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

[Jacob]

Thanks.  I can conceive of a situation where that might be useful to me.  Can you? 

Of course I can. Why else would I post?

[Jacob]

No your just a hippie

Ok, got it

[crazy canuck]

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

Changing schools can often be difficult.  I would assume that the reason her parents put her into  a private school was because the local public options were not as good an option for their daughter.  Their falling out presumably doesnt change that fact.

So again the issue that baffles me is why a parent would willingly do harm to their child.

[grumbler]

*The boyfriend thing is one of the main things that makes me think mom and dad need to pull their head out of their ass, moreso than the schooling. Do you seriously think that banning Mr ShittyInfluence is going to work to get your daughter to stop dating him? Hell, that is probably the one sure way to make certain she doesn't stop!

Agreed.  That little factoid also is the main thing that gives me pause about the seriousness of the parents in 'wanting to get their daughter back."  if you want to say "you can't bring him into our house," okay, that's your call.  But requiring her to break up with him?  That's not your call.  And, as you say, it is dumb as well as overly intrusive.

Your scenario for the schooling thing works as well.  It could even have been, "well, you won't get as good an education at the Catholic school, but if you really want to go, and promise to do all your work, we'll let you."  Time passes, daughter moves out and without supervision doesn't do any work and gets suspended from school, etc. "Well, that didn't work out.  Unless you move back home where we can make sure you are doing your homework, you'll be worse off at the Catholic school than a public school."

I don't know why anyone would assume that the parents were doing this just to be dicks, let alone having people assert that they cannot imagine any alternative to the assumption that the parents are just doing this to be dicks.

[Jacob]

I don't know why anyone would assume that the parents were doing this just to be dicks, let alone having people assert that they cannot imagine any alternative to the assumption that the parents are just doing this to be dicks.

Who's asserted that?

[crazy canuck]

I don't know why anyone would assume that the parents were doing this just to be dicks, let alone having people assert that they cannot imagine any alternative to the assumption that the parents are just doing this to be dicks.

Who's asserted that?

He didnt say anyone did.  He just doesnt know why anyone would do something nobody did.  Its Grumbler.  He has these kinds of deep thought moments from time to time.

[Jacob]

He didnt say anyone did.  He just doesnt know why anyone would do something nobody did.  Its Grumbler.  He has these kinds of deep thought moments from time to time.

[grumbler]

I don't know why anyone would assume that the parents were doing this just to be dicks, let alone having people assert that they cannot imagine any alternative to the assumption that the parents are just doing this to be dicks.

Who's asserted that?

Probably that was a paraphrase of the people who asserted that the case involves " a parent would willingly do harm to their child" or that the parents believe that "enforcing "my house, my rules" would be higher priority than ensuring my child's education." 

But, you know, those were statements by CC and you.  You guys have these kinds of "deep thought" moments from time to time.  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?

[Berkut]

I don't know why anyone would assume that the parents were doing this just to be dicks, let alone having people assert that they cannot imagine any alternative to the assumption that the parents are just doing this to be dicks.

Who's asserted that?

Didn't a few of you state that you felt the parents actions constituted them simply harming the child's education, and you could not see a scenario where there was any justification for refusing to pay for her school?

[OttoVonBismarck]

The only things I feel certain about are: 

1) That the parents have both a moral (and I suspect ultimately legal) obligation to make the past due payment for tuition/fees outstanding to the school, as those were charges incurred in the prior semester when the child was a minor and living with the parents

2) That the parents have neither a moral or a legal obligation to surrender the 529 college savings fund money to their daughter. I've got a 529 for my daughter and if you read any of the literature or laws surrounding them you know they are the property of the parents. If I tried to spend them on non-educate expenses there would be negative tax implications but the 529 isn't the property of my child, if I have another child I could decide to instead use the 529 funds for that child. If I wanted to go back to school I could use the 529 funds for myself etc. And I don't think parents ever have a moral obligation to pay for a kid's college education.

The final semester of private school is a lot more difficult a question for me to answer. I think I could see the argument that the parents are morally responsible for getting her through the school that they started her out in, but there's valid converse arguments as well. Legally I doubt they'll be required to pay for the semester after she was 18 but I could see that going either way as well.

FWIW non-custodial parents regularly have to continue paying child support and share in college tuition costs of children aged 18-21. But that's based, I believe, on the theory that in a united family the mother and father would come to a joint decision about what to do but in a split family that isn't possible so just because the custodial parent decides to pay for the kid's education doesn't mean the non-custodial parent should be allowed to totally exempt themselves from the expense. (This is one aspect of child support law I strongly disagree with BTW.)

[Malthus]

He didnt say anyone did.  He just doesnt know why anyone would do something nobody did.  Its Grumbler.  He has these kinds of deep thought moments from time to time.

[Jacob]

Didn't a few of you state that you felt the parents actions constituted them simply harming the child's education, and you could not see a scenario where there was any justification for refusing to pay for her school?

I said I couldn't conceive of a scenario where I would prioritize "my house, my rules" over my child's education. I was speaking personally. Obviously I can conceive of scenarios where other people would prioritize differently; all I have to do is read the article at the beginning of this thread.

I can think of scenarios where I couldn't live with my child, so I'd kick him out; but it wouldn't make me remove support for his education. Similarly, I can think of scenarios where I determine that the money I'm spending isn't actually going towards education, so I stop funding it. 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. And in theory all of these things could happen at the same time.

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.

[Jacob]

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?

[Malthus]

Didn't a few of you state that you felt the parents actions constituted them simply harming the child's education, and you could not see a scenario where there was any justification for refusing to pay for her school?

I said I couldn't conceive of a scenario where I would prioritize "my house, my rules" over my child's education. I was speaking personally. Obviously I can conceive of scenarios where other people would prioritize differently; all I have to do is read the article at the beginning of this thread.

I can think of scenarios where I couldn't live with my child, so I'd kick him out; but it wouldn't make me remove support for his education. Similarly, I can think of scenarios where I determine that the money I'm spending isn't actually going towards education, so I stop funding it. 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. And in theory all of these things could happen at the same time.

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.

[Valmy]

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'.