Lincoln Park Teen Sues Parents

@mapletree, sure, but you cannot tell me that suing her parents for money was the girl's ONLY course of action in the eyes of the Inglesinos. Backing the lawsuit is enabling this entire situation to blow up in a way that any adult should have anticipated would be a disaster. That's where it stops being charity and starts being something else... though I'm not sure what.

ess said:

Snort! A thank you note? That's rich.

yes, and maybe the salutation will be: "Dear Sugar Daddy..."

mapletree, I truly appreciate that you don't buy the most common conjectures and offer alternative views. But even if we could agree that the Inglesinos did Rachel some good, the likelihood of the parents' gratitude towards them is low. And that is even if they are decent people. You seem to assume that without the Inglesinos, Rachel would have been on the street. That's too big an assumption, especially since you think she is a young woman of some character.

Amidst all the conjecture, the one point almost everybody accepts is that this case had no business coming before a judge when it did. And for that reason alone, I would find it hard to thank the Inglesinos. Now, if turns out that the Inglesinos worked tirelessly to resolve the rupture between Rachel and her parents non-judicially before going to court, I might think differently.

tjohn said:

Amidst all the conjecture, the one point almost everybody accepts is that this case had no business coming before a judge when it did. And for that reason alone, I would find it hard to thank the Inglesinos. Now, if turns out that the Inglesinos worked tirelessly to resolve the rupture between Rachel and her parents non-judicially before going to court, I might think differently.

And if that's the case, I would be happier if everything going forward continued outside of the public eye. With all parties never to be heard from again.

ridski said:

tjohn said:

Amidst all the conjecture, the one point almost everybody accepts is that this case had no business coming before a judge when it did. And for that reason alone, I would find it hard to thank the Inglesinos. Now, if turns out that the Inglesinos worked tirelessly to resolve the rupture between Rachel and her parents non-judicially before going to court, I might think differently.

And if that's the case, I would be happier if everything going forward continued outside of the public eye. With all parties never to be heard from again.

I think you are being unreasonable. What about book deals and made for T.V. Hallmark movies?

ridski, I agree. It would mean that we would be left to conjecture about the story for the rest of our lives. Chances are, most people will assume the worst, but the less we hear, the more likely it will be that things worked out. A young person could change dramatically for the better, over time.

mapletree said:

My way or the highway is bad parenting in many cases. And we cannot discount yet that there may have been other issues in addition to house rules applicable to all family members.

It may be bad parenting, but it is not child abuse or illegal. If the child is over 18 and wants to emancipate herself to avoid her parents' draconian rules, she is more than welcome to do so.

There are all kids of parents out there. My own kids have friends who aren't allowed to watch TV or play video games. Others are allowed no sweets or unhealthy snacks. One of my niece's friends is not allowed to have a boyfriend until college (they are in HS now) and is not allowed to attend any after school event that is not academic, so no parties, football games, etc. Do all these kids have the right to find a new family and sue the old one for support? Because they had "bad" unreasonable parents?

Apparently, she has returned home.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/us/student-sues-parents-new-jersey/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

adifferentone said:

mapletree said:

My way or the highway is bad parenting in many cases. And we cannot discount yet that there may have been other issues in addition to house rules applicable to all family members.

It may be bad parenting, but it is not child abuse or illegal. If the child is over 18 and wants to emancipate herself to avoid her parents' draconian rules, she is more than welcome to do so.

There are all kids of parents out there. My own kids have friends who aren't allowed to watch TV or play video games. Others are allowed no sweets or unhealthy snacks. One of my niece's friends is not allowed to have a boyfriend until college (they are in HS now) and is not allowed to attend any after school event that is not academic, so no parties, football games, etc. Do all these kids have the right to find a new family and sue the old one for support? Because they had "bad" unreasonable parents?

Yes, but are these kids kissed on the cheek?

Kissed on the cheek? The horror!!!

Scully said:

Kissed on the cheek? The horror!!!

You used to lick your fingers to clean my face when I was a kid. If that doesn't count as child abuse then I don't know what does. >:p

mapletree said:

I am glad Rachel had a place to stay. Proved she is not such an intractable rebel who chose the highway over her parents' way.

Hopefully she will be able to modify her life around her parents' demands. She only has a few months to wait and tgen it's off to college and I hope it's Vermont so visits will not be frequent.

I also hope her parents learn something from this episode in which they played a major part, pay the bills and help their daughters.

It would be nice if they sent Mr. Inglesino a thank you note. He kept their girl in school and off the streets.

In MOL terms, he found a cat in the street, gave it shelter and returned it to the owner.

Have you considered that perhaps if she did not have a place to stay at the Inglesinos, she would have just followed her parent's rules and this would have never gone this far?

Yes. Tens of thousands of girls do just that. Many of them end up on the street, drugged and earning money for their protectors.

I documented one case who was my co-worker in a previous post. She came from a nice family and her paternal uncle was a household word nationally and even beyond. You would recognize her maiden last name.

To be clear, I do not know how she supported herself when she left home. When I met her she was working full time, was a junior in a pre-med program at Hunter College maintaining a 4.0GPA and had her own fourth floor walk up small apartment. She was 25 when I first met her.

Not a case of sexual molestation, nor one of the wrong boy, nor of alcoholic abuse or drug abuse etc..

Not that the cases are the same. I know the details of my co'worker"s case. I know almost nothing of what happened in the Canning case.

My friend eventually went on to Columbia Medical School all on her own

ETA: my bad. I keep thinking she went to Columbia Medical School because that was one of the schools she planned to attend. Just looked her up. She went to Cornell.
end ETA

Four months out of the house went by before the Inglesinos helped her sue. Surely they may tried to get her parents to fund her high school education during that time.

I do not know why she felt her father's holding her and kissing her in public was a big deal. She probably had to interpret it that way to defend herself from all the bad stuff her parents were saying about her.

But even kisses on the cheek can look sexual in some cases.

And a six year old boy in Colorado was suspended from school for repeatedly kissing a little girl in the cheek.

Hello? Anyone? The girl moved back home.

yahooyahoo said:

Hello? Anyone? The girl moved back home.

Yes, it was noted yesterday.

TarheelsInNj said:

ess said:

I just read that Rachel Canning returned to her parents' house.

http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/03/nj_teen_who_sued_parents_is_going_home.html

yahooyahoo said:

Hello? Anyone? The girl moved back home.

Hard to keep up when the thread is moving so fast, but yes it has been mentioned several times.

mapletree said:

Yes. Tens of thousands of girls do just that. Many of them end up on the street, drugged and earning money for their protectors.

Yes, and most of these are facing much more serious situations. So what is a parent to do when a child chooses to not follow the rules? Do they just let them get away with it? I guess if your child is caught using drugs at home, and you have tried punishing them you will just throw your arms up in the air and let them continue to do it. Heck what else can you do?

And from the article, it seems she chose to leave rather than to follow the rules.
Personally, I have heard the "I am 18 and you can't tell me what to do!" line a few too many times. I was there myself. No abuse or anything else. I simply got into a fight with my parents about money when I was 19 and in college. They stopped paying my bills. Period. I did it on my own. Worked two jobs, took out loans etc and graduated top of my class. It was hard, but not that hard. I did not have to resort to the streets to make a living. And I learned a few lessons in the process that made me much more aware of the value of things today, something that appears to be missing among young people.
And private high school is not a right. There is always public high school.

mapletree said:

I do not know why she felt her father's holding her and kissing her in public was a big deal. She probably had to interpret it that way to defend herself from all the bad stuff her parents were saying about her.

But even kisses on the cheek can look sexual in some cases.

And a six year old boy in Colorado was suspended from school for repeatedly kissing a little girl in the cheek.

The situation with children is a bit absurd but it is being done as a "sexual harrassment" prevention policy. That is very different when the children are siblings or from parent to child etc. You can't compare the two.

ess said:

Wait, the kid's lawyer said this:

"Helfand, who specializes in family law, said the court never determined if Rachel was emancipated or not.

“A psychologist certified that the parents are abusive. School faculty certified that the parents abuse the child,” she wrote."

And they're OK with sending her back home? Something smells bad here.

Bingo. I'm sitting here trying to figure out what the heck could possible be going on. Wouldn't you think that if a psychologist and school faculty found that the parents abuse her, the court wouldn't be so eager to keep throwing the case out, and she would pretty much rather die than go home??

Lawyers don't always tell the truth, especially to the press.....

Just because there has been abuse (according to the court) does not mean that it is best for her to be outside the home. The alternatives could be worse. It depends on the nature of the abuse and what the alternatives are.

mumstheword said:

Lawyers don't always tell the truth, especially to the press.....

A good lawyer is skilled in constructing alternative theories and convincing the jury that the alternative is plausible. If you are a defendant in a trial, you want to have a good lawyer. If you are teaching your children right and wrong, you point out that this is a form of lying.

Abuse is a pretty inflammatory word for Rachel's lawyer to be using, though, don't you think?? And I'm kind of stunned that Rachel has gone home, but the lawsuit continues. WTF?

PeggyC said:

Abuse is a pretty inflammatory word for Rachel's lawyer to be using, though, don't you think?? And I'm kind of stunned that Rachel has gone home, but the lawsuit continues. WTF?

Agreed! Big pile of WTF. And the alleged "abuse"? How is the presence of any kind of abuse conducive to a safe environment in which to send this kid? What a mess.

I'm so confused by the whole thing. She alleges her mother was verbally abusive, but the worst she has come up with is saying the mother called her "fat" and "porky." Meanwhile, we have seen the email evidence of the truly terrible things she said to her mother, while her mother's responses were far more measured and reasonable. She says her father was "inappropriately affectionate," but the only examples given were putting his arm around her and kissing her cheek. Good god.

I consider calling your daughter fat and porky to be abusive, especially if it is part of a pattern.

And again I say, if this situation was about abuse it would have been a verrrrrrrrrrry different case - involving police perhaps, or DYFS, or something else. This lawsuit was about MONEY.

Tom_Reingold said:

I consider calling your daughter fat and porky to be abusive, especially if it is part of a pattern.

Yes it is, but I don't know that we want DYFS and the courts to have to rule on this.

PeggyC said:

Abuse is a pretty inflammatory word for Rachel's lawyer to be using, though, don't you think?? And I'm kind of stunned that Rachel has gone home, but the lawsuit continues. WTF?

Probably the words of a hired-gun expert. As far as her going home and the suit continuing,The plaintiff can withdraw at any time, or they may wait until there are pre-trial motions before the court date in April, at which time I suspect the entire suit will be dismissed, and possibly transferred to family court to monitor for a while.. Actually I think Helfand should be disciplined for bringing a frivolous law suit---this never belonged in the civil division, it absolutely should have been handled in Family.

Tom_Reingold said:

I consider calling your daughter fat and porky to be abusive, especially if it is part of a pattern.

I agree, but it's unlikely to keep a judge from sending you back home.