NJ teen loses first legal battle to make parents pay for education

[Eddie Teach]

I can.  If my kid wanted money to attend some bogus 'alternative medicine' University or to fund their trip to Saudi Arabia to receive training as an extremist militant Wahhabi preacher I would probably strongly consider not funding their 'education'.

What about buying them hookers?

[Malthus]

I can.  If my kid wanted money to attend some bogus 'alternative medicine' University or to fund their trip to Saudi Arabia to receive training as an extremist militant Wahhabi preacher I would probably strongly consider not funding their 'education'.

Sure, but we are talking about "education" the parents were willing to fund before they got into a fight with the kid (and allegedly remain willing to fund AFTER the kid knuckles under to them).

[The Brain]

I can't conceive.

[Jacob]

I can.  If my kid wanted money to attend some bogus 'alternative medicine' University or to fund their trip to Saudi Arabia to receive training as an extremist militant Wahhabi preacher I would probably strongly consider not funding their 'education'.

Yeah, me too. Like I said:

I suppose I can think of scenarios where I think the education is so worthless that I don't want to spend money on it as well.

So yeah, there's education I wouldn't pay for. And similarly, if the tuition and book funds went to drugs instead of paying the bills that's a reason for cutting off funds, no doubt.

What I'm curious about is whether you can think of a scenario where you'd apply "if you live in my house according to my rules, I'll pay for education; if not, I won't". I'm particularly interested in scenarios where it's not related to cost, i.e. it's cheaper to fund their education if they live at home, and you can't afford the more expensive options.

As others have said, we don't really know what the situation is between the girl and her parents in the original story. So I'm wondering, for you personally (and for anyone else who's posting), what set of circumstances can you imagine where you'd pay for your child's education contingent on them moving home with you and following your rules, but not otherwise?

Like I've said, I can't imagine a situation where I would. If you can, I'd like to hear it - it may be a scenario I haven't considered, or it may be down to different parenting philosophies. But I think it'd be interesting to examine.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Sure, but we are talking about "education" the parents were willing to fund before they got into a fight with the kid (and allegedly remain willing to fund AFTER the kid knuckles under to them).

Well I think regardless of what is going on you need to get your kid through High School.

But if you think your kid's making lots of terrible decisions I can definitely see withholding the college money, lots of kids go into college and flunk out after 1-2 semesters and if you think you kid is behaviorally in a bad place it'd probably make more sense to hold that money back until they have settled down. Blowing a 529 on a few semesters where you kid drinks and drugs and whores their way to a 1.9 GPA and makes no progress on a degree is probably a lot worse than saying "yeah, start behaving and you can have your 529 money" and funding a more mature young adult at age 19-20 who recognizes after a few years flipping burgers they need to get their act straightened out.

[grumbler]

But the combination of "these are the rules you have to follow" and "if you don't, I won't support your education"?  Yeah no, I can't picture a set of circumstances where I'd do that.

Ah.  Well, its probably a good thing no one is suggesting that, then.  I thought you were referring to something that had to do with the thread everyone else was commenting on.

[Jacob]

Well I think regardless of what is going on you need to get your kid through High School.

But if you think your kid's making lots of terrible decisions I can definitely see withholding the college money, lots of kids go into college and flunk out after 1-2 semesters and if you think you kid is behaviorally in a bad place it'd probably make more sense to hold that money back until they have settled down. Blowing a 529 on a few semesters where you kid drinks and drugs and whores their way to a 1.9 GPA and makes no progress on a degree is probably a lot worse than saying "yeah, start behaving and you can have your 529 money" and funding a more mature young adult at age 19-20 who recognizes after a few years flipping burgers they need to get their act straightened out.

Yeah absolutely. If the kid is wasting their time and your money right now, holding back the money until they settle down makes perfect sense to me.

[grumbler]

Sure, but we are talking about "education" the parents were willing to fund before they got into a fight with the kid (and allegedly remain willing to fund AFTER the kid knuckles under to them).

That's not in the story, either.  Where does that come from?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Like I've said, I can't imagine a situation where I would. If you can, I'd like to hear it - it may be a scenario I haven't considered, or it may be down to different parenting philosophies. But I think it'd be interesting to examine.

Basically I'd require them to live at home if, through my deep knowledge of the child (as parent) I determined that my child was unable in their current level of maturity to handle college away from the home and where I wouldn't be comfortable blowing finite resources on an attempt at college education I deemed highly likely to fail. Honestly my wife and I are well off enough that financial aspect wouldn't matter to us, but that's not true for 90% of American families. I also think if you've done a good job from age 0-18 you wouldn't have a kid at age 18 that you couldn't trust to live outside of your home and pursue an education in a responsible way.

But I've seen kids turn out poorly even with good parents, so given my child is still young I'll be the last to say that I know for sure my kid won't be out of control at age 18. If she is I could definitely see a scenario where I'd require her to live at home and maybe attend a community college for a couple of semesters to show she has the maturity required to go to a traditional school  as a non-commuting undergraduate. If my family had been scrimping and saving for 18 years and just barely has the money for a child's education in a 529, I'd be even more likely to do this. Lots and lots of kids go off to college ill-prepared and either flunk out or drop out because they get wrapped up in partying too hard to stay in school. If that 529 is your family's one hope of funding the education you need to guard it judiciously. Better to have your kid waste 1-2 years in a misspent age 18-20 and have them start school at age 20 when they are more likely to graduate and use the money well.

[Jacob]

That's not in the story, either.  Where does that come from?

This part of the original article:

An attorney for Canning's parents said in court that she was welcome to return home and under the financial care of her parents, should she abide by house rules.

"She can come home tonight. There is no abuse. There is no neglect," attorney Laurie Rush-Masuret said.

[Barrister]

I can't really see paying for my kids to attend post-secondary education while living on their own.  Not at least when they're 18.  I saw too many kids get into too much trouble doing that.  Not when there are a number of fine schools right here in Edmonton they could attend.

[grumbler]

That's not in the story, either.  Where does that come from?

This part of the original article:

An attorney for Canning's parents said in court that she was welcome to return home and under the financial care of her parents, should she abide by house rules.

"She can come home tonight. There is no abuse. There is no neglect," attorney Laurie Rush-Masuret said.

I wasn't asking about whether she could move home (I had noted earlier that she could).  I was asking Malthus where he got the information about the conditions under which the parents were willing to fund a private school "before they got into a fight with the kid"  as he puts it, and what they are alleged to have agreed to fund if she, as he puts it, "knuckles under to them."  None of that is in the article.

[Jacob]

Basically I'd require them to live at home if, through my deep knowledge of the child (as parent) I determined that my child was unable in their current level of maturity to handle college away from the home and where I wouldn't be comfortable blowing finite resources on an attempt at college education I deemed highly likely to fail. Honestly my wife and I are well off enough that financial aspect wouldn't matter to us, but that's not true for 90% of American families. I also think if you've done a good job from age 0-18 you wouldn't have a kid at age 18 that you couldn't trust to live outside of your home and pursue an education in a responsible way.

But I've seen kids turn out poorly even with good parents, so given my child is still young I'll be the last to say that I know for sure my kid won't be out of control at age 18. If she is I could definitely see a scenario where I'd require her to live at home and maybe attend a community college for a couple of semesters to show she has the maturity required to go to a traditional school  as a non-commuting undergraduate. If my family had been scrimping and saving for 18 years and just barely has the money for a child's education in a 529, I'd be even more likely to do this. Lots and lots of kids go off to college ill-prepared and either flunk out or drop out because they get wrapped up in partying too hard to stay in school. If that 529 is your family's one hope of funding the education you need to guard it judiciously. Better to have your kid waste 1-2 years in a misspent age 18-20 and have them start school at age 20 when they are more likely to graduate and use the money well.

Yeah okay, that makes sense.

It seems to me that that's more about what's the right educational choice to make at a given time than living at home. I mean, if you are both in agreement that it's the right choice to go to community college, but your kid decides to move out because of conflicts with you over whatever, would you refuse to pay tuition unless they didn't move out? I don't think I would, as long as I was satisfied that the tuition money went to tuition.

But yeah, I can see how "I think you're going to waste all the money we'll be spending by doing stupid stuff" could make someone hold back on spending the money. Personally, I think I'd be more likely to spend the money and give the kid a chance to prove me wrong, and then consider stop spending it if they didn't; but doing so pre-emptively makes sense even if I don't think it's something I'd do.

[crazy canuck]

Sure, but we are talking about "education" the parents were willing to fund before they got into a fight with the kid (and allegedly remain willing to fund AFTER the kid knuckles under to them).

Well I think regardless of what is going on you need to get your kid through High School.

But if you think your kid's making lots of terrible decisions I can definitely see withholding the college money, lots of kids go into college and flunk out after 1-2 semesters and if you think you kid is behaviorally in a bad place it'd probably make more sense to hold that money back until they have settled down. Blowing a 529 on a few semesters where you kid drinks and drugs and whores their way to a 1.9 GPA and makes no progress on a degree is probably a lot worse than saying "yeah, start behaving and you can have your 529 money" and funding a more mature young adult at age 19-20 who recognizes after a few years flipping burgers they need to get their act straightened out.

I agree with this entirely. If nothing else you dont want to set your kid up for failure at university for the same reasons you dont want to jeopardize their future by pulling out the rug on them in high school. 

[Malthus]

Sure, but we are talking about "education" the parents were willing to fund before they got into a fight with the kid (and allegedly remain willing to fund AFTER the kid knuckles under to them).

Well I think regardless of what is going on you need to get your kid through High School.

But if you think your kid's making lots of terrible decisions I can definitely see withholding the college money, lots of kids go into college and flunk out after 1-2 semesters and if you think you kid is behaviorally in a bad place it'd probably make more sense to hold that money back until they have settled down. Blowing a 529 on a few semesters where you kid drinks and drugs and whores their way to a 1.9 GPA and makes no progress on a degree is probably a lot worse than saying "yeah, start behaving and you can have your 529 money" and funding a more mature young adult at age 19-20 who recognizes after a few years flipping burgers they need to get their act straightened out.

I agree 100%.