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

[Ideologue]

That's another big problem with America.

[Ed Anger]

The lumpen proletariat has arrived.

[Monoriu]

I simply cannot see parents saying, in effect, that they wish to punish their kid by ceasing to fund the education that they were previously willing to fund - particularly high school, in which getting the best possible result affects the kid's whole future long after whatever youthful rebellion or spat is forgotten about. 

Believe it.  I have been on the receiving end of this, multiple times.  I am the sort of kid who goes home the minute school ends and likes to stay in my own room during the entire summer holidays 

[Malthus]

It just seems so spiteful.

I can see a situation in which parents determine that they simply cannot live anymore in the same space as their kids, for whatever reasons (I hope this never happens to me, but I can see it). I simply cannot see parents saying, in effect, that they wish to punish their kid by ceasing to fund the education that they were previously willing to fund - particularly high school, in which getting the best possible result affects the kid's whole future long after whatever youthful rebellion or spat is forgotten about. 

I have no idea of the legality of this, and I suspect it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - as a parent myself, I just can't see any way I'd ever do this. Surely I'd always want the best possible education for my kid, no matter what our differences? 

Unlike you, I can imagine behaviors a child could engage in which indicated that they were not deserving of a private education.  I have seen kids from my school lose out as a result of behavior.  I think that, sometimes, a child learns more from a life lesson, like "you cannot behave in an antisocial manner and expect everyone to still kiss your ass," than from an entire semester in private versus public school.  If you cannot see any way in which that could be true, then we just have different abilities to see things.

Now, I don't know whether the bratty kid problem is the case here - we just don't have enough details.  I have seen bratty kids learn to stop being brats when there are negative consequences for brattiness, though.

Certainly, if the kid is indulging in bad behaviour, it may be appropriate to remove them from school, as in suspension or expulsion.

That's not what is at issue (or at least, I assume it is not). What appears to be at issue, is a parent deciding to remove funding for education, for a kid who otherwise has done nothing to deserve suspension or expulsion - effectively as a punishment for completely non-education-related disagreements or arguments. I note that according to the article the school is reserving its payment requirement pending the outcome of the litigation. It isn't the school who wants her gone.

In my opinion, removal as a result of "antisocial behaviour" makes sense (and may be necessary, if only so that other students are not impacted by said behaviour). Removal of funding by the parents in the 'I cut you off without a cent because I'm angry with you' sense, on the other hand, does not.

It strikes me, as I have said, as massively spiteful. I have no idea if you have kids or not, but as a parent, I simply could never do that.

[merithyn]

I think that, sometimes, a child learns more from a life lesson, like "you cannot behave in an antisocial manner and expect everyone to still kiss your ass," than from an entire semester in private versus public school.  If you cannot see any way in which that could be true, then we just have different abilities to see things.

At our school, if it reaches the that point, the student is asked to leave.  You are correct that we dont have all the facts but it appears that her behaviour did not reach the point of giving the school reason to remove her from the school.  Rather, that appears to have been the parents decision which is I think the point Malthus was making.

My son was an angel at school, and a beast at home.

No one knows what went on in that house but the child and the parents. Having had a "difficult" kid myself, I can see how a situation like this could come up, and how parents can feel like this is their only option. You hope it never gets there, but sometimes, despite all your best efforts, things get out of hand and you feel like you have to tip the scales one way or another.

Is it the best option? Who knows? Sometimes, parents make the wrong choices for the right reasons.

I do think that the parents have the right to pull funding for a private education when they feel it's in their child's best interest, which they obviously did in this case.

[crazy canuck]

If they kid is doing wonderful at school and the problem is at home then I am not sure what positive effect removing the kid from the school could have.  Seems to me that removing the one place they do well is counter productive.

[alfred russel]

Certainly, if the kid is indulging in bad behaviour, it may be appropriate to remove them from school, as in suspension or expulsion.

That's not what is at issue (or at least, I assume it is not). What appears to be at issue, is a parent deciding to remove funding for education, for a kid who otherwise has done nothing to deserve suspension or expulsion - effectively as a punishment for completely non-education-related disagreements or arguments. I note that according to the article the school is reserving its payment requirement pending the outcome of the litigation. It isn't the school who wants her gone.

In my opinion, removal as a result of "antisocial behaviour" makes sense (and may be necessary, if only so that other students are not impacted by said behaviour). Removal of funding by the parents in the 'I cut you off without a cent because I'm angry with you' sense, on the other hand, does not.

It strikes me, as I have said, as massively spiteful. I have no idea if you have kids or not, but as a parent, I simply could never do that.

We don't know the dynamics.

As I mentioned, I got cut off, and I think with very good reason (as you know from my posting I was acting like a dumbass). Yes I was in college at 20 or so, but maybe it should have happened earlier. I think a big part of the problem was that I badly wanted to be independent and successful on my own terms, but I didn't know how and the easiest thing to do was stay in school and let my father pay for things.

I think what turned things around for me was in no small part the attitude "Those fuckers think I can't succeed on my own, I'll show them."

[Malthus]

If they kid is doing wonderful at school and the problem is at home then I am not sure what positive effect removing the kid from the school could have.  Seems to me that removing the one place they do well is counter productive.

Yeah, I'm struggling with the notion that pulling a kid from school - or rather, ensuring a kid doesn't have the funds for school -  based on home-problems could possibly be in the kid's best interests.

I'm usually one to allow a wide lattitude for parents to parent, but in my opinion, such a move looks more like spite than a good faith attempt to do the best for the kid.

[merithyn]

If they kid is doing wonderful at school and the problem is at home then I am not sure what positive effect removing the kid from the school could have.  Seems to me that removing the one place they do well is counter productive.

Since you've admitted that you've never had to deal with this, I'm not sure you will ever understand. And just because she hasn't been kicked out doesn't mean that she's doing well, either.

There are just far too many unknowns to be able to really have an opinion on this particular case. I certainly won't judge the parents too harshly based on the information given.

[crazy canuck]

If they kid is doing wonderful at school and the problem is at home then I am not sure what positive effect removing the kid from the school could have.  Seems to me that removing the one place they do well is counter productive.

Since you've admitted that you've never had to deal with this, I'm not sure you will ever understand. And just because she hasn't been kicked out doesn't mean that she's doing well, either.

There are just far too many unknowns to be able to really have an opinion on this particular case. I certainly won't judge the parents too harshly based on the information given.

 

You were the one who used the example of a kid doing well in school but not at home.

[11B4V]

If they kid is doing wonderful at school and the problem is at home then I am not sure what positive effect removing the kid from the school could have.  Seems to me that removing the one place they do well is counter productive.

There are just far too many unknowns to be able to really have an opinion on this particular case. I certainly won't judge the parents too harshly based on the information given.

Pretty much the same here. I am counting down to the "My daddy molested me" claim if the brat gets jammed up in court.

[Ed Anger]

I'd still like to spank this girl.

[Admiral Yi]

That's meaningless.  You'd like to spank every girl.

[dps]

If they kid is doing wonderful at school and the problem is at home then I am not sure what positive effect removing the kid from the school could have.  Seems to me that removing the one place they do well is counter productive.

Yeah, I'm struggling with the notion that pulling a kid from school - or rather, ensuring a kid doesn't have the funds for school -  based on home-problems could possibly be in the kid's best interests.

She doesn't need funding from her parents to go to school--she can transfer to a public school. 

Since there is no legal obligation for a parent to spend money to send their child to a private school, I can't see how there would be an obligation for them to continue to do so if they decided to cease, for whatever reason seemed best to them.  The exception would be if there is some contractual obligation to do so, but in that case, one would presume that the contratual obligation was to the school itself, and it would be the school suing the parents.

Generally speaking, once a kid turns 18, their parents have no legal obligation to continue to provide for them in anything.

Note that here I'm not addressing the question of whether the parents are doing the right thing, or even a reasonable thing.  I'm merely noting that i don't think the suit has anything to stand on legally (usual disclaimer about might be different in different jurisdictions, etc.).

[Malthus]

If they kid is doing wonderful at school and the problem is at home then I am not sure what positive effect removing the kid from the school could have.  Seems to me that removing the one place they do well is counter productive.

Yeah, I'm struggling with the notion that pulling a kid from school - or rather, ensuring a kid doesn't have the funds for school -  based on home-problems could possibly be in the kid's best interests.

She doesn't need funding from her parents to go to school--she can transfer to a public school. 

Since there is no legal obligation for a parent to spend money to send their child to a private school, I can't see how there would be an obligation for them to continue to do so if they decided to cease, for whatever reason seemed best to them.  The exception would be if there is some contractual obligation to do so, but in that case, one would presume that the contratual obligation was to the school itself, and it would be the school suing the parents.

Generally speaking, once a kid turns 18, their parents have no legal obligation to continue to provide for them in anything.

Note that here I'm not addressing the question of whether the parents are doing the right thing, or even a reasonable thing.  I'm merely noting that i don't think the suit has anything to stand on legally (usual disclaimer about might be different in different jurisdictions, etc.).

I'm expressly not commenting at all on the legality of the situation.