18 year old leaves house, sues parents to pay for college and living e (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

Once a kid graduates HS the parent has no obligation to continue to support them. Most choose to help partly out of love and partly to try to make sure the kid won't have to come back and live at home.

There's a difference between a natural obligation and a legal obligation. The original questioner suggested that legal obligation wasn't important to this discussion. I think we all agree we have some kind of obligations to our family, whatever our or their ages.

Agreed.

But isn't there some quid pro quo in the natural obligation? Do your best and I'll help you financially. Throw your life away on drugs etc and maybe I won't.

And do you consider this 18 year old, who has just started receiving college acceptance letters, to have thrown her life away?

Which one of them? The druggie, yes.

Which one of what? This whole thread is about one 18 year old.

 

[dparker713]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

 

[Christo]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

 

[dparker713]

Once a kid graduates HS the parent has no obligation to continue to support them. Most choose to help partly out of love and partly to try to make sure the kid won't have to come back and live at home.

There's a difference between a natural obligation and a legal obligation. The original questioner suggested that legal obligation wasn't important to this discussion. I think we all agree we have some kind of obligations to our family, whatever our or their ages.

Agreed.

So there is a natural obligation, and new Jersey law makes it a legal obligation. Sounds like a clear issue.

A legal obligation is ridiculous - hopefully the case is tossed so no precedent is set... The backlog of 18 year olds suing parents would clog the system.A parent should help their children out, but not bc of legal obligations. If they don't want to, that is their choice and there are prob other issues... If these are factors that don't involve criminality, there is no reason at all for the government to intervene.

So you can think of no scenario where the actions of the parents would create a legal obligation for them to pay their kid's college?

Say the kid wanted to be a mechanic. So he gets a part time job at a garage when he turns 16 and enrolls in his school's vo-tech courses in that area. His boss says that if he puts in 2 years, passes all of his classes he will be hired full time when he graduates.

The parents find out and force him to quit job, join the debate club and enroll in college prep classes. He hates it but does what they say. At the same time they put away money for him to go to college and each month they show him the account balance to assure him they are serious. They also assure him that if he still wants to be a mechanic after he gets a degree he is free to do so because they are certain he will change his mind.

The kid goes to a graduation party, has a little too much to drink and ends up getting a DUI. The parents are so mad they tell him to never come home and they take the college fund and blow it on a world cruise. After all, he is 18, has a HS diploma and they have no further obligations. Do you really think a court shouldn't enforce the agreement the parties had under these circumstances?

Nope. Where are the parents receiving a benefit? Unjust enrichment, partial performance, and quantum meruit all would require the parents to have been benefited in some way. I mean, maybe promissory estoppel, but even there where is the inequity? Either way he would have a HS diploma.

 

[dparker713]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Feel free to cite some case law where minors are competent to enter into contracts outside of special exemptions.

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Here's a good start for this discussion: would you say that contract law is generally a federal legal scheme, or a state legal scheme?

 

[Christo]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Feel free to cite some case law where minors are competent to enter into contracts outside of special exemptions.

Outside of special exceptions? I thought you said minor's weren't capable of entering legally biding contracts.

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Feel free to cite some case law where minors are competent to enter into contracts outside of special exemptions.

This can't be real. You seem to be suggesting that you're a lawyer, and you're kind of making a mess of this.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Once a kid graduates HS the parent has no obligation to continue to support them. Most choose to help partly out of love and partly to try to make sure the kid won't have to come back and live at home.

There's a difference between a natural obligation and a legal obligation. The original questioner suggested that legal obligation wasn't important to this discussion. I think we all agree we have some kind of obligations to our family, whatever our or their ages.

Agreed.

So there is a natural obligation, and new Jersey law makes it a legal obligation. Sounds like a clear issue.

A legal obligation is ridiculous - hopefully the case is tossed so no precedent is set... The backlog of 18 year olds suing parents would clog the system.A parent should help their children out, but not bc of legal obligations. If they don't want to, that is their choice and there are prob other issues... If these are factors that don't involve criminality, there is no reason at all for the government to intervene.

So you can think of no scenario where the actions of the parents would create a legal obligation for them to pay their kid's college?

Say the kid wanted to be a mechanic. So he gets a part time job at a garage when he turns 16 and enrolls in his school's vo-tech courses in that area. His boss says that if he puts in 2 years, passes all of his classes he will be hired full time when he graduates.

The parents find out and force him to quit job, join the debate club and enroll in college prep classes. He hates it but does what they say. At the same time they put away money for him to go to college and each month they show him the account balance to assure him they are serious. They also assure him that if he still wants to be a mechanic after he gets a degree he is free to do so because they are certain he will change his mind.

The kid goes to a graduation party, has a little too much to drink and ends up getting a DUI. The parents are so mad they tell him to never come home and they take the college fund and blow it on a world cruise. After all, he is 18, has a HS diploma and they have no further obligations. Do you really think a court shouldn't enforce the agreement the parties had under these circumstances?

Nope court shouldn't touch it.

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Feel free to cite some case law where minors are competent to enter into contracts outside of special exemptions.

Outside of special exceptions? I thought you said minor's weren't capable of entering legally biding contracts.

Also, if you knowingly make a bargain with a minor, it's not you who gets to unilaterally cancel the bargain, but I guess we can let that go.

 

[Christo]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Feel free to cite some case law where minors are competent to enter into contracts outside of special exemptions.

Outside of special exceptions? I thought you said minor's weren't capable of entering legally biding contracts.

Also, if you knowingly make a bargain with a minor, it's not you who gets to unilaterally cancel the bargain, but I guess we can let that go.

Right. Voidable by the minor under certain circumstances. Not void because one party is a minor.

 

[Christo]

Once a kid graduates HS the parent has no obligation to continue to support them. Most choose to help partly out of love and partly to try to make sure the kid won't have to come back and live at home.

There's a difference between a natural obligation and a legal obligation. The original questioner suggested that legal obligation wasn't important to this discussion. I think we all agree we have some kind of obligations to our family, whatever our or their ages.

Agreed.

So there is a natural obligation, and new Jersey law makes it a legal obligation. Sounds like a clear issue.

A legal obligation is ridiculous - hopefully the case is tossed so no precedent is set... The backlog of 18 year olds suing parents would clog the system.A parent should help their children out, but not bc of legal obligations. If they don't want to, that is their choice and there are prob other issues... If these are factors that don't involve criminality, there is no reason at all for the government to intervene.

So you can think of no scenario where the actions of the parents would create a legal obligation for them to pay their kid's college?

Say the kid wanted to be a mechanic. So he gets a part time job at a garage when he turns 16 and enrolls in his school's vo-tech courses in that area. His boss says that if he puts in 2 years, passes all of his classes he will be hired full time when he graduates.

The parents find out and force him to quit job, join the debate club and enroll in college prep classes. He hates it but does what they say. At the same time they put away money for him to go to college and each month they show him the account balance to assure him they are serious. They also assure him that if he still wants to be a mechanic after he gets a degree he is free to do so because they are certain he will change his mind.

The kid goes to a graduation party, has a little too much to drink and ends up getting a DUI. The parents are so mad they tell him to never come home and they take the college fund and blow it on a world cruise. After all, he is 18, has a HS diploma and they have no further obligations. Do you really think a court shouldn't enforce the agreement the parties had under these circumstances?

Nope. Where are the parents receiving a benefit? Unjust enrichment, partial performance, and quantum meruit all would require the parents to have been benefited in some way. I mean, maybe promissory estoppel, but even there where is the inequity? Either way he would have a HS diploma.

Maybe promissory estoppel?

 

[dparker713]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Feel free to cite some case law where minors are competent to enter into contracts outside of special exemptions.

Outside of special exceptions? I thought you said minor's weren't capable of entering legally biding contracts.

Also, if you knowingly make a bargain with a minor, it's not you who gets to unilaterally cancel the bargain, but I guess we can let that go.

Right. Voidable by the minor under certain circumstances. Not void because one party is a minor.

So, in your world a voidable contract is legally binding?

 

[dparker713]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Here's a good start for this discussion: would you say that contract law is generally a federal legal scheme, or a state legal scheme?

Why would that be a good start?

 

[dparker713]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Feel free to cite some case law where minors are competent to enter into contracts outside of special exemptions.

Outside of special exceptions? I thought you said minor's weren't capable of entering legally biding contracts.

Also, if you knowingly make a bargain with a minor, it's not you who gets to unilaterally cancel the bargain, but I guess we can let that go.

How is this a bilateral contract? Absent a guardian ad litem, the parents are on both sides of the promise. It's essentially a contract with one's self.

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Here's a good start for this discussion: would you say that contract law is generally a federal legal scheme, or a state legal scheme?

Why would that be a good start?

Well, first because contracts in my state don't require consideration....

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Feel free to cite some case law where minors are competent to enter into contracts outside of special exemptions.

Outside of special exceptions? I thought you said minor's weren't capable of entering legally biding contracts.

Also, if you knowingly make a bargain with a minor, it's not you who gets to unilaterally cancel the bargain, but I guess we can let that go.

How is this a bilateral contract? Absent a guardian ad litem, the parents are on both sides of the promise. It's essentially a contract with one's self.

Just stop.

 

[Henry Ford]

So, in your world a voidable contract is legally binding?

So in your world a voidable contract is unenforceable even if it hasn't been voided?

 

[Christo]

For those of you supporting the parental rights to boot the child in this case, what of the fund that was established for her education? Does she have rights to that in your mind? Further what about a verbal contract of adolescence where there is likely a stated expectation of a adademic performance because of implied future attendance in college.

I also wonder what a lawyer could do with the parents supervising a minor as they choose a college and assume debt in their name as a possible minor. Or maybe an enterprising graduate will sue a university with that little nugget

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Feel free to cite some case law where minors are competent to enter into contracts outside of special exemptions.

Outside of special exceptions? I thought you said minor's weren't capable of entering legally biding contracts.

Also, if you knowingly make a bargain with a minor, it's not you who gets to unilaterally cancel the bargain, but I guess we can let that go.

Right. Voidable by the minor under certain circumstances. Not void because one party is a minor.

So, in your world a voidable contract is legally binding?

They are found to be legally binding all of the time. Have you ever been in a courtroom?

 

[Henry Ford]

Motion to stop quoting that post.

 

[mr roboto]

Well that was hard to follow...

 

[Henry Ford]

Well that was hard to follow...

Teach your children not to go to law school. Then this day will have been worth it.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Can he be a waiter, get a little financial aid, & go to a two year vo tech program?

He could go hang out in a bus stop bathroom and turn tricks too!

I'd recommend selling drugs first... Prob marijuana so he can avoid jail if he gets caught.

 

[Henry Ford]

Can he be a waiter, get a little financial aid, & go to a two year vo tech program?

He could go hang out in a bus stop bathroom and turn tricks too!

I'd recommend selling drugs first... Prob marijuana so he can avoid jail if he gets caught.

So we are assuming this kid is white, then?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Thought this thread was going to lead into offers from Vivid Entertainment and Reality Kings, not a lawyer hijacking

 

[GroveDiesel]

This thread is now worse than the Ukraine thread.

 

[fantasycurse42]

This thread is now worse than the Ukraine thread.

Haven't been there, accidentally landed in the racist shooter taking the stand thread today, quietly snuck out of the exit as it was pretty bad too.

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread is now worse than the Ukraine thread.

Unsurprising. Ukrainian women are hot.

 

[fantasycurse42]

This thread is now worse than the Ukraine thread.

Unsurprising. Ukrainian women are hot.

Yes, we should debate Visa laws on importing brides

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread is now worse than the Ukraine thread.

Unsurprising. Ukrainian women are hot.

Yes, we should debate Visa laws on importing brides

Should obviously be tied to an objective rating of attractiveness.

 

[fantasycurse42]

This thread is now worse than the Ukraine thread.

Unsurprising. Ukrainian women are hot.

Yes, we should debate Visa laws on importing brides

Should obviously be tied to an objective rating of attractiveness.

Agreed :highfive:

 

[Rove!]

The fund is the parent's to do with as they please. It is their property. Now, they may be subject to penalties if its not used for college, but that's a tax issue.

The child does not have rights in that fund.

Children are incompetent regarding contracts. They are incapable of entering into a legally binding contract. Also, such an implied contract would be a contract for a gift, which is not enforceable.

I love the fundamental misunderstanding regarding a minor's ability to contract.

Man, I feel sorry for your law school if they weren't even able to drill in the basics of contract law.

Feel free to cite some case law where minors are competent to enter into contracts outside of special exemptions.

Outside of special exceptions? I thought you said minor's weren't capable of entering legally biding contracts.

Also, if you knowingly make a bargain with a minor, it's not you who gets to unilaterally cancel the bargain, but I guess we can let that go.

Right. Voidable by the minor under certain circumstances. Not void because one party is a minor.

So, in your world a voidable contract is legally binding?

They are found to be legally binding all of the time. Have you ever been in a courtroom?

Does it make a difference that the contract was not voided before her 18th birthday? So the agreement was in place while she was an "adult" emancipated or not emancipated....

 

[Godsbrother]

Thought this thread was going to lead into offers from Vivid Entertainment and Reality Kings, not a lawyer hijacking

Lawyers ruin everything. I'm out (and not in a good way)

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Ok then...

 

[munga30]

Void, voidable, consideration, legally binding? Man, my contracts professor would have a nutty if we even *tried* to use those words.

 

[dparker713]

So, in your world a voidable contract is legally binding?

So in your world a voidable contract is unenforceable even if it hasn't been voided?

Never said it was unenforceable. I said it wasn't binding.

Anyway, seeing as everyone wants us to stop, I will.

 

[FigJam]

All I know is, I don't gamble and when I see an honors student at a private school with an eating disorder and a drinking problem, I'd bet money there's something very wrong in that house.

'Wrong' and abusive are very different things.

No, they aren't 'totally different.' They're two categories, one of which is wholly within the other. Abuse is wrong. And it's a definite possibility as to what is 'wrong' in a situation like this.

I said very different, not totally. I'm not denying that there is a possibility of sub-standard parenting, but if we assumed that every bratty kid with a substance abuse issue is from a negligent or abusive family, DCFS would have a hard time keeping up.

Honors student is a big part of this equation. A very big part.And yes, sorry for misquoting. I don't know what happened there. I equally disagree with calling a rectangle "very different" from a square.

I don't see what being an honors student has to do with anything. It just means she's smart.

I don't know, the text of that voicemail she left her mom as well as the fact she was suspended twice strongly leads me to believe that she's a liar and that her parents are telling the truth.

An honors student with emotional problems is a huge red flag for abuse in the home.

Thank you for clearing that up Dr. Freud...

 

[McGarnicle]

Any recent pics of the girl?

 

[Black Box]

Sorry, law nerds. She's given up on her suit and is going home.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rachel-canning-spoiled-n-teen-home-parents-article-1.1719110

 

[Loan Sharks]

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

I am letting it ride on with mentally ill, whore with a drug problem.

I am claiming victory! I win the internet!

 

[Rove!]

Sorry, law nerds. She's given up on her suit and is going home.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rachel-canning-spoiled-n-teen-home-parents-article-1.1719110

Does this mean her parents will be paying for her education then?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Starting to believe the child molestation angle. Something isn't right here.

 

[Black Box]

Sorry, law nerds. She's given up on her suit and is going home.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rachel-canning-spoiled-n-teen-home-parents-article-1.1719110

Does this mean her parents will be paying for her education then?

It's probably up to her parents, I guess.

I'm sure this will probably be one of those things that gets talked about around Thanksgiving years later. "Remember that time I ran away from home and sued you guys? What was I thinking!?"

 

[Black Box]

Starting to believe the child molestation angle. Something isn't right here.

You're right. That dude with the fanny pack hanging around the port-o-potties is up to something.

 

[SeaDogStat]

Sorry, law nerds. She's given up on her suit and is going home.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rachel-canning-spoiled-n-teen-home-parents-article-1.1719110

Does this mean her parents will be paying for her education then?

Unsure, but not binding...maybe we can get a ruling on this from someone?

 

[Henry Ford]

Sorry, law nerds. She's given up on her suit and is going home.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rachel-canning-spoiled-n-teen-home-parents-article-1.1719110

Except in the sense that she still has a pending lawsuit, I totally agree.

Wait, in what sense has she given up on her suit?

 

[Henry Ford]

Sorry, law nerds. She's given up on her suit and is going home.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rachel-canning-spoiled-n-teen-home-parents-article-1.1719110

Does this mean her parents will be paying for her education then?

Unsure, but not binding...maybe we can get a ruling on this from someone?

If I were her lawyer, I'd have told her that if she fears for her safety in any way at all, she should stay away. But that the case for her being unemancipated is certainly better if she's living at home.

 

[Black Box]

Sorry, law nerds. She's given up on her suit and is going home.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rachel-canning-spoiled-n-teen-home-parents-article-1.1719110

Except in the sense that she still has a pending lawsuit, I totally agree.

Wait, in what sense has she given up on her suit?

I guess I am jumping the gun here, which might be a mistake if it is simply a legal maneuver. And I suppose I shouldn't have ruled that out since lawyers are involved

 

[saintsfan]

Starting to believe the child molestation angle. Something isn't right here.

I don't know if he's a molester or not, but I see a Dad with his arm around his daughter. If that makes him a molester, then every Dad on planet Earth is a molester.

 

[Godsbrother]

Starting to believe the child molestation angle. Something isn't right here.

I don't know if he's a molester or not, but I see a Dad with his arm around his daughter. If that makes him a molester, then every Dad on planet Earth is a molester.

Yeah I am not seeing anything wrong in that pic.