Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
Melonie, missed your comment about the "improper attention"... first I've read of this and I have been (loosely) following this story. If this were the case then she should definitely be entitled to financial support. However, sick as it sounds it could be a ploy for attention/ sympathy.
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
^^^ how is an order to pay college tuition for a child making a separated / divorced spouse 'whole' ? Nope, that comes under the heading of 'welfare of the child' ... which is arguably still a valid concern of the NJ family court regardless of whether the parents are divorced or still married.
Also, I don't see where any official attempt at emancipation has been undertaken by the student daughter. In fact, it is the parents' attorney that raised the emancipation issue in an attempt to absolve the parents of financial responsibility. The student daughter's attorney stated that the girl is not emancipated. And the IRS / FAFSA 'mandate' that the student daughter is not emancipated. Emancipation is further complicated by NJ law ...
(snip)"A consent order must be submitted or motion made to the court
In New Jersey, unlike many other states, there is no automatic emancipation at the age of 18. Instead for parents to be released of their child support obligations, a court order must be entered. This can be achieved by submission of a consent order to the court or the bringing of a post-judgment motion. A motion for emancipation can be a legal minefield.
Emancipation is a fact sensitive determination by the court
Emancipation is a fact sensitive determination by the court. The standard the court applies is "[w]hen a child moves beyond the sphere of influence and responsibility exercised by a parent and obtains an independent status on his or her own, generally he or she will be deemed emancipated." Bishop v. Bishop, 287 N.J. Super. 593, 598 (Ch. Div. 1995). The following are some but not all of the key concepts:
Reaching the age of 18 does not result in automatic emancipation
There is no specific age at which emancipation automatically occurs in New Jersey. Although 18 is the age of majority in New Jersey, reaching this age only provides prima facie evidence of emancipation, but is not determinative i.e. if there are reasons why a child should not be emancipated e.g. attending high school, college, then a court will not emancipate them and the parental support obligation will continue.
Attending Post-Secondary Education delays emancipation
While parents are generally not required to support a child over eighteen, his or her enrollment in a full-time educational program has been held to require continued support. It is beyond the scope of this short guide to discuss the impact of part-time education, part-time employment, semesters off and gap years on whether a child should be considered emancipated. These situations are where emancipation becomes a fact sensitive issue and an attorney should be consulted."(snip)
from
if this is in fact the case, then the NJ court cannot rule the student daughter to be emancipated if she is a full time high school or college student. Thus if she signs a college acceptance letter before the April 22nd hearing, the NJ court is going to be hard pressed to 'relieve' the parents of their continued support obligations !!! Also, there doesn't seem to be any criteria that the application of NJ emancipation laws are implicitly different whether a student child still resides in the parents' home or resides elsewhere. Nor do the reasons the student child decided to stop living at home appear to have any bearing on the application of NJ emancipation laws. Full time high school or college student = NOT emancipated = parents still responsible for supporting their 'dependent' student child.
Regarding the hints of 'improper' attention by the father, I likewise assumed that those comments were a 'red herring' intended to convince the parents to 'settle' rather than having dirty laundry waving in mainstream media. After all, according to the news reports, the girl's father is a former LE bigwig, and now an attorney.
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
[QUOTE=Melonie;2602724] 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.
QUOTE]
I guess I mistook this to mean she had attempted to become emancipated and failed at the attempt. My mistake... As far as the separated parents and the "making whole" this is the basis for all tort law in the US and I believe in the UK... although I forgot that NJ may be a commonwealth so the law there may be quite different (usually is). Regardless, she left voluntarily so any case law regarding child and or spousal support wouldn't really apply here. Unfortunately you can not divorce your family the way you would your no good spouse.
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
^^^ agreed on the basic concept of 'making whole' ... but apparently not applicable in this situation.
However, under the NJ emancipation laws cited above, it doesn't appear that leaving the parents' home voluntarily or involuntarily has any bearing in regard to the parents' ongoing support obligations to an unemancipated full time student daughter !!!
On a side note, the more I learn about this case and the NJ law behind it, the more credit I give to the girl's attorney Tanya Helfand. With the level of shrewdness she has exhibited, I suspect that she may have been a top shelf exotic dancer at an earlier stage in life LOL !!! At any rate, she may have found enough existing NJ legal 'ammunition' to blow the girls' parents right out of the water. And, if so, she will have set herself up as the premiere attorney for tens of thousands of children from rich, college educated NJ families who are 'tired' of continuing to live with their parents !!!
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
I went to a public university back in the 80s. I worked part-time and came out with no debt. My friends who only worked summers came out with $10-15K of debt. Part of the problem is, I think we have to go back to things being like this. I pay $20K+ a year in taxes, the gub is losing money by cutting help for people preparing themselves for a decent-paying job. My parents were just bad with money, and many peoples parents never had it to waste.
There are two sides to this issue as a general issue. It sucks how parents can have a kid like its getting a puppy from the pound, never take their responsibility seriously, and then, when the kid is 18, say "here you go society, all your problem now".
But if the kid wants to get "backpay" from the parents after turning 18, the burden of proof (that the parents were neglectful) has to be squarely on the kid. It's a recipe for social collapse if government bureaucrats can second guess the parents at the drop of a hat.
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
Quote:
It's a recipe for social collapse if government bureaucrats can second guess the parents at the drop of a hat
indeed that's a Pandora's (hat) box ... but one that has already been cracked open i.e. home schooling ( HHS home visitations ), standardized testing, bag lunch nutritional content, child's BMI, vaccinations, corporal punishment ... my head spins as the list grows ever longer ! Arguably, they don't call it 'progressive' for nothing !
Quote:
the kid wants to get "backpay" from the parents after turning 18, the burden of proof (that the parents were neglectful) has to be squarely on the kid
Under NJ law there doesn't seem to be any burden of proof for the kid beyond proving that they are a full time student = not emancipated / still a 'dependent' = entitled to parental support until they complete their post-secondary education given the fact that the NJ Supreme Court considers a college education to be a 'necessity', providing that the associated costs are not unduly burdensome to the parents !!! While it came across as 'low key' in media reports, this is precisely the 'angle of attack' the girl's attorney has already commented about.
Going back to an earlier post, this exemplifies the world of difference between NJ law and Texas law. In Texas, the parental support responsibilities end on the day the child turns 18 or leaves high school, period. If an 18 year old in Texas signs up at a college, the parents have no statutory responsibility to provide additional financial support. However, in New Jersey, the parental support responsibilities do NOT automatically end when the child reaches age 18 or leaves high school. Nor do they automatically end when the child stops residing in the parents' home. They apparently end when the child completes their post-secondary education.
The real undecided legal question at this moment appears to be whether or not a 'unilateral' action on the part of a New Jersey 18 year old to sign up at a college automatically triggers a responsibility on the part of the parents to 'support' them via paying tuition and associated costs as long as they remain a full time college student - providing of course that the parents are rich enough to do so without experiencing undue financial hardship. There appears to be a whole lot of NJ legal precedent to support this being the case !!!
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
The lesson to be learned from this is: Do not reside in New Jersey.
A link to the relevant New Jersey statute(s) would help.
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
^^^ New Jersey isn't the only state with 'complicated' emancipation laws ... from This snippet is obviously not all-inclusive, since I know for a fact that New York's listed hard age limit of 21 has been extended for 4 year college students by NY family court.
(snip)Oregon: Child support ends for any minor child who has become self-supporting, emancipated or married or who has ceased to attend school after becoming 18 years of age.
Massachusetts: 18, or when the child turns 21 if the child is living with a parent, or when the child turns 23 if the child is enrolled in an educational program.(snip)
Indiana: (snip)Starting in July 1st of this year, the age children are emancipated for the purpose of child support will change from 21 to 19. With the enactment of this new law, there will be a transition time where attorneys advocate it meanings, and the trial court and ultimately Indiana’s appellate courts agree or disagree to give it legal meaning. The scope and limits of this new statute are undetermined at this time.
One of the main topics addressed in the new statute is education. There is a specific exception for educational expenses to be allowed to continue–after age 19-- by order of the court. However, the definition of educational expenses can be unclear, and may include more than simply tuition. At least, that is the argument attorneys will make for the parent who seeks some type of financial support to facilitate education."(snip)
New Jersey (snip)1. Reaching the age of 18 years or the completion of post-secondary education (college), whichever occurs last.
2. Marriage of the child.
3. Permanent residence away from the parent’s residence, except that residence at boarding school, camp or college shall not be deemed a residence away from the parents.
4. Death of the child.
5. Entry of the child into the armed forces.
6. A child obtaining full time employment after attainment of the age of 18 years, except that a child engaging in full time employment during vacation or summer periods while attending high school, college or other post-secondary education on a full time basis, shall not be deemed full time employment. (snip)
from
The more I look into this matter, the more it would appear that NJ girl has an 'iron clad' case that her parents must continue paying child support plus college tuition and other post-secondary educational expenses until she graduates from college. And that will remain the case even if she works part-time during the year and/or works full time during summer vacation. All the NJ girl need do is remain enrolled in college and establish her 'permanent' residence as being college dorms or housing. It certainly appears that if the NJ girl signs a letter of college acceptance and signs up for college housing for the fall 2014 semester prior to the April 22nd court hearing, she's got herself a 'free ride' despite parental objections.
In contrast, the 'non-progressive' states tend to impose a hard age limit like 19, or condition any age extension beyond 18 to the completion of HIGH school ( not college ).
In terms of 'controversial' emancipation issues in New Jersey ( from the same link )
(snip)"Issues which may come up in post-judgement divorce cases may be
(1) the parents’ obligation to pay for graduate school
(2) the parents’ obligation to continue child support and college education for a period of more than four years,
(3) whether child support continues if a child takes a leave of absence or other break from school before resuming his/her studies and
(4) whether child support continues if the child is ill (physically or emotionally), and therefore cannot attend college."(snip)
... strongly implying that the parents' obligation to provide child support plus pay for 4 years worth of college educational expenses is 'settled law' in New Jersey. This also implies that the 'door is not locked' for NJ girl to attempt to extend her 'free ride' through grad school graduation, provided that NJ girl's attorney requests that the court retain jurisdiction to cover the eventuality that grad school becomes an issue 4 years down the road !
Quote:
The lesson to be learned from this is: Do not reside in New Jersey
Based on various statistics, it appears that tens of thousands of NJ taxpayers per year are already taking your advice !!!
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
Well it was either that or her parents would have to go to her job interviews with her and tell her what laundry means.
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
I heard that she moved back with her parents.
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
Quote:
I heard that she moved back with her parents.
This is technically true. However, the lawsuit was NOT dropped, with the April 22nd judge's decision still expected.
A bit of speculation as to why the return home occurred ...
- NJ teen and parents wished to stop more questions being asked regarding home circumstances causing her to originally move out
- BFF and BFF's parents wished to stop questions being asked regarding NJ teen's 'temporary' living arrangements
- NJ teen's parents compromised on 'house rules', unofficially offered NJ teen a 'better deal' re future college financial aid, or otherwise 'caved'
It will be interesting to see if the case actually gets dropped before the judge issues a decision.
Also, those who know how 'things really work' in north Jersey wouldn't discount the possibility that the NJ bar association may have had a 'talk' with both of the ( attorney ) parents in regard to the 'best interests' for a judge's decision to never be made in this case / on this particular topic.
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
The saddest part of this whole thing, in my view, is the willingness of other adults to insert themselves in the middle of this mess in the first place, including the attorney representing this kid and the father of her friend (also an attorney of course). I have no doubt in my mind that their willingness to wade into the fray served as positive reinforcement for her and emboldened her to pursue this in court. It was nice to see some sanity come back with the judge's initial decision on the emergency order and let's hope that this sanity continues through to the resolution of this mess.
Re: New 'Slippery Slope' - NJ Teen Sues Parents for Ongoing Support after Moving Out
^^^ that, of course, remains to be seen. The 'body' of New Jersey laws, precedential court rulings, etc. are what they are ... and arguably strongly favor NJ teen's position if put to the 'test'. Being a former north Jersey resident myself, I would personally buy into the conclusions that ...
A. the 'relationship' between NJ teen's father and the BFF's father goes far deeper than the news reports indicate, and probably had far more to do with BFF's father's willingness to fund legal representation for NJ teen to bring this case than any desire to simply help NJ teen or please his BFF daughter, and
B. after realizing what sort of a 'Pandora's box' might be opened were the judge actually forced to rule on these issues as a matter of NJ law, some 'behind the scenes' forces were deployed to try and 'quickly but quietly' remove this case from the court docket before any ruling must be made.
Or to be inconveniently blunt, as has been the case where other 'progressive' positions are concerned, it's not uncommon to find that powerful advocates of those 'progressive' positions tend to quickly change their minds when the downstream consequences of such 'progressive' positions threaten to affect their own lives / wallets !!!