And the girl has obviously demonstrated scholastic aptitude, having already been accepted at several colleges. Thus, again, the only arguable difference between this girl and the college student children involved in cited earlier cases is that she is directly seeking this child support ( versus one divorced / separated parent seeking this child support on the child's behalf ).
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
I would further speculate that failure of the NJ court to award the student daughter the costs of college tuition and related expenses would result in direct and tangible financial harm to the student daughter. Because of IRS / FAFSA definitions of dependent status, not only would the student daughter be denied low income tuition rates and low income FAFSA student grant amounts, but she would also be penalized by the IRS should she attempt to earn the money to pay her own way through college. As a 'mandatory' dependent, she would wind up paying a much higher effective federal and state income tax rate on her income. As a 'mandatory' dependent, she would be denied tuition tax credits and other tax credits as well.
Thus, arguably, thanks to IRS / FAFSA, an unfavorable ruling by the NJ court would effectively guarantee that the daughter will be financially unable to attend college through her own efforts ... at least until the point where she reaches age 24 and achieves 'emancipated' status in the eyes of the IRS / FAFSA. Or stated another way, based on their definition of 'dependent', the IRS / FAFSA 'expect' the parents of any unmarried student child who is not a member of the military to contribute toward the child's tuition and related costs.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
"Newburgh still established that the NJ family court has jurisdiction to award tuition and other college expense costs to a child who has reached the age of majority." You have to take that in the context of the rest of the case. It had jurisdiction over an existing order, and that is crucial. At any rate it is a matter of statute.
Example
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...ild+support%22
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
The statutes that parents must provide support until age 22-23 is frankly ridiculous. And the PR argument that parents are entitled and selfish....wow. The judge got it right - unless the parents are shown to be abusive, their judgment is what I'd defer to 100x out of 100 over a court.
While I defended those adults who stay at home with their parents when they are adults, so long as they keep up their responsibilities and are there for very clear reasons (either cultural or financial hardship) - this is just ridiculous. If anything screamed of a textbook example of the Peter Pan generation, this is it.
For full disclosure, I have my kids' college plans laid out support-wise - but there would be several different ways I could see that changing - I would not fund a "free ride" through college, or poor behaviour choices. My support would be based on them succeeding, working hard, and having some direction for their college/uni life - not a "I need to find myself there" 4-year journey. There is no way in hell I would let a court dictate to me what to do if I ever came to that choice.
Ironically, if the daughter wants a huge fight, the parents' legal bills will probably allow them to claim they can't afford to support college.
/smh
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
New Jersey is a bit different from Texas ..... from
(snip)"Last month a New Jersey teenager estranged from her parents filed a lawsuit seeking living and schooling costs from them. The case has focused attention on the question of whether parents - even those who are not divorced or separated - owe their children a higher education.
New Jersey is among the states that have gone furthest in deciding that they do. In 1982 the state's supreme court ruled that college can be considered a necessity. Subsequent court cases and New Jersey state laws have established that financially capable parents in divorce cases can be required to help pay for college, family law experts say.
"New Jersey is very progressive," said Brian Schwartz, an attorney in Summit, New Jersey, and chairman of the New Jersey State Bar Association's family law section. "Thirty years ago our Supreme Court said … that college is no longer just for the wealthy and elite."
Several other states have laws or legal precedents that allow child support orders to include money for higher education."(snip)
(snip)"Courts step into decisions that would normally be made by the parents to prevent the children from becoming casualties of a breakup or having their educations used as a bargaining chip in the divorce, Schwartz said.
Even in states that obligate divorced parents to pay for college, parents with intact marriages can refuse to help or insist their offspring pay their own way.
However, financial aid expert Mark Kantrowitz said a parent's unwillingness to pay for college can severely handicap a child's ability to get help elsewhere.
Federal and private financial aid formulas typically use the parents' income and assets to determine need. A parent who is able to pay but refuses to can prevent a child from getting any need-based aid, said Kantrowitz, who publishes the education resource site Edvisors Network (
Indeed, 'slippery slopes' are slippery !!! Do parents who are still married have a 'right' to both deny their daughter a 'necessary' college education through her own efforts thanks to FAFSA's definition of a 'dependent', as well as the parents having the right to 'cash in' on her dependent exemption via their own tax return ? Does the student daughter have fewer 'rights' of her own depending on whether her parents are still married versus separated / divorced ? Does the NJ family court owe a greater duty to the parents' ( arguably vindictive ) 'discretion', at the literal expense of the student child ?
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
New Jersey is different from Texas. Thank god, and "Progressive" is a euphemism for left wing. The fact this kid brought a suit that in most jurisdictions would be groundless, does not mean it will catch on elsewhere.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
^^^ oh, agreed ! But states like NY and NJ may already have enough 'slippery slope' laws, court rulings, and legal precedents in place to allow similar future lawsuits to 'catch on' in those ( and similar ) 'progressive' states.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
Im sorry but I think I missed something in the OP you stated they had to give her money in a college fund, from what I understood they had set up a fund years before and the money contained within it is a considerable amount. Since she wants to be a spoiled brat maybe she should take that and go to JC. If this boyfriend is so great hes worth destroying her relationship with her parents (we ALL know they probably wont be together next year) maybe he should pay her last semester of HS.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
^^^ the news reports stated the existence of a college savings fund with some amount of assets which the parents agreed to turn over to the daughter. As to whether or not the amount of assets is sufficient to pay for her final semester of private high school, her first semester of college etc. is unknown at this point ... as is the total income and total assets of the parents ( knowing the Morristown area you're probably talking millions ). It can be clearly inferred, however, that the content of this college savings fund are far short of paying for all of the tuition necessary for the daughter to obtain a college degree.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ the news reports stated the existence of a college savings fund with some amount of assets which the parents agreed to turn over to the daughter. As to whether or not the amount of assets is sufficient to pay for her final semester of private high school, her first semester of college etc. is unknown at this point ... as is the total income and total assets of the parents. It can be clearly inferred, however, that the content of this college savings fund are far short of paying for all of the tuition necessary for the daughter to obtain a college degree.
WOW.
Double, triple, quadruple SMH if that's the case.
Can they check for genetic mutations to see if there's a spider-like gene that somehow got into this kid? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stegodyphus_lineatus
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
She's going have to suck it up and go back to Daddy or take out a loan like everyone else in this country... I did read the account was substantial on another site though, sorry I guess I wasn't clear when I responded. Also with all of this publicity I doubt the prep school is going to put her out... they are very concerned about their reputation.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
Quote:
Can they check for genetic mutations to see if there's a spider-like gene that somehow got into this kid?
Actually, you should be checking with whoever appointed judges who ruled that a college education is a 'necessity', whoever appointed FAFSA bureaucrats who issued regulations mandating that college students under age 24 must be treated as 'dependents', whoever signed the ACA establishing college students ( and non-college students ) under age 26 must be treated as 'dependents' by employers for health insurance purposes, etc. Arguably, there is a 'progressive' trend clearly already in place to officially extend the start of 'independent adulthood'.
Quote:
She's going have to suck it up and go back to Daddy or take out a loan like everyone else in this country
time will tell ... April 22nd to be exact ! Or given the fact that her best friend's father is a multimillionaire attorney himself ( and perhaps has an axe to grind with the girls attorney father ), an appeal to a higher court is rather probable.
Quote:
I doubt the prep school is going to put her out... they are very concerned about their reputation.
The argument could be made that the girl's father might need to start considering his own reputation ... given dropped hints about 'improper' attention to the daughter.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
Actually, you should be checking with whoever appointed judges who ruled that a college education is a 'necessity', whoever appointed FAFSA bureaucrats who issued regulations mandating that college students under age 24 must be treated as 'dependents', whoever signed the ACA establishing college students ( and non-college students ) under age 26 must be treated as 'dependents' by employers for health insurance purposes, etc.
Sure...but where would the fun be in that? }:D
And yes, for the record, as in my OP a few posts up, the laws made on child support requirements until age 22-23 are RIDONKULOUS - so I take issue with those. And this is coming from a Canadian, where we're supposed to be more socialist-types.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
^^^ I also take issue ... but the fact is that, if the parents were separated or divorced, under existing NJ law the judge would have little choice but to order the ( relatively rich, college educated ) father to pay for her 4 year college education through age 22/23. The Reuters story goes into some detail regarding the existing 12 point evaluation process that already exists under NJ law.
-
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
Yes but that is a form of child support due to the spouse to make him or her "whole" as a result of the spilt. Had the parents kicked her out simply because she turned 18 (while in the midst of her education), not because she wouldn't obey their rules w regard to the bf (which I understood to be the main issue but I read this online so who knows the validity) the judge may have ruled differently. Also she tried to emancipate herself which makes the decision for her to leave appear as if it were more on the side of the daughter.