18 year old leaves house, sues parents to pay for college and living e (3 Viewers)

[dparker713]

Well, they did condition her coming home upon her attending counseling.

And "other things we can address if we can get closer, but those are the major ones." After all, "the events leading up to what happened cant and wont happen again." (italics added.)

Is this like when I was in second grade and every word became sexual innuendo? You said "it". hehe.

No, it's like when you don't want to put in an email that you told her to get out, and just refer to kicking her out/her leaving as "what happened."

Oh, so its more like an English professor that claims every writer in English literature was gay.

No, more like someone you suspect might be gay constantly referring to his "partner" or "spouse."

Your suppositions are pretty tenuous at best based upon the text.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

There is a further hearing for college expenses. I can't envision the court letting them off the hook for that especially since the money is already saved. But if I were her I'd appeal this holding and go after the parents even more. There is something there that just isn't right.

Really?? A court can compel parents to pay for an adult child's college expenses? There is legal precedent for this?

As a layperson I immediately thought this whole thing was ridiculous simply because she's 18. Would like to understand this more.

Yes, but it almost always in the context of the kid living with one parent, usually mom, and then going away to college and when she does that the dad has to pay his share of the college expenses. If you look at the pleadings its referenced in the brief - there are a ton of cases on it.

In this context, if she is emancipated then no they would not be liable to pay it, most likely. But I don't know if the judge is going to do there. But that is why the parent's attorney went for emancipation. If she is emancipated they don't have to pay anything. Given that the judge ordered a further hearing on the college part, and given that the money is already saved for it - I just don't see an equity judge (just trust me that designation matters) cutting her off as it poses no harm in any measurable way to the parents who already have that money there for that specific purpose.

So if turning 18 doesn't automatically equal emancipation in NJ, what are the criteria?

[SIZE=medium]Daughter dropped out of high school and didn't go to college and didn't work. She was a dead beat. Dad, client, wanted to have her declared emancipated because of this and the way the divorce agreement read which backed him up. The trial judge denied our application based on, my argument, faulty law and a certification from the mom that said that the girl still needed support and she might go to school in the future she was just figuring things out. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]We appealed the trial judge and we won. She was emancipated. Because of the facts of the case and how they fit the law. New Jersey family law is extremel fact sensitive. It's why we have to come close to yelling at our clients at some point when we get the phone call from the client that starts, "why are we talking about settling for this when my neighbor got divorced and she got everything she asked for, and my cousins nephews barber said that he knows divorce law and it's my right to be amputate his arm and keep it with me as a trophy, and on and on..." [/SIZE]

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So:

We know of at least two boyfriends the dad wanted her to break up with according to the parents' allegations; we know that for some reason the parents allege that she thought she wouldn't have to take meds or follow rules if she lived with her father while they were split up; her father coaches 8th grade girls' basketball, which is his youngest daughter's age; his email address creepily references the first daughter's name; he's the former chief of police; Mom's allegations say that Rachel created an online dating account for her Dad; Dad's allegations do not say this; everyone agrees she's bulimic; and parents' quick response to their daughter running away was to call and tell the school they won't pay for her to finish her senior year.

Looks open and shut for the parents, for sure.

Parents say they both wanted her to break up with those boys; if the Mom is the heavy, how is that odd?; is coaching a child's team suspect now?; eh, plenty of possible explanations for this; while I generally share Yankee's distain, this is hardly a point against the parents in court; affidavits are supposed to be limited to personal knowledge and this is not the only place where the two accounts have different information - the mother makes no mention of a Christmas Eve sit-down with the man the daughter is staying with, presumably because she wasn't there; you generally need to give decent notice to withdraw before a semester starts, and I'm sure my parents would have pulled my tuition to a different NJ Catholic HS a lot faster than these parents did.

Henry, its like you're applying the summary judgment standard to the parent's claims.

Given that this thread began with how obviously disgusting and worthless the kid is... yeah. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm explaining that there are material facts legitimately in dispute in this case, from which a finder of fact could determine liability on the part of the parents. And that a knee-jerk reaction that the kid is a spoiled brat who's lying about everything is just that - knee-jerk.

Late to the party, but what is the legal basis for an 18 year old child to get x dollars from her parents for a, b, c, d?

In new Jersey there is a lot.

 

[mr roboto]

Makes sense. Lots of mama-boy Italians in NJ who need their parents to support them.

 

[GroveDiesel]

If the dad is using the daughter's name in his email address, he's sniffing her panties on a regular basis at the very least.

There was a time in my mom's life when she had my name in her email address. Ra-roh!

And I can confirm that BB's panties smell like strawberries.

 

[Henry Ford]

If the dad is using the daughter's name in his email address, he's sniffing her panties on a regular basis at the very least.

There was a time in my mom's life when she had my name in her email address. Ra-roh!

Was it her twitter handle, too?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So:

We know of at least two boyfriends the dad wanted her to break up with according to the parents' allegations; we know that for some reason the parents allege that she thought she wouldn't have to take meds or follow rules if she lived with her father while they were split up; her father coaches 8th grade girls' basketball, which is his youngest daughter's age; his email address creepily references the first daughter's name; he's the former chief of police; Mom's allegations say that Rachel created an online dating account for her Dad; Dad's allegations do not say this; everyone agrees she's bulimic; and parents' quick response to their daughter running away was to call and tell the school they won't pay for her to finish her senior year.

Looks open and shut for the parents, for sure.

Parents say they both wanted her to break up with those boys; if the Mom is the heavy, how is that odd?; is coaching a child's team suspect now?; eh, plenty of possible explanations for this; while I generally share Yankee's distain, this is hardly a point against the parents in court; affidavits are supposed to be limited to personal knowledge and this is not the only place where the two accounts have different information - the mother makes no mention of a Christmas Eve sit-down with the man the daughter is staying with, presumably because she wasn't there; you generally need to give decent notice to withdraw before a semester starts, and I'm sure my parents would have pulled my tuition to a different NJ Catholic HS a lot faster than these parents did.

Henry, its like you're applying the summary judgment standard to the parent's claims.

Given that this thread began with how obviously disgusting and worthless the kid is... yeah. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm explaining that there are material facts legitimately in dispute in this case, from which a finder of fact could determine liability on the part of the parents. And that a knee-jerk reaction that the kid is a spoiled brat who's lying about everything is just that - knee-jerk.

Late to the party, but what is the legal basis for an 18 year old child to get x dollars from her parents for a, b, c, d?

In new Jersey there is a lot.

I guess I'm learning this.

Sounds mucho screwed up, improper and even though apparently founded on some legal basis it sounds entirely made up by some court or legislature at some point NJ's recent past.

In other words, I see no legitimate principle to support this.

Where does this NJ right emanate from? Pure greed and liberality?

 

[Henry Ford]

So:

We know of at least two boyfriends the dad wanted her to break up with according to the parents' allegations; we know that for some reason the parents allege that she thought she wouldn't have to take meds or follow rules if she lived with her father while they were split up; her father coaches 8th grade girls' basketball, which is his youngest daughter's age; his email address creepily references the first daughter's name; he's the former chief of police; Mom's allegations say that Rachel created an online dating account for her Dad; Dad's allegations do not say this; everyone agrees she's bulimic; and parents' quick response to their daughter running away was to call and tell the school they won't pay for her to finish her senior year.

Looks open and shut for the parents, for sure.

Parents say they both wanted her to break up with those boys; if the Mom is the heavy, how is that odd?; is coaching a child's team suspect now?; eh, plenty of possible explanations for this; while I generally share Yankee's distain, this is hardly a point against the parents in court; affidavits are supposed to be limited to personal knowledge and this is not the only place where the two accounts have different information - the mother makes no mention of a Christmas Eve sit-down with the man the daughter is staying with, presumably because she wasn't there; you generally need to give decent notice to withdraw before a semester starts, and I'm sure my parents would have pulled my tuition to a different NJ Catholic HS a lot faster than these parents did.

Henry, its like you're applying the summary judgment standard to the parent's claims.

Given that this thread began with how obviously disgusting and worthless the kid is... yeah. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm explaining that there are material facts legitimately in dispute in this case, from which a finder of fact could determine liability on the part of the parents. And that a knee-jerk reaction that the kid is a spoiled brat who's lying about everything is just that - knee-jerk.

Late to the party, but what is the legal basis for an 18 year old child to get x dollars from her parents for a, b, c, d?

In new Jersey there is a lot.

I guess I'm learning this.

Sounds mucho screwed up, improper and even though apparently founded on some legal basis it sounds entirely made up by some court or legislature at some point NJ's recent past.

In other words, I see no legitimate principle to support this.

Where does this NJ right emanate from? Pure greed and liberality?

Those would be the most likely choices for a legal basis for any right.

 

[Rove!]

Makes sense. Lots of mama-boy Italians in NJ who need their parents to support them.

surprised at what flies around here these days....

 

[Henry Ford]

Makes sense. Lots of mama-boy Italians in NJ who need their parents to support them.

surprised at what flies around here these days....

Italians can't fly. Too many gold chains.

 

[Black Box]

If the dad is using the daughter's name in his email address, he's sniffing her panties on a regular basis at the very least.

There was a time in my mom's life when she had my name in her email address. Ra-roh!

Was it her twitter handle, too?

If Twitter were a thing at the time, I'd like to think it would have been.

 

[TheIronSheik]

If the dad is using the daughter's name in his email address, he's sniffing her panties on a regular basis at the very least.

There was a time in my mom's life when she had my name in her email address. Ra-roh!

BlackBox@yahoo.com?

 

[Henry Ford]

If the dad is using the daughter's name in his email address, he's sniffing her panties on a regular basis at the very least.

There was a time in my mom's life when she had my name in her email address. Ra-roh!

BlackBox@yahoo.com?

I believe it was "ILoveBlackBox"

 

[Black Box]

If the dad is using the daughter's name in his email address, he's sniffing her panties on a regular basis at the very least.

There was a time in my mom's life when she had my name in her email address. Ra-roh!

BlackBox@yahoo.com?

I believe it was "ILoveBlackBox"

Hey, this is my mom we're talking about!

 

[Henry Ford]

If the dad is using the daughter's name in his email address, he's sniffing her panties on a regular basis at the very least.

There was a time in my mom's life when she had my name in her email address. Ra-roh!

BlackBox@yahoo.com?

I believe it was "ILoveBlackBox"

Hey, this is my mom we're talking about!

Maybe she's a pilot. Or an FAA investigator.

 

[Zow]

So:

We know of at least two boyfriends the dad wanted her to break up with according to the parents' allegations; we know that for some reason the parents allege that she thought she wouldn't have to take meds or follow rules if she lived with her father while they were split up; her father coaches 8th grade girls' basketball, which is his youngest daughter's age; his email address creepily references the first daughter's name; he's the former chief of police; Mom's allegations say that Rachel created an online dating account for her Dad; Dad's allegations do not say this; everyone agrees she's bulimic; and parents' quick response to their daughter running away was to call and tell the school they won't pay for her to finish her senior year.

Looks open and shut for the parents, for sure.

Parents say they both wanted her to break up with those boys; if the Mom is the heavy, how is that odd?; is coaching a child's team suspect now?; eh, plenty of possible explanations for this; while I generally share Yankee's distain, this is hardly a point against the parents in court; affidavits are supposed to be limited to personal knowledge and this is not the only place where the two accounts have different information - the mother makes no mention of a Christmas Eve sit-down with the man the daughter is staying with, presumably because she wasn't there; you generally need to give decent notice to withdraw before a semester starts, and I'm sure my parents would have pulled my tuition to a different NJ Catholic HS a lot faster than these parents did.

Henry, its like you're applying the summary judgment standard to the parent's claims.

Given that this thread began with how obviously disgusting and worthless the kid is... yeah. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm explaining that there are material facts legitimately in dispute in this case, from which a finder of fact could determine liability on the part of the parents. And that a knee-jerk reaction that the kid is a spoiled brat who's lying about everything is just that - knee-jerk.

Late to the party, but what is the legal basis for an 18 year old child to get x dollars from her parents for a, b, c, d?

In new Jersey there is a lot.

I guess I'm learning this.

Sounds mucho screwed up, improper and even though apparently founded on some legal basis it sounds entirely made up by some court or legislature at some point NJ's recent past.

In other words, I see no legitimate principle to support this.

Where does this NJ right emanate from? Pure greed and liberality?

As opposed to our much other more solid law-generating forces.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So:

We know of at least two boyfriends the dad wanted her to break up with according to the parents' allegations; we know that for some reason the parents allege that she thought she wouldn't have to take meds or follow rules if she lived with her father while they were split up; her father coaches 8th grade girls' basketball, which is his youngest daughter's age; his email address creepily references the first daughter's name; he's the former chief of police; Mom's allegations say that Rachel created an online dating account for her Dad; Dad's allegations do not say this; everyone agrees she's bulimic; and parents' quick response to their daughter running away was to call and tell the school they won't pay for her to finish her senior year.

Looks open and shut for the parents, for sure.

Parents say they both wanted her to break up with those boys; if the Mom is the heavy, how is that odd?; is coaching a child's team suspect now?; eh, plenty of possible explanations for this; while I generally share Yankee's distain, this is hardly a point against the parents in court; affidavits are supposed to be limited to personal knowledge and this is not the only place where the two accounts have different information - the mother makes no mention of a Christmas Eve sit-down with the man the daughter is staying with, presumably because she wasn't there; you generally need to give decent notice to withdraw before a semester starts, and I'm sure my parents would have pulled my tuition to a different NJ Catholic HS a lot faster than these parents did.

Henry, its like you're applying the summary judgment standard to the parent's claims.

Given that this thread began with how obviously disgusting and worthless the kid is... yeah. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm explaining that there are material facts legitimately in dispute in this case, from which a finder of fact could determine liability on the part of the parents. And that a knee-jerk reaction that the kid is a spoiled brat who's lying about everything is just that - knee-jerk.

Late to the party, but what is the legal basis for an 18 year old child to get x dollars from her parents for a, b, c, d?

In new Jersey there is a lot.

I guess I'm learning this.

Sounds mucho screwed up, improper and even though apparently founded on some legal basis it sounds entirely made up by some court or legislature at some point NJ's recent past.

In other words, I see no legitimate principle to support this.

Where does this NJ right emanate from? Pure greed and liberality?

Common law (law made by judges at trials and appeals) and legislative acts through our statutes. But the basic reason is that the family division of the New Jersey court system has empowered in it the overriding power to effect the cases before it in what we call, "the best interest of the child."

We have two civil court systems here (I don't know if all states do this but I'm guessing they do). We have a Law Division and a Chancery Division. Law division is the place where you sue for money damages - personal injury, breach of contract, that kind of stuff. All the jury awards you hear about come out of the law division. There are different subsets of the law division but that isn't important here.

The Chancery division is where you go when you want to force someone to do something. Injunctions against the KKK marching, stopping a neighbor from ripping up your bulkhead to fix theirs, ordering companies to allow an estate representative to act as the person who died (probate law) and then family law. Now, as a small aside, both the law division and the chancery division share each others powers, but the ultimate relief you seek - either money or forcing someone to stop doing something or to do something - is wher eyou primarly file your complaint.

The family part therefore is a chancery court. The chancery power is based in the great legal theory known as "equity." In common form, what is fair. In chancery court, the judges have the power to pierce through the law and get to the heart of the matter and come up with a fair - in the court's eyes - resolution. So family judges have equity power to side step the law if necessary in a case. They also must couch their courts in terms - from above - in best interests of the children.

The sum result is that we have statutes and common law but at the end of the day each and every case is fact sensitive and if there are kids involved, really, all bets are off for the most part. Now when push comes to shove, the court must follow the law, but being attorneys as we are, we have guided our courts and our legislature to always add language at the end of every law that basically says - the equity court can do whatever it needs to do in the interest of fairness.

In that you get New Jersey family law.

 

[Henry Ford]

So:

We know of at least two boyfriends the dad wanted her to break up with according to the parents' allegations; we know that for some reason the parents allege that she thought she wouldn't have to take meds or follow rules if she lived with her father while they were split up; her father coaches 8th grade girls' basketball, which is his youngest daughter's age; his email address creepily references the first daughter's name; he's the former chief of police; Mom's allegations say that Rachel created an online dating account for her Dad; Dad's allegations do not say this; everyone agrees she's bulimic; and parents' quick response to their daughter running away was to call and tell the school they won't pay for her to finish her senior year.

Looks open and shut for the parents, for sure.

Parents say they both wanted her to break up with those boys; if the Mom is the heavy, how is that odd?; is coaching a child's team suspect now?; eh, plenty of possible explanations for this; while I generally share Yankee's distain, this is hardly a point against the parents in court; affidavits are supposed to be limited to personal knowledge and this is not the only place where the two accounts have different information - the mother makes no mention of a Christmas Eve sit-down with the man the daughter is staying with, presumably because she wasn't there; you generally need to give decent notice to withdraw before a semester starts, and I'm sure my parents would have pulled my tuition to a different NJ Catholic HS a lot faster than these parents did.

Henry, its like you're applying the summary judgment standard to the parent's claims.

Given that this thread began with how obviously disgusting and worthless the kid is... yeah. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm explaining that there are material facts legitimately in dispute in this case, from which a finder of fact could determine liability on the part of the parents. And that a knee-jerk reaction that the kid is a spoiled brat who's lying about everything is just that - knee-jerk.

Late to the party, but what is the legal basis for an 18 year old child to get x dollars from her parents for a, b, c, d?

In new Jersey there is a lot.

I guess I'm learning this.

Sounds mucho screwed up, improper and even though apparently founded on some legal basis it sounds entirely made up by some court or legislature at some point NJ's recent past.

In other words, I see no legitimate principle to support this.

Where does this NJ right emanate from? Pure greed and liberality?

Common law (law made by judges at trials and appeals) and legislative acts through our statutes. But the basic reason is that the family division of the New Jersey court system has empowered in it the overriding power to effect the cases before it in what we call, "the best interest of the child."

We have two civil court systems here (I don't know if all states do this but I'm guessing they do). We have a Law Division and a Chancery Division. Law division is the place where you sue for money damages - personal injury, breach of contract, that kind of stuff. All the jury awards you hear about come out of the law division. There are different subsets of the law division but that isn't important here.

The Chancery division is where you go when you want to force someone to do something. Injunctions against the KKK marching, stopping a neighbor from ripping up your bulkhead to fix theirs, ordering companies to allow an estate representative to act as the person who died (probate law) and then family law. Now, as a small aside, both the law division and the chancery division share each others powers, but the ultimate relief you seek - either money or forcing someone to stop doing something or to do something - is wher eyou primarly file your complaint.

The family part therefore is a chancery court. The chancery power is based in the great legal theory known as "equity." In common form, what is fair. In chancery court, the judges have the power to pierce through the law and get to the heart of the matter and come up with a fair - in the court's eyes - resolution. So family judges have equity power to side step the law if necessary in a case. They also must couch their courts in terms - from above - in best interests of the children.

The sum result is that we have statutes and common law but at the end of the day each and every case is fact sensitive and if there are kids involved, really, all bets are off for the most part. Now when push comes to shove, the court must follow the law, but being attorneys as we are, we have guided our courts and our legislature to always add language at the end of every law that basically says - the equity court can do whatever it needs to do in the interest of fairness.

In that you get New Jersey family law.

The Civil Law, it is not common. But the Common Law, it is not civil.

 

[Sweet J]

Yankee -- I'm fascinated by the implications here. So to recap:

Let's say a mom and dad divorce. Dad pays child support while kid is in high school. Kid goes off to college.

1. Kid goes to state school. Mom pays for it and wants dad to contribute half. I get that, I guess. Even if Dad has a philosophy that kids should pay their own college.

2. But then it gets fuzzy, right? What about situations where parents don't divorce. Kid wants to go to college, but the parents say "I'm not paying for your college, you have to do it yourself." Well, how it that different from #1, above?

3. But wait, what if the kid doesn't get good enough grades to get into a decent state school, and the only college the kid gets into is a $30k/year private college (or what if the kid only applies to private colleges)? Can the parents say: "I would have paid for you to go to state school, but not private school"?

4. Or what if the parents say: "Look, your grades were mediocre at best. You need to prove that you will take this seriously if you want me to pay for it. I'll pay for you to go to 1 year of community college at the local place down the street. If you do good enough, we will pay for private school." That seems reasonable for two parents to be able to say to their kid, right? But what if two divorced parents disagree, and the mom wants to send the kid to a super expensive school, but the dad doesn't want to spend that kind of money becuase the kid got crap grades in HS? Can the dad refuse? Or are we at situation #1 again?

Because of the possibililities here for problems, I don't see any situation where forcing a parent to pay for college is workable or just. I just don't.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee -- I'm fascinated by the implications here. So to recap:

Let's say a mom and dad divorce. Dad pays child support while kid is in high school. Kid goes off to college.

1. Kid goes to state school. Mom pays for it and wants dad to contribute half. I get that, I guess. Even if Dad has a philosophy that kids should pay their own college.

2. But then it gets fuzzy, right? What about situations where parents don't divorce. Kid wants to go to college, but the parents say "I'm not paying for your college, you have to do it yourself." Well, how it that different from #1, above?

3. But wait, what if the kid doesn't get good enough grades to get into a decent state school, and the only college the kid gets into is a $30k/year private college (or what if the kid only applies to private colleges)? Can the parents say: "I would have paid for you to go to state school, but not private school"?

4. Or what if the parents say: "Look, your grades were mediocre at best. You need to prove that you will take this seriously if you want me to pay for it. I'll pay for you to go to 1 year of community college at the local place down the street. If you do good enough, we will pay for private school." That seems reasonable for two parents to be able to say to their kid, right? But what if two divorced parents disagree, and the mom wants to send the kid to a super expensive school, but the dad doesn't want to spend that kind of money becuase the kid got crap grades in HS? Can the dad refuse? Or are we at situation #1 again?

Because of the possibililities here for problems, I don't see any situation where forcing a parent to pay for college is workable or just. I just don't.

You have to understand the guise under which this happens almost all of the time and that is in a Matrimonial or Property Settlement Agreement that takes care of the settlement for the divorce. The order for divorce is 2 pages. The MSA/PSA is anywhere from 18-50 depending on how much the people have to break up.

In that agreement we also try to figure out how to deal with college. Because it's not "fair" for the parent of residence (who the kid lives with) to be solely responsible to pay for college. But also, not everyone has 6 figures sitting around to pay for college so almost always teh kids get loans, but more and more the loans need parents to co sign, so the PSA accounts for that. Most of the time what we talk about with college expenses are everything but tuition - books, car, clothes, living expenses - that is usually where the fight is. So, to your numbers...

1. The PSA should have it covered already. Where we see a fight at that point is that dad would file a motion to be relieved from having to contribute because he wasn't made part of the selection process and doesn't have a great relationship with the kid anymore. This is one of the area I think the OP Case makes our caselaw interesting.

2. In that case there isn't a court order already. That's the big difference. The PSA acts as a court order. So if you are married the court isn't involved in your marriage - once you are divorced, the court controls it.

3. Dad's always argue that. They lose most of the time. If you agreed to pay for college in the PSA you are paying for college. Of course, the court can modify the PSA to allow for changed circumstances like the lose of a job, retirement, so on. This is where we get paid almost $7,000 a motion (no I didn't make that number up, yes it is expensive, yes I warn every client that sits down with me, no not all of them listen, yes it's why I drink).

4. We've done that as a settlement a few times to avoid motions. But again, divorce changes teh equation because now there is a court order that has to be followed. That is the massive difference.

So in this OP case, the parents are married - there is no court order requiring them to pay for college. Given what this case did, it raises an interest argument, no? Look at it from the kids point of veiw (and let's say she is an angel and there is no problem anywhere except parents won't help pay for college). If my parents are divorced there would be a court order requiring them to help me. But since they are married, they don't have to. Basically, the child is harmed by a stable marriage because of how the court handles this matter.

So, file a motion - very similar to the one just filed. We don't know the outcome yet because the college issue was carried. It really is fascinating from our standpoint.

 

[Sweet J]

Yankee, as a follow up: Knowing what you know, would you advise a dad going through a divorce in NJ to avoid putting things in the PSA that could blow up on him? So, for example, refusing to place in the settlement agreement anything about College expenses? That seems to be a HUGE red flag as a potential problem down the road (I know my first instinct would be to say: "Look, I will plan on happily paying for college, but there is no way in hell I'm putting that down as part of a settlement agreement or divorce agreement"). Or at the very least make the college payments contingient on certain behaviors by the kids (honor society, state school, no arrests, playing intramurals, no C's or D's, whatever).

 

[Sweet J]

This reminds me of something a buddy of mine who practiced family law once told me: "You practice family law long enough, you'll either never get married, or never get divorced."

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee, as a follow up: Knowing what you know, would you advise a dad going through a divorce in NJ to avoid putting things in the PSA that could blow up on him? So, for example, refusing to place in the settlement agreement anything about College expenses? That seems to be a HUGE red flag as a potential problem down the road (I know my first instinct would be to say: "Look, I will plan on happily paying for college, but there is no way in hell I'm putting that down as part of a settlement agreement or divorce agreement"). Or at the very least make the college payments contingient on certain behaviors by the kids (honor society, state school, no arrests, playing intramurals, no C's or D's, whatever).

The exact opposite. Make sure it's in there and as clear as possible.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

This reminds me of something a buddy of mine who practiced family law once told me: "You practice family law long enough, you'll either never get married, or never get divorced."

True. I've told my wife that murder is cheaper and easier on everyone involved, including the victim. She has permission to just smother me with a pillow while I sleep if it ever gets to that.

 

[Sweet J]

Yankee, as a follow up: Knowing what you know, would you advise a dad going through a divorce in NJ to avoid putting things in the PSA that could blow up on him? So, for example, refusing to place in the settlement agreement anything about College expenses? That seems to be a HUGE red flag as a potential problem down the road (I know my first instinct would be to say: "Look, I will plan on happily paying for college, but there is no way in hell I'm putting that down as part of a settlement agreement or divorce agreement"). Or at the very least make the college payments contingient on certain behaviors by the kids (honor society, state school, no arrests, playing intramurals, no C's or D's, whatever).

The exact opposite. Make sure it's in there and as clear as possible.

Really?? Huh.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee, as a follow up: Knowing what you know, would you advise a dad going through a divorce in NJ to avoid putting things in the PSA that could blow up on him? So, for example, refusing to place in the settlement agreement anything about College expenses? That seems to be a HUGE red flag as a potential problem down the road (I know my first instinct would be to say: "Look, I will plan on happily paying for college, but there is no way in hell I'm putting that down as part of a settlement agreement or divorce agreement"). Or at the very least make the college payments contingient on certain behaviors by the kids (honor society, state school, no arrests, playing intramurals, no C's or D's, whatever).

The exact opposite. Make sure it's in there and as clear as possible.

Really?? Huh.

If you leave a PSA silent on an issue you are begging the court to reopen it by motion. Once the courts gets its hands back on it any part of the PSA can change "in the interest of the child and/or fairness." You want, in a perfect world, the PSA to be so clear that everyone knows what is expected of them and so that it ends up as the last court order in the divorce. Like I said, a motion is going to cost $7,000.00. Win or lose. If there is a silent PSA on college and one side wants the other to pay the court can order a plenary hearing which is basically a mini trial on each party's ability to pay. That requires at least one expert at the cost of $10,000.00. The hearing itself will take anywhere from 1-4 days depending on the assets. Even a mini trial requires a trial retainer so write your lawyer a check for $25,000.00 before you start.

So, you are into costs on your position upwards of $45,000.00 before you get a verdict. Or, you can have a pretty clear and concise PSA that outlines who pays what where and to whom. Which do you prefer?

 

[Sweet J]

Yankee, as a follow up: Knowing what you know, would you advise a dad going through a divorce in NJ to avoid putting things in the PSA that could blow up on him? So, for example, refusing to place in the settlement agreement anything about College expenses? That seems to be a HUGE red flag as a potential problem down the road (I know my first instinct would be to say: "Look, I will plan on happily paying for college, but there is no way in hell I'm putting that down as part of a settlement agreement or divorce agreement"). Or at the very least make the college payments contingient on certain behaviors by the kids (honor society, state school, no arrests, playing intramurals, no C's or D's, whatever).

The exact opposite. Make sure it's in there and as clear as possible.

Really?? Huh.

If you leave a PSA silent on an issue you are begging the court to reopen it by motion. Once the courts gets its hands back on it any part of the PSA can change "in the interest of the child and/or fairness." You want, in a perfect world, the PSA to be so clear that everyone knows what is expected of them and so that it ends up as the last court order in the divorce. Like I said, a motion is going to cost $7,000.00. Win or lose. If there is a silent PSA on college and one side wants the other to pay the court can order a plenary hearing which is basically a mini trial on each party's ability to pay. That requires at least one expert at the cost of $10,000.00. The hearing itself will take anywhere from 1-4 days depending on the assets. Even a mini trial requires a trial retainer so write your lawyer a check for $25,000.00 before you start.

So, you are into costs on your position upwards of $45,000.00 before you get a verdict. Or, you can have a pretty clear and concise PSA that outlines who pays what where and to whom. Which do you prefer?

Jesus. Every time I think maybe divorce is the best option for my family, I read something like this, and I throw up a little bit in my mouth.

 

[dparker713]

Applying "the best interests of the child" standard to an adult is as sensical as "substantive due process". Man, I hate equity courts.

 

[TheIronSheik]

This thread went from talking about a hot 18 year old and ended up with lawyer talk.

And you lawyers wonder why people hate you. (Not me. But <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes&gt

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee, as a follow up: Knowing what you know, would you advise a dad going through a divorce in NJ to avoid putting things in the PSA that could blow up on him? So, for example, refusing to place in the settlement agreement anything about College expenses? That seems to be a HUGE red flag as a potential problem down the road (I know my first instinct would be to say: "Look, I will plan on happily paying for college, but there is no way in hell I'm putting that down as part of a settlement agreement or divorce agreement"). Or at the very least make the college payments contingient on certain behaviors by the kids (honor society, state school, no arrests, playing intramurals, no C's or D's, whatever).

The exact opposite. Make sure it's in there and as clear as possible.

Really?? Huh.

If you leave a PSA silent on an issue you are begging the court to reopen it by motion. Once the courts gets its hands back on it any part of the PSA can change "in the interest of the child and/or fairness." You want, in a perfect world, the PSA to be so clear that everyone knows what is expected of them and so that it ends up as the last court order in the divorce. Like I said, a motion is going to cost $7,000.00. Win or lose. If there is a silent PSA on college and one side wants the other to pay the court can order a plenary hearing which is basically a mini trial on each party's ability to pay. That requires at least one expert at the cost of $10,000.00. The hearing itself will take anywhere from 1-4 days depending on the assets. Even a mini trial requires a trial retainer so write your lawyer a check for $25,000.00 before you start.

So, you are into costs on your position upwards of $45,000.00 before you get a verdict. Or, you can have a pretty clear and concise PSA that outlines who pays what where and to whom. Which do you prefer?

Jesus. Every time I think maybe divorce is the best option for my family, I read something like this, and I throw up a little bit in my mouth.

Every case is different and fact sensitive. If you to PM some questions I can give you some rough answers.

Some divorces happen very quick and cheap. Some people never fight after they get the PSA because they want their kids to not feel any problems. Some people actually get a long better once they are divorced. Some, some some. Not all. And frankly, it sucks if you aren't the some.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

If I'm betting, I'm throwing my money on dad being a diddler.

 

[Franknbeans]

If the dad is using the daughter's name in his email address, he's sniffing her panties on a regular basis at the very least.

There was a time in my mom's life when she had my name in her email address. Ra-roh!

consider your panties sniffed

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread went from talking about a hot 18 year old and ended up with lawyer talk.

And you lawyers wonder why people hate you. (Not me. But <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes&gt

It's a thread about a lawsuit. The original post is about a judgment. <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes> can <fingerquotes>blow me</fingerquotes>.

 

[TheIronSheik]

This thread went from talking about a hot 18 year old and ended up with lawyer talk.

And you lawyers wonder why people hate you. (Not me. But <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes&gt

It's a thread about a lawsuit. The original post is about a judgment. <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes> can <fingerquotes>blow me</fingerquotes>.

Do I get dinner, a limo ride and $500k?

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread went from talking about a hot 18 year old and ended up with lawyer talk.

And you lawyers wonder why people hate you. (Not me. But <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes&gt

It's a thread about a lawsuit. The original post is about a judgment. <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes> can <fingerquotes>blow me</fingerquotes>.

Do I get dinner, a limo ride and $500k?

There's a two-year-old frappuccino in my back seat you can have, I'll pick you up in a six-year-old chevy, and afterward throw toll road change at you until you leave my vehicle.

 

[Zow]

This reminds me of something a buddy of mine who practiced family law once told me: "You practice family law long enough, you'll either never get married, or never get divorced."

I always tell clients in the initial consult that at the conclusion of the case there will be two and only two winners: the two lawyers.

Family law isn't about "winning" in the traditional sense. It's really about managing/mitigating how much damage one side may incur (i.e. asset division, future support, parenting time, and attorney's fees) and ideally working out a permanent solution each side can live with. Both sides should generally engage in a cost-benefit analysis and would be really well-served to to set all emotion aside. Of course, the nuclei of fact seeding the litigation is often wrought with emotion and asking someone who has just been cheated on or whatever to set that aside and be "reasonable" is pretty frisking impossible .

As an example, I was involved in a divorce mediation a couple weeks ago. The mediator, before doing anything else, sits both sides down individually and tells each party that his job there isn't to make anyone happy. In fact, it's to get to a point where both sides are equally upset because that likely means we've hit the number each side should agree upon. Sure enough, nine hours later, we reach an agreement in the middle that each party was complaining to his and her lawyer was unfair, both totally oblivious to the idea that trial could have possibly turned out so much worse for them. That's family law.

 

[TheIronSheik]

This thread went from talking about a hot 18 year old and ended up with lawyer talk.

And you lawyers wonder why people hate you. (Not me. But <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes&gt

It's a thread about a lawsuit. The original post is about a judgment. <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes> can <fingerquotes>blow me</fingerquotes>.

Do I get dinner, a limo ride and $500k?

There's a two-year-old frappuccino in my back seat you can have, I'll pick you up in a six-year-old chevy, and afterward throw toll road change at you until you leave my vehicle.

Typical male. You sound like all of my gay dates.

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread went from talking about a hot 18 year old and ended up with lawyer talk.

And you lawyers wonder why people hate you. (Not me. But <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes&gt

It's a thread about a lawsuit. The original post is about a judgment. <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes> can <fingerquotes>blow me</fingerquotes>.

Do I get dinner, a limo ride and $500k?

There's a two-year-old frappuccino in my back seat you can have, I'll pick you up in a six-year-old chevy, and afterward throw toll road change at you until you leave my vehicle.

Typical male. You sound like all of my gay dates.

Which isn't a "no," is it?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Yankee, as a follow up: Knowing what you know, would you advise a dad going through a divorce in NJ to avoid putting things in the PSA that could blow up on him? So, for example, refusing to place in the settlement agreement anything about College expenses? That seems to be a HUGE red flag as a potential problem down the road (I know my first instinct would be to say: "Look, I will plan on happily paying for college, but there is no way in hell I'm putting that down as part of a settlement agreement or divorce agreement"). Or at the very least make the college payments contingient on certain behaviors by the kids (honor society, state school, no arrests, playing intramurals, no C's or D's, whatever).

The exact opposite. Make sure it's in there and as clear as possible.

Really?? Huh.

If you leave a PSA silent on an issue you are begging the court to reopen it by motion. Once the courts gets its hands back on it any part of the PSA can change "in the interest of the child and/or fairness." You want, in a perfect world, the PSA to be so clear that everyone knows what is expected of them and so that it ends up as the last court order in the divorce. Like I said, a motion is going to cost $7,000.00. Win or lose. If there is a silent PSA on college and one side wants the other to pay the court can order a plenary hearing which is basically a mini trial on each party's ability to pay. That requires at least one expert at the cost of $10,000.00. The hearing itself will take anywhere from 1-4 days depending on the assets. Even a mini trial requires a trial retainer so write your lawyer a check for $25,000.00 before you start.

So, you are into costs on your position upwards of $45,000.00 before you get a verdict. Or, you can have a pretty clear and concise PSA that outlines who pays what where and to whom. Which do you prefer?

Well, once you pay that $45K to the laywer, you won't be able to pay for college anymore. Win-win.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yankee, as a follow up: Knowing what you know, would you advise a dad going through a divorce in NJ to avoid putting things in the PSA that could blow up on him? So, for example, refusing to place in the settlement agreement anything about College expenses? That seems to be a HUGE red flag as a potential problem down the road (I know my first instinct would be to say: "Look, I will plan on happily paying for college, but there is no way in hell I'm putting that down as part of a settlement agreement or divorce agreement"). Or at the very least make the college payments contingient on certain behaviors by the kids (honor society, state school, no arrests, playing intramurals, no C's or D's, whatever).

The exact opposite. Make sure it's in there and as clear as possible.

Really?? Huh.

If you leave a PSA silent on an issue you are begging the court to reopen it by motion. Once the courts gets its hands back on it any part of the PSA can change "in the interest of the child and/or fairness." You want, in a perfect world, the PSA to be so clear that everyone knows what is expected of them and so that it ends up as the last court order in the divorce. Like I said, a motion is going to cost $7,000.00. Win or lose. If there is a silent PSA on college and one side wants the other to pay the court can order a plenary hearing which is basically a mini trial on each party's ability to pay. That requires at least one expert at the cost of $10,000.00. The hearing itself will take anywhere from 1-4 days depending on the assets. Even a mini trial requires a trial retainer so write your lawyer a check for $25,000.00 before you start.

So, you are into costs on your position upwards of $45,000.00 before you get a verdict. Or, you can have a pretty clear and concise PSA that outlines who pays what where and to whom. Which do you prefer?

Well, once you pay that $45K to the laywer, you won't be able to pay for college anymore. Win-win.

Yes, you're broke and your kid will be living with you forever. Victory!

 

[SacramentoBob]

This thread went from talking about a hot 18 year old and ended up with lawyer talk.

And you lawyers wonder why people hate you. (Not me. But <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes&gt

It's a thread about a lawsuit. The original post is about a judgment. <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes> can <fingerquotes>blow me</fingerquotes>.

Do I get dinner, a limo ride and $500k?

There's a two-year-old frappuccino in my back seat you can have, I'll pick you up in a six-year-old chevy, and afterward throw toll road change at you until you leave my vehicle.

Pick me up in a '94 Cutlass Supreme and it's a deal.

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread went from talking about a hot 18 year old and ended up with lawyer talk.

And you lawyers wonder why people hate you. (Not me. But <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes&gt

It's a thread about a lawsuit. The original post is about a judgment. <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes> can <fingerquotes>blow me</fingerquotes>.

Do I get dinner, a limo ride and $500k?

There's a two-year-old frappuccino in my back seat you can have, I'll pick you up in a six-year-old chevy, and afterward throw toll road change at you until you leave my vehicle.

Pick me up in a '94 Cutlass Supreme and it's a deal.

Then I keep the frappuccino.

 

[TheIronSheik]

This thread went from talking about a hot 18 year old and ended up with lawyer talk.

And you lawyers wonder why people hate you. (Not me. But <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes&gt

It's a thread about a lawsuit. The original post is about a judgment. <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes> can <fingerquotes>blow me</fingerquotes>.

Do I get dinner, a limo ride and $500k?

There's a two-year-old frappuccino in my back seat you can have, I'll pick you up in a six-year-old chevy, and afterward throw toll road change at you until you leave my vehicle.

Pick me up in a '94 Cutlass Supreme and it's a deal.

Hey. Get your own John. I'm working this side of the street.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

This thread has gotten a whole lot better on this page.

 

[SacramentoBob]

This thread went from talking about a hot 18 year old and ended up with lawyer talk.

And you lawyers wonder why people hate you. (Not me. But <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes&gt

It's a thread about a lawsuit. The original post is about a judgment. <fingerquotes>people</fingerquotes> can <fingerquotes>blow me</fingerquotes>.

Do I get dinner, a limo ride and $500k?

There's a two-year-old frappuccino in my back seat you can have, I'll pick you up in a six-year-old chevy, and afterward throw toll road change at you until you leave my vehicle.

Pick me up in a '94 Cutlass Supreme and it's a deal.

Hey. Get your own John. I'm working this side of the street.

Capitalism, baby.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So:

We know of at least two boyfriends the dad wanted her to break up with according to the parents' allegations; we know that for some reason the parents allege that she thought she wouldn't have to take meds or follow rules if she lived with her father while they were split up; her father coaches 8th grade girls' basketball, which is his youngest daughter's age; his email address creepily references the first daughter's name; he's the former chief of police; Mom's allegations say that Rachel created an online dating account for her Dad; Dad's allegations do not say this; everyone agrees she's bulimic; and parents' quick response to their daughter running away was to call and tell the school they won't pay for her to finish her senior year.

Looks open and shut for the parents, for sure.

Parents say they both wanted her to break up with those boys; if the Mom is the heavy, how is that odd?; is coaching a child's team suspect now?; eh, plenty of possible explanations for this; while I generally share Yankee's distain, this is hardly a point against the parents in court; affidavits are supposed to be limited to personal knowledge and this is not the only place where the two accounts have different information - the mother makes no mention of a Christmas Eve sit-down with the man the daughter is staying with, presumably because she wasn't there; you generally need to give decent notice to withdraw before a semester starts, and I'm sure my parents would have pulled my tuition to a different NJ Catholic HS a lot faster than these parents did.

Henry, its like you're applying the summary judgment standard to the parent's claims.

Given that this thread began with how obviously disgusting and worthless the kid is... yeah. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm explaining that there are material facts legitimately in dispute in this case, from which a finder of fact could determine liability on the part of the parents. And that a knee-jerk reaction that the kid is a spoiled brat who's lying about everything is just that - knee-jerk.

Late to the party, but what is the legal basis for an 18 year old child to get x dollars from her parents for a, b, c, d?

In new Jersey there is a lot.

I guess I'm learning this.

Sounds mucho screwed up, improper and even though apparently founded on some legal basis it sounds entirely made up by some court or legislature at some point NJ's recent past.

In other words, I see no legitimate principle to support this.

Where does this NJ right emanate from? Pure greed and liberality?

Those would be the most likely choices for a legal basis for any right.

Uhm, yeah, I was referring to something natural and universally recognized like parental obligations - but that does not extend to adult children - so what is it?

 

[Henry Ford]

So:

We know of at least two boyfriends the dad wanted her to break up with according to the parents' allegations; we know that for some reason the parents allege that she thought she wouldn't have to take meds or follow rules if she lived with her father while they were split up; her father coaches 8th grade girls' basketball, which is his youngest daughter's age; his email address creepily references the first daughter's name; he's the former chief of police; Mom's allegations say that Rachel created an online dating account for her Dad; Dad's allegations do not say this; everyone agrees she's bulimic; and parents' quick response to their daughter running away was to call and tell the school they won't pay for her to finish her senior year.

Looks open and shut for the parents, for sure.

Parents say they both wanted her to break up with those boys; if the Mom is the heavy, how is that odd?; is coaching a child's team suspect now?; eh, plenty of possible explanations for this; while I generally share Yankee's distain, this is hardly a point against the parents in court; affidavits are supposed to be limited to personal knowledge and this is not the only place where the two accounts have different information - the mother makes no mention of a Christmas Eve sit-down with the man the daughter is staying with, presumably because she wasn't there; you generally need to give decent notice to withdraw before a semester starts, and I'm sure my parents would have pulled my tuition to a different NJ Catholic HS a lot faster than these parents did.

Henry, its like you're applying the summary judgment standard to the parent's claims.

Given that this thread began with how obviously disgusting and worthless the kid is... yeah. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm explaining that there are material facts legitimately in dispute in this case, from which a finder of fact could determine liability on the part of the parents. And that a knee-jerk reaction that the kid is a spoiled brat who's lying about everything is just that - knee-jerk.

Late to the party, but what is the legal basis for an 18 year old child to get x dollars from her parents for a, b, c, d?

In new Jersey there is a lot.

I guess I'm learning this.

Sounds mucho screwed up, improper and even though apparently founded on some legal basis it sounds entirely made up by some court or legislature at some point NJ's recent past.

In other words, I see no legitimate principle to support this.

Where does this NJ right emanate from? Pure greed and liberality?

Those would be the most likely choices for a legal basis for any right.

Uhm, yeah, I was referring to something natural and universally recognized like parental obligations - but that does not extend to adult children - so what is it?

It doesn't extend to adult children in all circumstances, but does in some. Like if the kid is determined not to be emancipated - not really a full fledged adult yet. At least that's my understanding of New Jersey's take on it.

 

[msommer]

In Denmark you can now get a divorce online without having to even talk to a lawyer.

If that's not worth a little extra in taxes I don't know what is!

 

[Henry Ford]

In Denmark you can now get a divorce online without having to even talk to a lawyer.

If that's not worth a little extra in taxes I don't know what is!

Decriminalized prostitution.

 

[msommer]

In Denmark you can now get a divorce online without having to even talk to a lawyer.

If that's not worth a little extra in taxes I don't know what is!

Decriminalized prostitution.

We almost have that too!