Mar 04 2014

18 Year Old Living Away From Parents Sues Them For College Tuition – I Bet She Would Win -BUT SHE LOST!

Social media is abuzz with the latest legal case to attract attention: Rachel Canning, 18, of Lincoln Park, New Jersey, is suing her parents for college tuition after she says she was kicked out of their house in October of last year.

Courtesy Facebook/HuffPost

Courtesy Facebook/HuffPost

The Morris Catholic High School honor student and athlete claims her parents threw her out of their Lincoln Park home when she turned 18. Ms. Canning, a cheerleader and lacrosse player who has aspirations to be a biomedical engineer, filed a lawsuit last week in the Family Part of state Superior Court in Morristown that seeks a judge’s declaration that she is non-emancipated and still dependent as a student on her parents for support.
She is currently living with a friend and her friend’s parents are the one’s paying for the lawyers and costs in bringing the suit.

The teen has been accepted to several colleges so far. The University of Vermont, where she has been offered a $20,000 scholarship, is her first choice, according to CBS New York.

However, her parents say they did not abandon her. Rather, they say she voluntarily moved out after refusing to follow their rules. This quote from Sean Canning, her Dad, appeared in the Huffington Post:

“We love our child and miss her. This is terrible. It’s killing me and my wife. We have a child we want home. We’re not draconian and now we’re getting hauled into court,” father Sean Canning told the outlet. “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.’ I know Rachel is a) a good kid, b) an incredibly rebellious teen, and she’s getting some terrible information,””

I disagree Dad, I hate to break the news to you. The internet has branded her “spoiled” and a “brat” and a “scourge on her parents.” But let’s look at this as a lawyer would, shall we? And after careful legal analysis my legal conclusion is “Winner, Winner Chicken Dinner!” This case is going to go Rachel’s way.

It is now elementary under New Jersey (and New York) law 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 that parents are “equally charged with their [children’s] care, nurture, education and welfare….” This duty has been stated in case law as well. Cohen v. Cohen, 6 N.J.Super. 26, 69 A.2d 752 (App.Div.1949); Grotsky v. Grotsky, 58 N.J. 354, 277 A.2d 535 (1971); Clayton v. Muth, 144 N.J.Super. 491, 366 A.2d 354 (Ch.Div.1976).

But on the other side, in New jersey, 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, 86 A.2d 300 (Ch.Div.1951). In the case of C v. R., 169 N.J.Super. 168, 404 A.2d 366 (Ch.Div.1979), 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, 404 A.2d 366)

So why am I predicting Rachel will win – because in law there are always exceptions and exceptions to the above rule were anticipated by the court in Cohen v. Cohen. That case really predicts how this case will be decided in my opinion:

[I]n 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 [of a college education after majority has been attained]. (6 N.J.Super. at 30, 69 A.2d 752)

Supreme CourtTwo exceptions have been even more clearly carved out after the Cohen case. The first imposes a continuing duty on a parent to care for an adult child suffering from physical or mental deficiencies which pre-existed his attaining majority. The “college education” exception is the second clearly established exception. It has received a great deal more attention, not only in New Jersey but throughout the country. 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.

Jersey’s highest court in Jonitz v. Jonitz, 25 N.J.Super. 544, 96 A.2d 782 (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, 96 A.2d 782)

This trend of including college expenses in child support proceeded one step further in Khalaf v. Khalaf, 58 N.J. 63, 275 A.2d 132 (1971), where the court held:

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, 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. We agree with the cases which include these expenses in child support where appropriate. (internal citations omitted) /blockquote>

Khalaf became the leading case in New Jersey in this area. Then in the early ’70s came Schumm v. Schumm, 122 N.J.Super. 146, 299 A.2d 423 (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 and the court ordered the father to pay his tuition even thought the child had reached 18.

The trend in requiring a noncustodial parent to contribute to the college education of his/her children was taken one step further in Ross v. Ross, 167 N.J.Super. 441, 400 A.2d 1233 (Ch.Div.1979). In Ross, the court 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. LAW SCHOOL!

The court there also established a threshold question in cases of this nature, which 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?

Since the answer to that question was likely “Yes” then the parents had to pay. Also, moving out of a house after arguments is not emancipation – Rachel is not working, not supporting herself and like Blanche DuBois in Streetcar is depending “upon the kindness of strangers.” That’s not emancipated. In New Jersey, emancipation of a child “is a fact-sensitive analysis that looks at whether the child has moved beyond the sphere of influence and responsibility exercised by a parent and has obtained an independent status of his or her own,” as it states in Rachel’s court papers. The mere fact that a child has turned 18 is not an automatic reason to stop financial support. A key court decision in the state specifies that, “A child’s admittance and attendance at college will overcome the rebuttable presumption that a child may be emancipated at age 18.”

Courts in New Jersey have even allowed the “adult” child to choose the school of their choice as long as the tuition is “reasonable.” In New York, by the way, parents are usually responsible for their child “necessaries” until age 21, not just 18.

Sean Canning is a retired Lincoln Park police chief who currently works as Mount Olive’s township administrator, so between his pension and his salary I am sure he can well afford the reduced tuition Rachel is seeking. It is beyond question that in today’s world, a college education is an expected item and a “necessary” item.

Of course, in a perfect world, The Cannings would get some family counseling and resolve their issues in their living room and not in the courtroom. But until then, I think Rachel gets her way.

UPDATE: OK so everyone disagreed with me including my wife – but remember that in this article I am writing from a purely legal analytical point of view – is it morally right for a child to sue her parents? Of course not but is it legal? Yes. The only issue was whether Rachel was emancipated and the judge ruled that she had emancipated herself. Here’s the phone message that likely cost Rachel her case: Phone message left for Liz Canning from Rachel at July 2, 2013 1:18pm, submitted to Morris County Court, which got the judge apparently so angry:

‘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’

Read more: 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#ixzz2v38Lf7NW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

7 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Here’s the phone message that likely cost Rachel her case: Phone message left for Liz Canning from Rachel at July 2, 2013 1:18pm, submitted to Morris County Court, which got the judge apparently so angry:
    ‘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’

    Read more: 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#ixzz2v38Lf7NW
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    • Karen L Dimacale on March 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm
    • Reply

    “is it morally right for a child to sue her parents? Of course not.” You should really stop there and so should NJ Law.
    It’s a damn shame that NJ Law does not stick with what is morally right, morally responsible, socially right, and socially responsible.
    If the NJ lawyers and judges want to make unilateral decisions regarding how children should be parented/supported, then the laywers and judges should take the children into their own homes and support them.
    All of the parents that I know do the best that they can based on their own experiences, circumstances, and finances.
    Like my parents always told me “I brought you into this world and I can take you out”… needless to say, I didn’t grow up to be a spoiled, disrespectful, entitled, irresponsible adult, and I receive the added bonus that my parents are proud of me. 🙂

    1. As the father of three boys and based on what I heard about how the daughter acted and disrespected her parents I agree with you Karen – but what if the parents had kicked the daughter or just decided not to pay for college which his how the daughter presented her case initially? Do you think parents have an obligation to pay for their kids’ college education if they can afford to and if the kid wants to go to college?

        • Karen L Dimacale on March 6, 2014 at 9:27 am
        • Reply

        I think that the parents can raise their children how they see fit. Some of the best people and co-workers that I know were on their own at 18 and some of them put themselves through school. There is nothing wrong with a young adult of the legal age of 18 being out on their own. No one should get involved with the details as relationships between people are no one elses business to judge and especially make decisions on. Hey, if you want to help someone out, then that is your decision to make and if people want to judge you then so be it, but no one should be able to legally force you to change your decision. Reasons and causes are no one’s business. Just because you want something doesn’t mean that you have a right to take it or force someone else to give it to you.

        The worst part is this whole thing isn’t a legal issue. “Former Morris County Freeholder John Inglesino” is feeding into this spoiled young womans feelings of entitlement. He’s teaching her entitlement instead of tolerance and respect. He should be helping her to respect and understand that her parents can make decisions that affect her and if she chooses to rebel against them then they may make decisions that she will not like. I wouldn’t want this young woman to work for me as she might sue me if she doesn’t like something about her job or a decision that I may make. It’s a real shame.

        There are things that you say and do in your life that you can never take back, and that daughter will never have the same relationship with her parents. No matter how much she strives to make this up to her parents and no matter how much her parents love her, this will always be between them.

        Again, it’s a damn shame that NJ Law does not stick with what is morally right, morally responsible, socially right, and socially responsible.

        1. Karen – I agree with you. IF this young woman had come to my home looking for help I would have taken her in but then made sure that I did all I could to reconcile her with her parents not help her file suit. Even if she eventually wins and forces her parents to pay for her college education, what will she lose in the winning? The love, respect and emotional support of her parents. Just because you may be able to shape the law to your desired outcome does not mean that you go forward with a claim. I agree that it was incumbent on the Inglesinos to try everything but court to resolve this sad situation. There are no winners here.

  2. But do parents have an unconditional obligation to pay for their kids’ college education, regardless of what their kid does, or where the kid chooses to go to college? The parents say they are willing to pay for her, if she moves back home and lives under their rules, and said rules hardly seem draconian.

    1. No Tracy – it’s not unconditional, for sure. If you look at divorce cases, where in NY, parents are required to support their children until age 21 normally, the amounts have to be “reasonable.” Usually somewhere in the range of in-state tuition costs at a State University; but it is dependent on family income. So if a child gets into a SUNY school and also Harvard, but Harvard gives the kid a scholarship that makes it cost about the same as the SUNY school then the child can go to Harvard. If the parents have to pay for Harvard at full retail and they can’t then the child has to go to SUNY. Typical disobedience alone is normally not enough to cut off parental obligations, there has to be full emancipation; this disobedience appears to have been extreme and as I stated in my comment after my blog, that one voicemail in particular was so harsh that it swayed the judge. It also showed that she chose to leave the house and cut ties to her parents which could lead the court to say she emancipated herself. Either way, it is sad and testament to our times that this ended up in court – even if she eventually wins.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: