Rachel Canning

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's impossible to discuss anything with you. You're deranged.

Try bothering to actually read my posts before making such a fool out of yourself.

I wouldn't go as far as deranged..."touched", perhaps.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Court shows common-sense.
http://www.timminspress.com/2014/03/04/nj-teen-loses-first-legal-battle-to-make-parents-pay-for-education

Anyone disagree?
What is worrying is that the lawyers must have believed they had a chance of winning!

Parents shouldn't be forced to buy education for their children.

Children shouldn't have to rely on their parents to fund their education.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Parents shouldn't be forced to buy education for their children.

Children shouldn't have to rely on their parents to fund their education.

The key to this case is that if the parents are divorced, then they are forced to buy education for their children.

New Jersey is one of several states that require divorced parents to pay for their children's education through college, or legal emancipation, said William Laufer, a family law expert in New Jersey. So far, there is no parallel decision for intact families.

So if you support the judgment in this case you should also support changing the current law for divorced parents.

[edit]After re-reading your post, I think you are saying that education should be provided by the state, is this correct?

The other issue in the case is who gets to decide which college she goes to. If parents must pay, then can the child decide just how expensive an education they want.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The key to this case is that if the parents are divorced, then they [b]are forced to buy education for their children.
[quote]New Jersey is one of several states that require divorced parents to pay for their children's education through college, or legal emancipation, said William Laufer, a family law expert in New Jersey. So far, there is no parall ...[text shortened]... es to. If parents must pay, then can the child decide just how expensive an education they want.[/b]

Yeah I thought that provision interesting myself. Divorced parents, required to pay for college. Wow.

New Jersey - if you haven't visited...don't.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Parents shouldn't be forced to buy education for their children.

Children shouldn't have to rely on their parents to fund their education.

What about tax payers? Should they be required to pay for it?

Originally posted by whodey
What about tax payers? Should they be required to pay for it?

Absent a tooth fairy or Santa to do it, yes, obviously. Who else?

Society benefits from an educated populace and people benefit from getting education. It's a win-win situation.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Yeah I thought that provision interesting myself. Divorced parents, required to pay for college. Wow.

New Jersey - if you haven't visited...don't.

I pay for my childrens education, so going to New Jersey wouldn't scare me that much.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A) Calling a teenage girl a "slut" is contemptible, no matter what she has done. You ought to be ashamed of yourself;

B) I don't see any such allegations of "inappropriate touching" in the article. Where are you getting this "information"?

As I heard it, she defied her parents rules. She then immediately shacked up with her boyfriend, affirming that the parent's rules were justified.

Yes, I think slut just about covers it. You really don't think any teenage girls are sluts?? 🙄

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Parents shouldn't be forced to buy education for their children.

Children shouldn't have to rely on their parents to fund their education.

How about young adults paying for their own education by working?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think the case is somewhat interesting. As stated in various articles, emancipation in New Jersey is not automatic at age 18 but dependent on several variables. Additionally, it's fairly common for a non-custodial parent to have to pay a share of the educational expenses of a college aid child (and, of course, parents may claim a college student child ...[text shortened]... same after a hearing with witness testimony. As I said, there are many salient facts in dispute.

"I think the case is somewhat interesting."

I agree.

Among the issues would be parental authority to limit or prohibit behaviors of still minor children living at home after age 18. Is education beyond K-12 a requirement of all parents. Let's be real. A lot of parents can't afford college education for all their children. Could they be held responsible for post graduate degrees? How much power is government willing to give to children who rebel against parental authority and standards? How much harm will these kids bring upon themselves?

If a judge orders one or both parents to support the recalcitrant teenager and one or both claim they can't afford to, are they to be jailed?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Absent a tooth fairy or Santa to do it, yes, obviously. Who else?

Society benefits from an educated populace and people benefit from getting education. It's a win-win situation.

The Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the government are all about the same. Some unknown person will pay. And how long will it be before the same attitude to free public K-12 becomes prevalent in the free college era?

Originally posted by normbenign
As I heard it, she defied her parents rules. She then immediately shacked up with her boyfriend, affirming that the parent's rules were justified.

Yes, I think slut just about covers it. You really don't think any teenage girls are sluts?? 🙄

You, typically, have the facts wrong.

She either A) Was thrown out of her parent's house shortly after her 18th birthday or B) Left it.

She moved in with a fellow student's (a girl) and her parents.

I wouldn't go around calling teenage girls "sluts" based on such little information. Is it your assertion that any 18 year old girl with a boyfriend is a "slut"? That would cover about 90% of them. WOuld you be comfortable with someone else calling an 18 year old daughter of yours a "slut" because she had a boyfriend?

I really don't understand why the extremist right wingers find it so necessary to dispense with every rule of civility and common decency. One can vehemently disagree with this girl's actions without immediately stooping to this type of gutter name calling. Even the people on an internet forum should be better than that.

Originally posted by normbenign
"I think the case is somewhat interesting."

I agree.

Among the issues would be parental authority to limit or prohibit behaviors of still minor children living at home after age 18. Is education beyond K-12 a requirement of all parents. Let's be real. A lot of parents can't afford college education for all their children. Could they be held resp ...[text shortened]... ort the recalcitrant teenager and one or both claim they can't afford to, are they to be jailed?

These parents obviously can afford it; they enrolled her in a private high school which charges about 6K a year which they are now refusing to pay.

People who can't afford to pay court judgments cannot be jailed for failing to do so. Only willful violations of an order can be punished with jail.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Absent a tooth fairy or Santa to do it, yes, obviously. Who else?

Society benefits from an educated populace and people benefit from getting education. It's a win-win situation.

Parents are not part of society? What is the difference?