Author Topic: A New Jersey Cheerleader Is Suing Her Parents To Pay For Her College Tuition  (Read 701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822

“We’re heartbroken, but what do you do when a child says, ‘I don’t want your rules but I want everything under the sun and you to pay for it?’” her father said.
posted on March 3, 2014 at 4:06pm EST
 Rachel Zarrell



She claims they threw her out of their home when she turned 18.


According to her father, Sean Canning, Rachel was an “incredibly rebellious teen” who ran away from home because she didn’t want to abide by her parents’ rules.


The rules include being respectful, keeping a curfew, doing chores, and potentially ending her relationship with a boyfriend who they feel is a bad influence.

According to Rachel, they gave her the option of dumping him or getting out.

Her parents have also said that Rachel has had disciplinary problems, having been suspended twice at school and gotten in trouble for bullying her sister, according to the Daily Record.

“We’re heartbroken, but what do you do when a child says, ‘I don’t want your rules but I want everything under the sun and you to pay for it?’” Sean said, adding that Rachel’s college fund is available and has not been withdrawn or re-allocated as she alleged in the lawsuit.

Rachel, who aspires to be a biochemical engineer, is an honor student at Morris Catholic High School in Denville, N.J., and is on the cheerleading and lacrosse teams.


Since the alleged “abandonment,” the teenager has been living with the family of her best friend Jaime Inglesino. Jaime’s father, John, an attorney and former Morris County Freeholder, is funding the lawsuit and hired Canning’s lawyer, Tanya N. Helfand.

In a hearing scheduled for March 4, Helfand will ask Morristown Judge Peter Bogaard for Rachel’s parents, Sean and Elizabeth, to pay an outstanding $5,306 Morris Catholic tuition bill, plus their daughter’s current living and transportation fees, and commit an existing college fund to her.

The lawsuit also includes a request that Rachel’s parents pay their daughter’s legal fees, which so far total $12,597.

Sean Canning, a retired police chief, denied the claims his daughter made, and said she voluntarily left home in October.


The township administrator said he fears his daughter is being “enabled” by “well-intentioned but ill-informed people” like the Inglesinos.

“We love our child and miss her. This is terrible. It’s killing me and my wife. We have a child we want home,” he said. “We’re not Draconian and now we’re getting hauled into court. She’s demanding that we pay her bills but she doesn’t want to live at home and she’s saying, ‘I don’t want to live under your rules.’”

Canning’s parents decided that as of Nov. 1, her 18th birthday, she would be cut off “from all support both financially and emotionally,” she alleged in court papers.


She added that after she accused her parents of abuse, her school advised her not to return home and contacted the state child protection agency.

“My parents have rationalized their actions by blaming me for not following their rules,” she said in her court documents. “They stopped paying my high school tuition to punish the school and me and have redirected my college fund, indicating their refusal to afford me an education as a punishment.”

Court papers include a letter from Kathleen Smith, Canning’s English teacher and campus minister, who wrote that she saw an unsettling encounter between the teen and her mother last October, where she heard Elizabeth Canning call her daughter a name and say she didn’t want to speak to her again.

A representative for child protection services visited for about three hours last fall and found nothing amiss, Sean Canning said.


Canning added that the investigation was discontinued after the officer determined Rachel was “spoiled.”

Much more and many pictures at link: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/a-new-jersey-cheerleader-is-suing-her-parents-to-pay-for-her

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,032
  • Dork
She may very well have a strong claim against them.  Under NJ law a child is not automatically emancipated upon turning 18 and in general is not deemed emancipated until his/her education is completed, and that can include completing college.  So long as a child is not emancipated, the parents have an obligation to support that child and that can include paying for college.  Here's a brief article that summarizes NJ law on the subject:  http://www.einhornharris.com/resources/articles-publications/child-support-a-legal-obligation-and-a-moral-dilemma/

Online aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,356
It's taken just 40 years for the legal profession to kill health care.

Lawyers have gone after religion with great success, too.

And legal defense funds have worked to empower envirowacko's to nearly kill industry.

Now they're working on killing the American family.

Too, let's not forget that today a majority of politicians are attorneys.

Any question why america's in such a mess?
NeverTrump wants to deny you YOUR voice, YOUR presidential choice.

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
From the link:
Quote
The cost of a child’s college education was specifically addressed by the Court, which held that parents would be required to pay for college when college would be considered normal for that family, the child shows scholastic aptitude, and one or both parents have the financial ability to pay tuition.

The Cohen case was decided 60 years ago. The age of majority then was 21. The age of majority in New Jersey is now 18. The Courts have, in fact, expanded the definition of emancipation. Generally, a child will be deemed emancipated when he or she “moves beyond the sphere of influence and responsibility” exercised by a parent; obtaining independent status on his or her own.

So what does it mean for a child to move beyond the sphere of influence and responsibility of the parent? A child is deemed emancipated upon entering the armed forces, upon their marriage, or upon completing their education. A child is presumed emancipated upon turning 18, but this is only a presumption which can be refuted depending on the facts and circumstances. A Court may determine that a child is or should be self sufficient based upon a specific occurrence or event in the child’s life. The best interest of the child is always paramount. Simply stated, the law is not black and white. The facts and circumstances must be carefully presented and scrutinized.

Since the girl is not living at home, in my opinion, she is emancipated. I believe the father was a cop, so don't think he could afford it without loans. My parents did not pay for any of us kids to go to college. I suppose they would help if we asked, but none of us have ever borrowed one dime from them. I wish my kids were like us.  :silly:

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,032
  • Dork
From the link:
Since the girl is not living at home, in my opinion, she is emancipated. I believe the father was a cop, so don't think he could afford it without loans. My parents did not pay for any of us kids to go to college. I suppose they would help if we asked, but none of us have ever borrowed one dime from them. I wish my kids were like us.  :silly:

With all due respect, NJ law is not nearly so clear.  In fact, unless a child has told her parents she has no intention of going to college and has in fact taken substantial steps toward becoming, and has in fact become for a period of time, self-sufficient, then that child may very well not be emancipated.  There is case-law in NJ to this effect.  The article I linked to is fairly short and is worth the read.

In terms of financial ability, if the parents cannot realistically pay for it, viewed from an objective point of view and taking into account the reduction of any purely discretionary spending (e.g., expensive vacations or new high-end SUVs every year), then - and to that extent - they won't be forced to pay for it; however, to the extent they have the wherewithal, they will be required to pay for it.

One of the leading cases on the subject is Sakovits v. Sakovits, 178 N.J. Super. 623 (Ch.Div. 1981).  That case was ruled upon in the context of proceedings between divorced parents, however, since as the case points out the children of divorced parents should be on an equal footing with children of married parents, the holding and rationale of this case should apply to cases where the parents are not divorced.  The full opinion in that case:
Quote

JOHN SAKOVITS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DORRIS V. SAKOVITS, DEFENDANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division Bergen County.
Decided February 3, 1981.



KRAFTE, J.J.D.R.C. (temporarily assigned).

Defendant makes this application by way of motion, seeking contribution from plaintiff toward the college education of the children. The issue this court is called upon to determine is to what extent, if at all, can a child, formally emancipated by court
[178 N.J. Super. 626]
order, call upon his/her parents to contribute to the child's support. There is no reported New Jersey decision which deals precisely with the question presented to this court herein.

Plaintiff husband and defendant wife were divorced in 1969. The final judgment was signed on July 17, 1969, which provided in part that plaintiff shall pay to defendant a total of $50 a week for the support and maintenance of the two infant children of the marriage, Carl and John.

It is important to note that at the time of this application John was 21 years of age and Carl 18. Based upon the affidavits and financial statements submitted, this court entered an order on July 24, 1980 requiring plaintiff to contribute approximately $4,500 to Carl's college education (which plaintiff stated he had set aside for such purpose) plus one-quarter of Carl's annual tuition. A determination as to John was reserved pending the receipt of further information relevant to John's employment and residence since he graduated high school, a statement of his assets and the cost of his tuition. This court also noted that support payments for John ceased in 1977 and requested any available documentation indicating the basis thereof.

Among the supplemental documents received was an order of July 18, 1977 which declared John to be emancipated and extinguished plaintiff's obligation to support him. The information submitted established that John has continuously been employed and has maintained his own residence since his emancipation. He only occasionally stayed at his mother's residence to visit her on weekends. He is at present 22 years of age and earns approximately $200 a week. Upon his graduation from high school John did not wish to attend college and, after conveying his intentions to plaintiff, plaintiff gave him some $3,200 to enable him to start his own business.

This court first notes that defendant has brought this application for contribution on behalf of her son. We question her right to do so, given John's age of 22. However, since the entire controversy has been fully presented, this court will take jurisdiction and rule.

[178 N.J. Super. 627]
It is now elementary that a duty is imposed by statute upon a parent to support a child. In addition to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 provides in pertinent part that the parents are "equally charged with their care, nurture, education and welfare...." This duty has been stated in case law as well. Cohen v. Cohen, 6 N.J.Super. 26 (App.Div. 1949); Grotsky v. Grotsky, 58 N.J. 354 (1971); Clayton v. Muth, 144 N.J.Super. 491 (Ch.Div. 1976).

Blackstone described the duty of a parent to support their minor children as "a principle of natural law." 1 Blackstone, Commentaries, 447. Such duty is based on both a natural and legal incapacity, and the child's consequent need of protection and care. Kern v. Kern, 360 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.App. 1978).

As a general rule, a parent is under no duty to contribute to the support of his child after the child has become emancipated Schluter v. Schluter, 17 N.J.Super. 496 (Ch.Div. 1951) mod. 23 N.J.Super. 409 (App.Div. 1952) certif. den. 11 N.J. 583 (N.J. 1953); Cohen v. Cohen, 6 N.J.Super. 26 (App.Div. 1949); Eisler v. Toms, 160 N.J.Super. 272. Most recently this rule manifested itself in the case of C v. R., 169 N.J.Super. 168 (Ch.Div. 1979), where the court stated:
The duty to support minor children ordinarily ceases upon emancipation by age, marriage, self-sufficiency or upon termination of parental rights. [at 179]

However, exceptions to this rule were anticipated by the court in Cohen, supra.
Ordinarily, the obligation of the parent to support ends when the child reaches full age, although it might continue indefinitely if the child were crippled or unable to support himself. In many cases, the obligation terminates when the child is around 18 years. [Amos] v. [Amos], 4 N.J. Eq. 171 (Pennington, C., 1842); Snover v. Snover, 13 N.J. Eq. 261 (Green, C., 1861); 1 Biggles, Com. 449. It is probably safe to say that when the family situation is such that, had there been no divorce or separation, the child would have gone to work and become self-supporting before attaining age 21, the duty of the parents under the statute likewise terminates while the child is still a minor. On the other hand, in a family where a college education would seem normal, and where the child shows scholastic aptitude and one or other of the parents is well able financially to pay the expense of such an education, we have no doubt the court could order the payment. [6 N.J. Super. at 30]

[178 N.J. Super. 628]
Two exceptions have subsequently been carved out. The first was recognized in Kruvant v. Kruvant, 100 N.J.Super. 107 (App.Div. 1968), which imposed a continuing duty on a parent to care for an adult son suffering from physical or mental deficiencies which pre-existed his attaining majority. At the time of the application the son was 25 years of age. The husband was requested at the suit of his former wife to contribute to the cost of the son's necessary care and maintenance.

The "college education" exception is the second incursion. It has received a great deal more attention, not only in our own State but throughout the country. See 99 A.L.R.3d 322.) It is this exception upon which defendant relies. Under this exception a parent may be required to contribute financially to the college education of a child even though the child has reached majority.

Our court in Jonitz v. Jonitz, 25 N.J.Super. 544 (App.Div. 1953), recognized this power, after considering all relevant circumstances, as requiring a parent to provide his child with a college education, after reaching majority. In so holding the court made reference to what was perhaps the earliest reported decision in the country in this area, Middlebury College v. Chandler, 16 Vt. 683 (Sup.Ct. 1844). The court in Middlebury found that a college education was not a necessity for which a parent would be required to contribute but pointed out, in effect, as the Jonitz, decision noted,
... the term "necessary" is a relative and flexible one and seemingly contemplated the expansion of educational opportunities to the studious and talented. [25 N.J. Super. at 544, 555]

This trend of including college expenses in child support proceeded one step further in Khalaf v. Khalaf, 58 N.J. 63 (1971), where the court held:
[178 N.J. Super. 629]
The concept of what is a necessary education has changed considerably in recent years. While a "common public school and high school education" may have been sufficient in an earlier time, see Ziesel v. Ziesel, 93 N.J. Eq. 153 (E.A. 1921), the trend has been towards greater education. Our courts have recognized this trend by including the expenses of a college education as part of child support where the child shows scholastic aptitude and the parents are well able to afford it. Malkin v. Malkin, 12 N.J.Super. 496 (App.Div. 1951); Cohen v. Cohen, 6 N.J.Super. 26, 30 (App.Div. 1949); Nebel v. Nebel, supra [99 N.J.Super. 256]. See also Jonitz v. Jonitz, 25 N.J.Super. 544, 556 (App.Div. 1953); Hoover v. Voigtman, 103 N.J.Super. 535 (Cty.Ct. 1968); see generally Annotation, "Divorce — Support of Child — Education" 56 A.L.R.2d 1207, 1220. We agree with the cases which include these expenses in child support where appropriate. [at 71-72; emphasis supplied]

Khalaf has become the leading case in New Jersey in this area.

Subsequent to Khalaf came Schumm v. Schumm, 122 N.J.Super. 146 (Ch.Div. 1973), in which the child had clearly exhibited scholastic aptitude for attendance at college and made an effort to contribute to his own education. Although relying on Khalaf, the court noted:
It is the responsibility of the custodian of a child to supervise his care, control, maintenance and education. Such custodian has the right to determine the kind of education which is suitable for the child so entrusted to its care. When there is insufficient money available for either parent to afford college expenses but the custodian and the child are willing to work toward providing a better education for him, even though the cost of education may not be assessed against the father, this court is invested with the power and authorization to continue the father's obligation to support the child when he pursues that college education. [at 150. This is the rationale in Straver v. Straver, 26 N.J. Misc. 218 (Ch. 1948) and Limpert v. Limpert, 119 N.J.Super. 438 (App.Div. 1972)]

The trend in requiring the noncustodial parent to contribute to the college education of his/her children was taken one step further most recently in Ross v. Ross, 167 N.J.Super. 441 (Ch. Div. 1979). In Ross Judge Conn found that under the circumstances there present the 23-year-old daughter of the parties was not emancipated until such time as her law school training ended. The court established a threshold question in cases of this nature, which this court believes is applicable here:
Had there not been a separation and divorce would the parties, while living together, have sent their daughter to law school and financed that schooling? [at 445]

The court concluded:
It would seem clear from the facts particularly the respective incomes of the parties; the fact of only having one child, and the early indicators in this case of Jane's interest in law school, that the parties, in all probability, would have financed Jane's law school education. [Id.]

The concern of this court in establishing this threshold standard is its sensitivity to the problem which may arise by requiring
[178 N.J. Super. 630]
divorced parents to contribute to the college education of their children when, had the parents remained together, they could not be required to do so. If the court so held, we would in effect place upon the divorced parent a greater obligation to support his children than he would have in the absence of divorce. The Florida court in Kern v. Kern, 360 So.2d 482 (Ct.App. 1978), recognized a very basic flaw in this situation:
... Such an interpretation may give rise to valid constitutional infirmities in that the state would have no reasonable grounds to treat the adult children of divorced parents any different than adult children of married parents.... [at 485].

As pointed out in Ross, supra, an affirmative answer to this threshold question is in no way dispositive of the issue. The court there listed the following factors which should also be considered:
1. The amount of support (or school cost) sought: 2. The ability of the noncustodial parent to pay the cost, and its relation to the type of schooling sought; 3. The financial position of the custodial parent; 4. The commitment and aptitude of the child to the schooling in question; 5. The child's relationship to the noncustodial, paying parent, and 6. The relationship of the schooling in question to any prior training and generally, the relationship to the over-all long range goals of the child. [167 N.J. Super. at 445]

To this list this court believes it is important to add some further considerations especially applicable to the college education situation:
1. The reasonableness of time between graduation from high school and the time the child desires to attend college, and 2. Based on the parents' educational and social backgrounds, the expectation on behalf of the parents that the child would attend college.

A common situation we must confront today is where, after high school graduation, the child takes a year or more hiatus from school to travel or work before attending college. The intentions of the child of returning to college in such instance is usually made known to the parents and they, therefore, would still reasonably expect that child would go to college. An agreement or general understanding between the parents and child that there would be such hiatus may also be important.

[178 N.J. Super. 631]
The enumerated exceptions, unfortunately, do not specifically address the question here presented, i.e., to what extent can a child, once formally emancipated, call upon his/her parents for support. In none of the cases which the parents were required to support their children past the children's majority was a formal declaration of emancipation entered prior to the application.

This court believes it would be propitious to extend this trend of requiring contribution to the college and/or professional education of children to cases where the child has at one point been formally declared to be emancipated, as a blanket proposition. The same considerations present in Hover, Cohen, Schumm, Limpert, Nebel, Khalaf and Ross, supra, and those mentioned herein, would be applicable in the situation where the child had at one point been declared emancipated.

This is especially important in today's society, as mentioned earlier, where a brief hiatus between high school and college is becoming commonplace. During the hiatus the child may very well move out of the parental home and attain full-time employment, with the noncustodial parent successfully applying to have the child declared emancipated. If we were to hold that the college education exception should not be extended to situations where the child had been declared emancipated, then the child would forever be estopped from seeking such contribution from his parents. This court deems such a situation to be totally inequitable. When a declaration of emancipation is entered, all a judge has before him are the facts as they exist at that time. This court, therefore, finds that upon an affirmative determination of the heretofore-mentioned considerations, and regardless of the fact the child may have been formally declared emancipated, the parents may in a given case be called upon to contribute to the college education of such child.

With these guidelines in mind we now proceed to an analysis of the facts present in the present case. Initially, this court
[178 N.J. Super. 632]
finds that a college education would have been made available to John at the time of his graduation from high school, were he then so inclined. Between grants, loans and parental contributions, an education would have been forthcoming.

It is when we consider the second phase of the determination that we encounter difficulty in compelling plaintiff to contribute to John's education. Four years have elapsed since John's graduation from high school. During this period John has continuously lived independently and, although holding various jobs, has remained for the most part continuously employed. We again stress that John expressed no interest in a college education when he graduated from high school. Plaintiff, recognizing this, and still desirous of assisting John in establishing himself, gave him some $3,200. It is also clear that plaintiff has structured his financial future, realistically relying upon these circumstances.

As previously stated, this court does not hesitate to extend the Ross and Khalaf rationale to situations where there has been a formal declaration of emancipation. A reasonable limitation must, however, be established in cases of this nature. This scenario does not lend itself to a cut-and-dried rule; to suggest one is entirely inappropriate. Equity dictates that the court carefully examine the facts present in each case in light of the considerations catalogued herein and those in Ross and Khalaf.

Considering all of these factors, this court encounters severe obstacles in sustaining defendant's position. To require contribution would strain the college exception beyond those situations it could reasonably have been intended to cover. To permit such extension of this doctrine would create an unreasonable, open-ended burden on parents who, at any stage of their lives, could be called upon to finance a college education. In light of the facts present here, this court deems it inappropriate to require plaintiff to contribute to John's college education.


In this case, even though the girl moved out, there doesn't appear to be the same sort of unequivocal refusal of contribution for higher education nor an extended period of self-sufficiency, so it seems to me that she's more likely to win than to lose.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,032
  • Dork
It's taken just 40 years for the legal profession to kill health care.

Lawyers have gone after religion with great success, too.

And legal defense funds have worked to empower envirowacko's to nearly kill industry.

Now they're working on killing the American family.

Too, let's not forget that today a majority of politicians are attorneys.

Any question why america's in such a mess?

The case law on this subject is of quite old vintage.  In NJ it goes back at least as far as 1949 and the case of Cohen v. Cohen, 6 N.J.Super. 26 (App.Div. 1949).

Online mountaineer

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 36,105
Quote
She added that after she accused her parents of abuse
Will they countersue for defamation?
A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,032
  • Dork
Will they countersue for defamation?

I wouldn't if I were they.

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,768
EXCLUSIVE: 'My mom called me porky and my dad got me drunk and told me I was more than just his daughter': Explosive claims of 'spoiled' Bulimic cheerleader, 18, suing parents to support her after she ran away

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573165/My-mom-called-porky-dad-got-drunk-told-I-just-daughter-Explosive-claims-spoiled-cheerleader-18-suing-parents-support-ran-away.html

Quote
College-bound honors student Rachel Canning of Lincoln Park, New Jersey says she was 'abandoned' by her parents the day she turned 18
She claims her weight dropped to 92 pounds after developing eating disorder in sophomore year
Court papers further claim father said she was 'more' than just a daughter to him
Rachel's father Sean Canning is a former Lincoln Park, New Jersey police chief and says his daughter is a 'spoiled' liar who left on her own
Parents filed documents to New Jersey Superior Court showing they were cleared by a Department of Children and Families inquiry
Sean Canning and his wife Amy have stopped paying Rachel's Catholic school tuition and now owe over $5,000
Rachel's friend's family are funding her lawsuit, which has thus far cost $12,500


Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,768
'I hate you, have a nice life, bye mom'

Phone message left for Liz Canning from Rachel at July 2, 2013 1:18pm, submitted to Superior Court of New Jersey

'Hi mom just to let you know you're a real f**king winner aren't you you think you're so cool and you think you caught me throwing up in the bathroom after eating an egg frittatta, yeah sorry that you have problems now and you need to harp on mine because i didn't and i actually took a s*** which i really just wanna s*** all over your face right now because it looks like that anyway, anyway i f***ing hate you and um I've written you off so don't talk to me, don't do anything I'm blocking you from just about everything, have a nice life, bye mom'





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573165/My-mom-called-porky-dad-got-drunk-told-I-just-daughter-Explosive-claims-spoiled-cheerleader-18-suing-parents-support-ran-away.html


Online mountaineer

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 36,105
As the sibling of one who has behaved at least this horridly toward his parents for the past 40+ years, this just makes me angry all over again. I really feel sorry for this family.
A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
As the sibling of one who has behaved at least this horridly toward his parents for the past 40+ years, this just makes me angry all over again. I really feel sorry for this family.

Yep.........  some kids think there should be no rules.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,545
This morning, the headline described her as an "honor student' and a cheerleader.

I guess they're right.....sex sells.  [/s]
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

"You can lead a liberal to the Truth, but you can't make them Think" - damned if I know

Online mountaineer

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 36,105
Now she's ramping up the (probably) false accusations:
Quote
Teen suing parents for tuition: Dad’s affection ‘inappropriate’
by Priscilla DeGregory and David K. Li
March 4, 2014 | 6:02pm
NY Post


The New Jersey honor student who’s suing her parents lost an early round in court Tuesday, when a judge refused to make the teen’s parents cough up funds for her private education.

Judge Peter Bogaard said there was no emergency need for 18-year-old Rachel Canning’s folks to pay for tuition at Morris Catholic HS, where she’s in the 12th grade and maintaining a 3.5 grade-point average.

In a potential precedent-setting lawsuit, Rachel claims her parents, Sean and Elizabeth Canning, threw her out of their Lincoln Park home, but should still be responsible for paying school tuition, room, board, transportation and other expenses.

Mom and Dad said their daughter refused to obey basic household rules and left on her own. Sean and Elizabeth Canning haven’t seen their oldest child since she left in late October, two days before her birthday.

They both cried during the two-hour hearing in Morristown, about 30 miles west of Manhattan, as lawyers traded angry accusations.

Rachel’s lawyer, Tanya Helfand, said the couple hadn’t lifted a finger to contact their daughter or make sure she’s doing OK.

“She is lucky to have her benefactors,” Helfand said of the family caring for Rachel.

“Her relationship with her parents is abusive, in particular her relationship with her father. I’m asking the court to help this vulnerable young woman.”

In court papers, Rachel said her mom has called her fat, while her dad has been “inappropriately affectionate with me.”

“He mentioned frequently that my relationship, in his eyes, was not one of a daughter, but more than that,” Rachel contends.

She stopped short of saying he never touched her unlawfully.

Her parents’ lawyer, Laurie Rush-Masuret, denied all of Rachel’s claims.

The Cannings introduced documents from the state’s Division of Child Protection, showing the parents had been investigated for — and cleared of — abuse allegations.

And the bottom line, Rush-Masuret said, is that Rachel left on her own, explaining, “She has emancipated herself. She doesn’t want to be within her parents’ sphere of influence.”

Despite Tuesday’s setback, Rachel’s suit is going forward.

Bogaard ordered both sides back to court on April 22.

But the judge hinted that Rachel might have a tough legal burden to handle.

“The child thumbs her nose at her parents, leaves the house and turns around asking, ‘Now you have to pay me money every week.’ This poses a public-policy issue,” he said.

“It’s a slippery slope.”
A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

Online mountaineer

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 36,105
Re: A New Jersey Cheerleader Is Suing Her Parents ... UPDATE
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2014, 08:46:39 AM »
Teen suing parents had wild boozy ragers at lawyer’s home
By Joe Tacopino/NY Post
March 7, 2014 | 12:15am

The man bankrolling a bratty New Jersey teen’s lawsuit against her parents allowed her to get boozed up and throw wild ragers in his home, according to a new ­report.

Powerful attorney John Inglesino, who took now-18-year-old runaway Rachel Canning under his wing, let her get drunk on vodka in his Rockaway Township house when she was 15, according to court papers, the Daily Mail reported.

Canning wants her parents to fork over money for tuition, room, board, transportation and other expenses.

Her parents, Sean and Elizabeth Canning, claim that Inglesino provided their daughter with not only a home but a place to drink and party.

Rachel’s dad claims she had once been so hung over from a night of drinking, she puked all over a sidewalk and into a garbage can, according to the Daily Mail. Rachel’s parents also claim the Inglesino family hosted parties and paid for rides in limousines filled with wine coolers.

“Rachel was angry because we would not host an alcoholic party,” her dad said in court papers.

“Rachel’s first time drinking alcohol was at the Inglesino house.”

Inglesino, whose daughters are friends with Rachel, fired back in court papers that Rachel deserves an opportunity to realize her goals.

“Rachel is likable, communicates exceptionally well and is highly motivated,” Inglesino wrote in a court filing. “That is why my wife and I have decided to fund [her] lawsuit.”

In a response, Rachel’s parents said the politically connected lawyer has helped tear the family apart. “The Inglesinos, while purporting to help, have actually been a tremendous hindrance in family healing,” Elizabeth Canning said in a sworn statement.

In a Morristown court Tuesday, after Rachel filed for an emergency order to get $600 a week from her parents, Judge Peter Bogaard blasted the young woman, referring to an obscene voicemail she left for her mother.

“Have you ever seen a young adult show such gross disrespect to a parent in a voicemail?” he asked. “The child thumbs her nose at her parents, leaves the house and turns around asking, ‘Now you have to pay me money every week.’ ”

Sean and Elizabeth said their eldest daughter refused to obey basic household rules and left on her own.

For Rachel to get money from her parents, she’ll have to show at the next scheduled court hearing that she was thrown out of their Lincoln Park house or feared physical danger, legal experts said.
A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf