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

[crazy canuck]

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.

So if your kid was bright enough to be accepted to some of the world's best universities, you wouldn't be willing the chip in on the basis that you encounter too many screw ups in your line of work and because the local schools are good enough?

[Ed Anger]

I can't conceive.

I'll mail you a kid.

[Malthus]

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.

I'm not sure it is worthwhile, but here goes - the original article says that the parents are withholding all funding from her. Part of that is payment for school. They say, through their lawyer, in the part quoted directly to you by Jacob, that they will restore "financial care" (which in this context means payment for school as well as everything else) if she only comes home and "abide by house rules".

No doubt you have convinced yourself that you are scoring beaucoup points by noting I'm using my own language to describe the situation.

[crazy canuck]

I can't conceive.

I'll mail you a kid.

What did your goats do to you 

[Ed Anger]

That's baaaaaaaad.

[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.

So if your kid was bright enough to be accepted to some of the world's best universities, you wouldn't be willing the chip in on the basis that you encounter too many screw ups in your line of work and because the local schools are good enough?

Yeah, probably.  Get your undergrad at U of A, go to Harvard for grad school / law school / whatever.

It's not like U of Alberta is a bad school.

[crazy canuck]

Well yeah, compared to the U of M. 

[Ed Anger]

I'm still trying to decide on Private schooling or not for at least some of the kids time in school.

Should save the money and homeschool the brats.

[Malthus]

Well yeah, compared to the U of M.

The go-to. 

[crazy canuck]

The fist time in a long time I have beaten you to that particular punch.

[crazy canuck]

I'm still trying to decide on Private schooling or not for at least some of the kids time in school.

Should save the money and homeschool the brats.

We went that route for very specific reasons.  I would have much preferred to go the public route and save the money.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

It's complicated I guess. If the problem she's having at home is she won't help with household chores or something mundane like that then I'd probably be fine with her living on campus as time away from mom and dad would probably add some needed maturity on that stuff. If the problem is she never comes home before curfew and likes hanging out with the party crowd, I'd probably be trying to push for some correction or at least teach her a balancing act. It's hard for someone like me who partied a lot but always found a way to keep out of serious trouble and got good grades to say "no partying" to a 18 year old kid, so it's a fine line.

But for some parents the kid not being willing to go to church and be ultra-fundamentalist Christian would be a "violation of household rules" and I think that's unreasonable. But to a super-fundy parent that's as bad as it gets I guess.

Also at least in the States parents can make the tuition payments directly to the schools and order textbooks and stuff for the student in your own name. If you provide living expense money you can't stop it from going to drugs and booze though.

[grumbler]

I'm not sure it is worthwhile, but here goes - the original article says that the parents are withholding all funding from her. Part of that is payment for school. They say, through their lawyer, in the part quoted directly to you by Jacob, that they will restore "financial care" (which in this context means payment for school as well as everything else) if she only comes home and "abide by house rules".

I am not sure that this is worthwhile, but here goes:  what makes you think you know what those house rules are, and thus know that they are unrelated to her education, and thus know that her parents' lack of desire to pay extra to send her to catholic school is purely a punishment for her failure to do chores, or whatever?  Your entire line of argument is built around the assumption that there is no link between her living at home and her educational success, other than her parent's anger and subsequent refusal to pay.  My entire point is built around the belief that we don't have enough evidence from the story to make your assumption true.

No doubt you have convinced yourself that you are scoring beaucoup points by noting I'm using my own language to describe the situation.

I am, as always, grateful when you or CC tell me what I think. 

[Malthus]

I'm not sure it is worthwhile, but here goes - the original article says that the parents are withholding all funding from her. Part of that is payment for school. They say, through their lawyer, in the part quoted directly to you by Jacob, that they will restore "financial care" (which in this context means payment for school as well as everything else) if she only comes home and "abide by house rules".

I am not sure that this is worthwhile, but here goes:  what makes you think you know what those house rules are, and thus know that they are unrelated to her education, and thus know that her parents' lack of desire to pay extra to send her to catholic school is purely a punishment for her failure to do chores, or whatever?  Your entire line of argument is built around the assumption that there is no link between her living at home and her educational success, other than her parent's anger and subsequent refusal to pay.  My entire point is built around the belief that we don't have enough evidence from the story to make your assumption true.

No doubt you have convinced yourself that you are scoring beaucoup points by noting I'm using my own language to describe the situation.

I am, as always, grateful when you or CC tell me what I think.

I was right - it wasn't worth it.

Have a good day, you win. 

[Jacob]

I am, as always, grateful when you or CC tell me what I think.

I suppose your next 'deep thought" is going to be that the kind of parent you assume those in the story to be are not being dicks just because of their deliberate harm and sacrifice of the child's education, amiright?