Lincoln Park Teen Sues Parents

tjohn said:

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.

Agreed, and I do believe they are awful things to say to your daughter (or anyone); but they fall far short of saying she wants to **** on someone's face.

If you are upset and frustrated at the constant bullying and put downs from someone on whom you depend and with you helpless to do or say anything, you may explode when you are in front of a computer well out of face to face reach.

She was telling her father. She never cc'd her mother. Was it a cry for help for a situation she could not handle? Was she alerting and escalating the problem to her father?

I will leave it to professional psychologists to assess.

I think calling a daughter fat and porky to be AS BAD as a daughter saying she wants to **** on her mother's face.

On the other hand, tarheels, I get your point, and it's a good one. The abuse accusation was merely a tool to use in order to file suit for child support. I see more clearly now that she left so she didn't have to live by the rules, and she decided she was entitled to all that crap having left. Now she's learned it's not headed her way, so she is relenting to some degree or another.

I also see your point that any such mistreatment is not clearly part of a pattern, and there is not NEARLY enough evidence that the state should take her parents away from her. And no one has even asked for that. And tjohn, I know very well that if given a choice, one does not want the state to rule on that if it can be avoided! In family court, you take the risk that a judge comes up with an arrangement that makes everyone unhappy.

mapletree said:

If you are upset and frustrated at the constant bullying and put downs from someone on whom you depend and with you helpless to do or say anything, you may explode when you are in front of a computer well out of face to face reach.

She was telling her father. She never cc'd her mother. Was it a cry for help for a situation she could not handle? Was she alerting and escalating the problem to her father?

I will leave it to professional psychologists to assess.

ETA: Rachel must have been having major disagreements with her mother that went at least as far back to 2012 when her parents separated.

The father, understandably, sided with the mother, his wife. Part of the deal for Rachel to return home back in October 2013 was that Rachel had to show respect.

So she writes to her mother but sends the email only to her father omitting her mother altogether.

That is not what an entitled and spoiled person does. She may have been trying to seek help in fighting off her mother.

But no details have been supplied. The parents have used that email to paint their daughter as a spoiled brat.

I hope the fighting does not start again. Going home is not necessarily capitulation. The parents have to voluntarily make the necessary changes.

Maybe a guardian would help for a period of time to keep everyone honest and the situation under reasonable control.

The suit was dismissed today:

http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/03/case_ends_as_nj_teen_agrees_to_dismiss_lawsuit_against_her_parents.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Not surprised, expected as much. This never should have went to court. I blame the family that took her in and funded the lawsuit. This should have been worked out with the family and counseling.

Excellent news.

I hope everything works out for Rachel.

Whatever issues existed before the separation and whatever mending is needed, they can work it out among themselves and the help of counselors.

The school made the right decision in letting her stay.

p.s.

The court was likely needed because the parents were being hardnosed about supporting her basic needs like completing high school four months after she was gone.

mapletree said:

p.s.
The court was likely needed because the parents were being hardnosed about supporting her basic needs like completing high school four months after she was gone.

This is a mistaken belief on so many levels, I just can't even address it. What I will say that using the courts for the reasons mapletree suggested,is a complete perversion of the judicial system.

mapletree said:

Excellent news.

I hope everything works out for Rachel.

Whatever issues existed before the separation and whatever mending is needed, they can work it out among themselves and the help of counselors.

The school made the right decision in letting her stay.

p.s.

The court was likely needed because the parents were being hardnosed about supporting her basic needs like completing high school four months after she was gone.

You seem incapable of holding Rachel responsible for bringing a messy family situation to such great heights of public exposure and ridicule. We were all teenagers once who (maybe) dreamed of walking away from misunderstanding, over-bearing parents and living live on our own terms. Buts using your parents in civil court? The fact that both claims were thrown out underscores how frivolous this matter was. I hope Rachel goes home and apologizes to her parents and somehow finds a way to remediate the damage (Finacial and emotional) she's done to her family.

And, by the way, she's 18 now. Free to hit the road on her own steam (and, presumably, dollar).

We should all remember how naive and easily influenced we were at the age of 17 or 18.

People in glass houses.....

Were the parents correct after all? (Oh and I learned something reaching Patch. WOW!!)

http://southorange.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/teen-who-sued-parents-says-boyfriend-choked-her-files-restraining-order43727?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001&newsRef=true

Wow.

I get a 404 page not found...

It was there the other day. Is it possible they took it down for privacy reasons?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-who-sued-parents-gets-restraining-order-against-boyfriend/

This should work

Odd, because I know the patch link did work a few days ago.

Patch links are very fickle.

Thanks @LL_

This one is college tuition instead of private school, but still...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-ordered-pay-estranged-daughters-college-tuition/story?id=26889667

A New Jersey woman has successfully sued her estranged parents to pay for her college tuition.

A judge in Camden County, New Jersey, ruled that Caitlyn Ricci's biological parents will have to cough up $16,000 each year so Ricci, 21, can continue classes across the Delaware River at Temple University in Pennsylvania, ABC News station WPVI in Philadelphia reported.

The parents' attorney is appealing the judge's decision, her mother, Maura McGarvey, told ABC News. She said she's shocked her own daughter would sue her.

"Of course, it's not anything you ever imagine," she said between tears. "I feel like I tried very hard to raise my child right."

McGarvey said she learned Caitlyn was suing her and her ex-husband when the court papers arrived on the Friday before Mother's Day 2013.

The parents had already filed a motion to emancipate their daughter.

Ricci's parents' marriage only lasted two-and-a-half years. Caitlyn lived with her mother but also saw her father, the couple said.

"She comes from two loving families and she was given what she wanted when she was growing up," her father, Michael Ricci, told WPVI.

McGarvey described her daughter as a rebellious teenager who left home and moved in with her grandparents in February because she didn't want to follow her mother's rules, putting stress on the family's relationship. She said the only time she has seen her daughter since she started at Temple University was in a courtroom.

"She packed her stuff and moved in with my ex-in-laws," McGarvey said.

Caitlyn’s attorney, Andrew Rochester, told ABC News she was unavailable for comment. He told WPVI her parents were to blame for the separation.

"Caitlyn did not voluntarily leave the home. She was thrown out by her mother," Rochester told WPVI.

"Caitlyn really is a good girl. She is the nicest, sweetest girl," he added. "All she wants is to go to college."

A judge said divorced parents may be required to contribute to their children's education, according to WPVI.

Caitlyn's grandparents are paying her legal fees, according to WPVI.

I don't understand this one.

I thought children were emancipated at age 18. Don't understand how a 21 year old can sue her parents for college costs.

I vaguely remember readi that a child of divorced parent can sue for college tuition after age bout a child of married parents cannot. But , as always, I could be mistaken

mlj said:

I thought children were emancipated at age 18. Don't understand how a 21 year old can sue her parents for college costs.

I am told by my legal/financial advisors that there is legal precedent in New Jersey to establish parental responsibility for payment for college past the age of 18. This is not the case in all states, however.

Wow...

since when are parents *required* to pay for their kids' college tuition. Sure, if you can you should, but *required*?

This is my understanding....If there is an agreement in a divorcing couple's settlement statement that each or one of the parents are responsible for college costs, it is their legal responsibility to comply.

If there is no such provision in the settlement agreement, neither parent is on the hook to pay for college (unless a new suit is filed by one of the parents). Never knew NJ allows children to directly sue parents for college.

Actually, the adult child can sue one or both parents for tuition even if it's not in the divorce agreement.

New Jersey is among the states that have gone furthest in deciding that they do. In 1982 the state's supreme court ruled that college can be considered a necessity. Subsequent court cases and New Jersey state laws have established that financially capable parents in divorce cases can be required to help pay for college, family law experts say.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-column-weston-lawsuit-idUSBREA2524M20140306

Too bad we are in a constant state of war these days. Otherwise, I think a stint in the Armed Forces is a good treatment for certain categories of 18 year-olds.

This twit sounds like a good candidate.