New Jersey Judge Peter Bogaard has rejected the initial effort of Rachel Canning, 18, to force her parents to pay for her financial support and college. Retired Lincoln Park police Chief Sean Canning and his wife, Elizabeth, insist that she moved out of their house voluntarily after she refused to live according to the rules of the house, including speaking respectfully to them, taking a curfew, reconsidering a relationship with a boyfriend (viewed as a bad influence) and doing chores. She said that they kicked her out as soon as she turned 18. However, the problem is that she is indeed 18 and the idea of forcing parents to pay for schooling after the age of majority is a problematic one. She has accused her father of being “inappropriately affectionate” but an investigation reportedly cleared Sean Canning (shown here with Rachel).
Rachel wants to be declared non-emancipated. It is a novel twist on the occasional case where a minor seeks emancipation from her parents. Here the child wants to reverse emancipation to force them to pay for her high school education and college. She is currently living with the family of a friend. The first time she saw her parents in five months was in the courtroom.
The involvement of the other family is interesting. Rachel Canning’s lawyer, Tanya N. Helfand, was brought into the case by the father of her best friend and fellow student Jaime Inglesino. John Inglesino is an attorney and hired Helfand. However, the lawsuit is seeking to force the Cannings to pay Helfand’s legal fees, which were previously estimated at $12,597.
While seeking non-emancipation, she remains not too fond of the parents who she accuses of abuse, triggering her eating disorder, and trying to force her into a basketball scholarship. Her lawyer accused the parents of painting the “most disgusting picture of their daughter” to avoid paying her tuition.
The judge however cited the “slippery slope” that would be created by “a precedent where parents live in constant fear of enforcing the basic rules of the house. If they set a rule a child doesn’t like, the child can move out, move in with another family, seek child support, cars, cell phone and a few hundred grand to go to college. . . . Are we going to open the gates for 12-year-olds to sue for an Xbox? For 13-year-olds to sue for an iPhone?”
The last concern is not the most pressing in my view. The problem is that fact that she is 18. The New Jersey code declares that a person who attains the age of eighteen years is an adult. N.J.S.A. 9:17B-3 provides in pertinent part:
Every person eighteen (18) or more years of age shall in all other matters and for all other purposes be deemed to be an adult and, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, shall have the same legal capacity to act and the same powers and obligations as a person 21 or more years of age.
Likewise, N.J.S.A. 9:17B-1 states:
The Legislature finds and declares and by this Act intends, pending the revision or amendment of the many statutory provisions involved, to:
a. Extend to persons 18 years of age and older the basic civil and contractual rights and obligations heretofore applicable only to persons 21 years of age or older, including the right to contract, sue, be sued and defend civil actions, apply for and be appointed [***8] to public employment, apply for and be granted a license or authority to engage in a business or profession subject to State regulation, serve on juries, marry, adopt children, attend and participate in horserace meetings and pari-mutuel betting and other legalized games and gaming, except as otherwise provided in subsection c. of this section, sell alcoholic beverages, act as an incorporator, registered agent, or director of a corporation, consent to medical and surgical treatment, execute a Will, and to inherit, purchase, mortgage or otherwise encumber and convey real and personal property.
She is now past the age of majority and the support of her parents is now a matter of discretion and consent. However, there are cases where children above the age of 18 have sought to force the payment of tuition and one court noted that: “A child’s admittance and attendance at college will overcome the rebuttable presumption that a child may be emancipated at age 18.”
Some cases have found that a child remains under the “sphere of influence” of their parents may be considered unemancipated for child support and/or college contribution purposes. See Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 897 A.2d 1018 (2006). In
Gac, a custodial parent for the non-custodial parent to continue paying child support and college contribution. The court held:
In general, a parent’s responsibility to pay child support terminates when the child is emancipated. We noted in Newburgh that emancipation can occur upon the child’s marriage, on induction into military service by Court Order based on the child’s best interests, or by attainment of appropriate age. The facts of each case will control when a child is emancipated. Although there is no fixed age when emancipation occurs, N.J.S.A. 9:17B-3 provides that when a person reaches eighteen years of age, he or she shall be deemed an adult.
In this case, Rachel allegedly moved out on her own volition and reportedly has a $20,000 and would like to go to the University of Vermont to study towards becoming a biomedical engineer.
While non-emancipation appears a dead letter, the court will allow Rachel to argue that that the Cannings are obligated to financially support their daughter. A hearing is scheduled for April 22nd.
That would include the payment of the remained of her tuition at Morris Catholic High School, where she is a senior. Her parents paid tuition through Dec. 31st.
What do you think? Should the parents be required to pay for the rest of high school and/or college?
MS
……..So, losing this lawsuit gives strong support for her claim to be an emancipated minor, allowing her to file financial aid forms on her own and allowing her to get more financial aid. It is analogous to cases where a child slips and falls and sues the parents, in order to get insurance to pay out.
*******************************************************************************************
You’ve got it backwards. She doesn’t want to be an emancipated minor. She is over 18. She wants to be an UN-emancipated adult.
There are a lot of articles out there with more detail. This girl had several disciplinary problems at school (even though she was able to maintain good grades), including suspensions. Her parents claim she bullied her younger sisters and “borrowed” their belongings without permission and refused to do household chores.
What I see is that she found a “host” father who enabled her to make a federal case out of ordinary family conflict. Both her father and the “host” father were/are involved in politics. I wonder if they are political enemies.
Hooray for the judge…. finally a voice of sanity. Go get a job, now…. bitch. You’re finished!
You don’t have to be destitute to EARN your way through college by serving your country in the Military Service.
What we need far more than education, from the very start of life, till the very end, Affordable Health Care, is EARNED there too!
Boot Camp Rachel, will lead you to become a member of what I think is the top echelon of Americans.
Of course, dis bar n tar n feather her legal hooligans.
The judge needs to weigh one thing and one thing only.
Did she move out on her own or didn’t she.
It seems that she did,…. so,……
Sayonara Honey,……..
Jude, if she is independent, emancipated, she won’t need her parents info.
What jonolan said.
“Want is one only of five giants on the road of reconstruction; the others are Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness.”
— William Beveridge
Not sure if it’s been mentioned but the daughter — despite all that her parents have claimed about her behavior — is an honor student.
How much of the estrangement is caused by the daughter or how much is caused by the parents is NOT something we can see from the outside.
Maybe their parenting was not the best; maybe she is not the most cooperative teen. We cannot know where the scales of right and wrong balance out here.
I hope they can find a way to function as a family because life without one’s family can be lonely. But life within a dysfunctional family is no joy either.
Talk about what it appears, at least on the surface, to be a frivolus lawsuit. It is nice when parents pay for college but if they can’t the child has many options including going part time and working to pay for it. Maybe college should be an entitlement and should be free to all, or most certainly the costs more in line with reality, but it is not.
As for high school since they started to pay for the year it seems that is something they agreed to do.
Really, the issue is twofold. Should parents be forced to help? No. However, even if she lives on her own, she still needs their information for a FAFSA until she is 25. How fair is that? The FAFSA system needs to be redone.
The decision is determined by state law in this instance is it not?
One state may have different laws than another state, so long as that law does not violate the federal constitution.
“What do you think? Should the parents be required to pay for the rest of high school and/or college?” – JT
I favor diplomacy / settlement.
So helping her to finish high school would be a good compromise.
And that would increase for all of them what is sorely needed.
Maturity.
http://www.simpletuition.com/fafsa/independent-or-dependent-student-status/
How to determine independent or dependent student status.
There’s also the simple, fundamental fact that no parent is required to pay for their children’s education, with the exception of certain punitive child-support rulings. I can’t see where the court would rule that they had to in her case, whether she was emancipated or not.
Back away from the case and think about it for a moment. By what authority can the court rule that parents have to put their children through private / parochial school or send them to college?
The parents should have to pay for her High School tuition until the end of the term (which I am sure they agreed to do when they signed the entrance papers when enrolling her at the beginning of her senior year).. They should also have to pay for her medical insurance until she graduates. They should not have to pay for any other maintenance or fees beyond those items because she left their home voluntarily. The people with whom she is now staying voluntarily allowed her to move into their home, apparently with no written or oral agreement that she would pay for her own upkeep. Since she is 18 and is an adult under N.J. law and has emancipated herself from her parents by leaving their home and not returning, she is an adult and emancipated for all purposes. The only thing that she has not done is graduate from high school, which in some states is the only requirement to keep a child from being an emancipated adult at the age of 18. In those states, it is usual for the child to be unemancipated still, although 18 years old, until graduation from high school. After she graduates, she should be fully responsible for herself and her bills. Any scholarships she won will then be available to her to help her pay for her college education. Her parents should not be responsible for her college tuition unless they freely agree to pay for some of her college expenses. And the judge is right – it is a very slippery slope. The two lawyers acting for her should know this and their legal fees should be refused, and the girl’s parents legal fees should be charged against them. These two lawyers are trying to get their names in the record books, and a lot of publicity. They have succeeded in getting national publicity, so they should have to pay for it. I hope that people reading about this case, or seeing it on tv, realize that the lawyers for this girl are doing this for publicity, not for any real concern for this girl.
Ah, I see MS was thinking along the same lines as I, regarding financial aid and emancipation.
Obviousl a disfunctonal family, the parents and the daughter. As an emancipated person, she could get student loans and grants using her own income which is probably nonexistent or very low. In the long run, she could be proud of herself and her own accomplishments, if she goes it alone on her own merits. I wish her luck.
Your analysis hasn’t covered the fact that US financial aid guidelines automatically count a large contribution from the parental income/assets as being available to pay for college, unless the student meets one of a few strict qualifications (which the young woman here does not). So in effect, she CANNOT attend college without parental support, because the financial aid available will NOT come anywhere close to meeting her needs (indeed, she can’t get any financial aid at all without parential cooperation). So her choices are limited to paying 100% of the sticker price of college, on her own, with no loans or grants available, or not attending college until age 24 (which is when you are emancipated for financial aid purposes).
The system is cruel to young adults that are estranged from their parents.
So, losing this lawsuit gives strong support for her claim to be an emancipated minor, allowing her to file financial aid forms on her own and allowing her to get more financial aid. It is analogous to cases where a child slips and falls and sues the parents, in order to get insurance to pay out.
Entitled kids who want it both ways. I saw that parents who have standards and expectations are constantly battling the parents who indulge their kids. This girl no doubt saw her friends getting all the indulgences w/ no responsibilities and is determined to have it both ways like her peers. Kudos for her parents.
Thank goodness! Can you imagine what the horrific effects of ruling in her favor would have been? She sounds like a manipulative little girl who needs to grow-up.
No way! She moved out, she should figure it out.