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

[Jacob]

Hippie.

At what age should you no longer be able to hit your children?

[Malthus]

Hippie.

At what age should you no longer be able to hit your children?

The age when they can effectively use firearms, I assume will be the answer. 

[11B4V]

Hippie.

At what age should you no longer be able to hit your children?

Hit or discipline?

By Washington state law, 18.

RCW 9A.16.100
Use of force on children — Policy — Actions presumed unreasonable.
   

It is the policy of this state to protect children from assault and abuse and to encourage parents, teachers, and their authorized agents to use methods of correction and restraint of children that are not dangerous to the children. However, the physical discipline of a child is not unlawful when it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent, teacher, or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child. Any use of force on a child by any other person is unlawful unless it is reasonable and moderate and is authorized in advance by the child's parent or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.

     The following actions are presumed unreasonable when used to correct or restrain a child: (1) Throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child; (2) striking a child with a closed fist; (3) shaking a child under age three; (4) interfering with a child's breathing; (5) threatening a child with a deadly weapon; or (6) doing any other act that is likely to cause and which does cause bodily harm greater than transient pain or minor temporary marks. The age, size, and condition of the child and the location of the injury shall be considered when determining whether the bodily harm is reasonable or moderate. This list is illustrative of unreasonable actions and is not intended to be exclusive.

[Jacob]

The age when they can effectively use firearms, I assume will be the answer. 

Isn't that around 7 or 8, if you're a responsible parent?

[Malthus]

The age when they can effectively use firearms, I assume will be the answer. 

Isn't that around 7 or 8, if you're a responsible parent?

If you enjoy hitting your kids, the responsible thing would be to keep guns out of their hands for longer than that. 

[Jacob]

Hit or discipline?

By Washington state law, 18.

Yeah, so like I said, after that doing so would be considered assault.

I guess you were just calling hippie independently of the content of the post you responded to?

[grumbler]

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.

According to the story, she had been suspended from school for misbehavior there.

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.

The parents are willing to take her back at any time, so long as she abides by their rules for living in their house.  She was the one who movied out.  She is the one cutting herself off.  Whether she can cut herself off from parental control but still force them to pay for her private school education and living expenses is the crux of the case.  As I said, I can see it going either way.

[Ed Anger]

The back of a hairbrush works well, but I prefer a switch. Leaves less marks when the police and CPS come knocking.

[Malthus]

According to the story, she had been suspended from school for misbehavior there.

According to her parent's lawyers. In any event, it is not what the current issue is about.

The parents are willing to take her back at any time, so long as she abides by their rules for living in their house.  She was the one who movied out.  She is the one cutting herself off.  Whether she can cut herself off from parental control but still force them to pay for her private school education and living expenses is the crux of the case.  As I said, I can see it going either way.

The question in the lawsuit is indeed whether she can "force" her parents to pay for her education. That is not, however, the question the rest of us in the thread have been addressing, which is whether it is acceptable parenting to cut one's kid off from the education formerly thought appropriate (assuming of course it is, in fact, legal) in order to enforce 'my house, my money, my rules'. 

[grumbler]

I'm with Malthus and CC. I can't conceive of a scenario where enforcing "my house, my rules" would be higher priority than ensuring my child's education.

I am not sure why you feel it necessary to share that you lack an ability to conceive of things.  All you are saying is that you lack the ability to see two sides here.  I can conceive of many scenarios where the child's ability to choose his/her school would be subordinate to the child's need for discipline.  I just don't know whether the situation in NJ matches any of those scenarios.

[Jacob]

I am not sure why you feel it necessary to share that you lack an ability to conceive of things.

I did it for your sake

[grumbler]

According to the story, she had been suspended from school for misbehavior there.

According to her parent's lawyers. In any event, it is not what the current issue is about.

  You were the one who brought that issue up; now that you assumption is disproven, the issue is moot?

The question in the lawsuit is indeed whether she can "force" her parents to pay for her education. That is not, however, the question the rest of us in the thread have been addressing, which is whether it is acceptable parenting to cut one's kid off from the education formerly thought appropriate (assuming of course it is, in fact, legal) in order to enforce 'my house, my money, my rules'.

I think that it certainly can be acceptable parenting to change one's conclusion about the appropriate education based on changed circumstances.  I can even imagine cases where that is in the best interests of the child.  The discussion in the rest of the thread seems to consist mostly of people moralizing about situations where that "cannot imagine" a conclusion contrary to their own.

[grumbler]

I am not sure why you feel it necessary to share that you lack an ability to conceive of things.

I did it for your sake

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

[11B4V]

Hit or discipline?

By Washington state law, 18.

Yeah, so like I said, after that doing so would be considered assault.

I guess you were just calling hippie independently of the content of the post you responded to?

No your just a hippie

[Berkut]

According to the story, she had been suspended from school for misbehavior there.

According to her parent's lawyers. In any event, it is not what the current issue is about.

The parents are willing to take her back at any time, so long as she abides by their rules for living in their house.  She was the one who movied out.  She is the one cutting herself off.  Whether she can cut herself off from parental control but still force them to pay for her private school education and living expenses is the crux of the case.  As I said, I can see it going either way.

The question in the lawsuit is indeed whether she can "force" her parents to pay for her education. That is not, however, the question the rest of us in the thread have been addressing, which is whether it is acceptable parenting to cut one's kid off from the education formerly thought appropriate (assuming of course it is, in fact, legal) in order to enforce 'my house, my money, my rules'. 

I don't know, I can construct a scenario where this could make sense.

You have a difficult daughter who is drinking and getting in trouble.
You consider perhaps a change of school venue might be appropriate. Maybe some more structure than what she is getting in public school might help the situation?
However, private school is really, really expensive. Difficult to know if the cost is justified, after all, if the issue is really her attitiude, will a different, private school actually adjust that?
You love your daughter, and your kind of desparate. So what the hell, lets give private, Catholic girls school a shot.
Off she goes.
Well, that didn't work. She is still getting in trouble, still drinking, still hanging out with that loser boyfriend*.
And now she has actually moved out.
So fuck it - if the expensive private school didn't help the behavioral problems, then we aren't paying for it anymore. She can go be a delinquent in public school.

*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!