http://news.yahoo.com/nj-teen-loses-first-legal-battle-parents-pay-001646897--finance.html
QuoteA New Jersey student who says her parents abandoned her when she turned 18 lost a first round on Tuesday in the lawsuit she filed against them for school costs and living expenses, a case that could set a precedent for a family's obligation to support a child who has left home.
A family court judge denied a request by Rachel Canning of Lincoln Park, New Jersey, to have her parents temporarily resume paying her tuition and living expenses. He set another hearing date for next month.
Canning, 18, wants her parents to pay the remaining $5,000 in tuition owed to the Morris Catholic High School, where she is a senior, and she wants access to a college fund that was set up for her.
The cheerleader and lacrosse player claims her parents kicked her out of the house in November 2013 after she turned 18, the age of legal adulthood. She wound up living with a friend's family, she said, and the upheaval has jeopardized her educational future.
Judge Peter Bogaard rejected her request for a temporary payout of about $600 a month in support as well as tuition for her private high school, which has waived fees while the case is settled.
In court, the teen said her parents remain obligated to help her with food, transportation, high school tuition and her college education.
She filed the lawsuit last week claiming that she is still dependent on them for support because she is still in school and not yet legally emancipated under state law.
"They left her high and dry because they didn't want to pay," attorney Tanya Helfand told the court. "Now at the age of 18 is not the point to do this."
Her parents, Sean and Elizabeth Canning, said their daughter left home voluntarily, telling the court that she had severe behavioral problems, including underage drinking, and had been suspended from school.
In court papers, they said she did not want to follow the rules of the house that included doing chores and a curfew.
In New Jersey, emancipation is not contingent on becoming a legal adult at age 18 but instead requires a young person to obtain "an independent status on his or her own" - such as graduation from college, obtainment of employment or marriage.
Family law experts in New Jersey say Canning's case might set legal parameters on whether non-divorced parents in the state are obligated to pay for their children's college education and provide other financial support after the child has left home.
New Jersey is one of several states that require divorced parents to pay for their children's education through college, or legal emancipation, said William Laufer, a family law expert in New Jersey. So far, there is no parallel decision for intact families.
"This case is certainly unique," Laufer said. "The question is, a kid at the age of 18 says he or she is moving out of the house - do parents have a legal obligation to support their kids until emancipation?"
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.
Sean Canning, a former police chief in Lincoln Park, told local television station WCBS-TV on Monday he was "dumbfounded" that he was being sued by one of his three daughters.
He called Rachel "rebellious" and said her college fund was not in jeopardy.
"We have a college that's available to her - there's no doubt about that. But it's the equivalent ... of going shopping at a high-end store and sending somebody the bill," he told the station.
The little bitch needs a spanking.
She looks presentable for a NJ teen, but that's probably just for the courts. I'm sure she skanks up nicely.
That could be her school uniform.
She is 18. At that age, a lot of people look good.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 05, 2014, 10:44:52 AM
She is 18. At that age, a lot of people look good.
Yeah if you don't look good at 18, you're probably running a consistent regimen of bad life choices.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2014, 10:52:09 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 05, 2014, 10:44:52 AM
She is 18. At that age, a lot of people look good.
Yeah if you don't look good at 18, you're probably running a consistent regimen of bad life choices.
There's a difference between looking good and being done up nice. Many teens/adults fail on the latter and haven't made constant poor life choices.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 11:02:03 AM
There's a difference between looking good and being done up nice. Many teens/adults fail on the latter and haven't made constant poor life choices.
Very true.
Quote from: Syt on March 05, 2014, 09:30:29 AM
She looks presentable for a NJ teen, but that's probably just for the courts. I'm sure she skanks up nicely.
Harsh toke. :lol:
She didnt break up with her boyfriend so the parents threw her out of the house.
I wonder if they really think this is for her own good? :hmm:
Well at 18 its not like she isn't old enough to make decisions on her own.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 12:23:10 PM
She didnt break up with her boyfriend so the parents threw her out of the house.
I wonder if they really think this is for her own good? :hmm:
When I was doing stupid stuff around her age my father was like "go fuck yourself". We didn't speak for a few years and I spent one particular christmas alone at an absolute dump of a motel that didn't even have TV.
In the end, I think it worked out for my own good.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 05, 2014, 12:52:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 12:23:10 PM
She didnt break up with her boyfriend so the parents threw her out of the house.
I wonder if they really think this is for her own good? :hmm:
When I was doing stupid stuff around her age my father was like "go fuck yourself". We didn't speak for a few years and I spent one particular christmas alone at an absolute dump of a motel that didn't even have TV.
In the end, I think it worked out for my own good.
OH MY GOD, no TV!
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 12:23:10 PM
I wonder if they really think this is for her own good? :hmm:
I mean she sounds like pain in the ass with the emotional outbursts and not even hiding that she's drinking. Perhaps they thought not coddling her would be enough for her to shape up. Probably didn't expect she'd turn around and sue them. I wouldn't have even dreamed of doing that to my parents (but then I also was not rebellious in the least).
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 01:09:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 12:23:10 PM
I wonder if they really think this is for her own good? :hmm:
I mean she sounds like pain in the ass with the emotional outbursts and not even hiding that she's drinking. Perhaps they thought not coddling her would be enough for her to shape up. Probably didn't expect she'd turn around and sue them. I wouldn't have even dreamed of doing that to my parents (but then I also was not rebellious in the least).
I know some parents that thought the same way. After they kicked their daughter out she turned to prostitution to support herself - two years later was found dead in a park the likely victim of an overdose.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 01:06:46 PM
OH MY GOD, no TV!
??? The point being motels in major cities without TVs are probably not the most attractive places to live. I'm happy without TV--I don't have one hooked up atm. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 01:12:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 01:09:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 12:23:10 PM
I wonder if they really think this is for her own good? :hmm:
I mean she sounds like pain in the ass with the emotional outbursts and not even hiding that she's drinking. Perhaps they thought not coddling her would be enough for her to shape up. Probably didn't expect she'd turn around and sue them. I wouldn't have even dreamed of doing that to my parents (but then I also was not rebellious in the least).
I know some parents that thought the same way. After they kicked their daughter out she turned to prostitution to support herself - two years later was found dead in a park the likely victim of an overdose.
Oh so is that what is informing your reaction?
After all, in this case, I'm not sure they would have been better off just caving into whatever their daughter felt like doing.
I'll admit that my take is colored by my mother doing just that with one of my siblings. -_-
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 01:12:04 PM
I know some parents that thought the same way. After they kicked their daughter out she turned to prostitution to support herself - two years later was found dead in a park the likely victim of an overdose.
Sounds like she was willing to do anything to keep her rebellious streak going. The parents took the hardest line they could, but there probably wasn't anything they could have done.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 01:14:43 PM
Oh so is that what is informing your reaction?
That and I could never imagine a circumstance in which I would ever do that to my sons no matter how poorly they acted. My first impulse would to keep them close and help them as much as possible. But perhaps that is why I dont have problem kids in the first place.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 01:14:43 PM
Oh so is that what is informing your reaction?
That and I could never imagine a circumstance in which I would ever do that to my sons no matter how poorly they acted. My first impulse would to keep them close and help them as much as possible. But perhaps that is why I dont have problem kids in the first place.
Or spoken like a person without girls. That said I would imagine I'd have to be in a very extreme situation to kick out my son/daughter. Though I'd be a bit more aggressive, I'd probably be more like my aunt who has her 30-something son still living with her.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 01:14:43 PM
Oh so is that what is informing your reaction?
That and I could never imagine a circumstance in which I would ever do that to my sons no matter how poorly they acted. My first impulse would to keep them close and help them as much as possible. But perhaps that is why I dont have problem kids in the first place.
CC, I'm very happy for you your boys are turning out so well.
I've worked with youthful offenders just enough however to know that while good parenting is a huge predictor of whether someone gets into trouble, it is not the only factor. Some good parents sometimes have some really problematic kids. And in some cases, just "keep[ing] them close" is just enabling their bad behaviour / drug and alcohol use.
You worked with troubled youth BB. I grew up with them. I think I know a thing or two about it that perhaps you might miss from the outside. Those wonderful parents that show up to social services arent necessarily so wonderful once they get home. ;)
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 01:14:43 PM
Oh so is that what is informing your reaction?
That and I could never imagine a circumstance in which I would ever do that to my sons no matter how poorly they acted. My first impulse would to keep them close and help them as much as possible. But perhaps that is why I dont have problem kids in the first place.
Or spoken like a person without girls. That said I would imagine I'd have to be in a very extreme situation to kick out my son/daughter. Though I'd be a bit more aggressive, I'd probably be more like my aunt who has her 30-something son still living with her.
I am not sure why I love a daughter less :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 01:53:30 PM
You worked with troubled youth BB. I grew up with them. I think I know a thing or two about it that perhaps you might miss from the outside. Those wonderful parents that show up to social services arent necessarily so wonderful once they get home. ;)
I'll stand by my statement - you can not simply say "bad kids = bad parents".
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 01:14:43 PM
Oh so is that what is informing your reaction?
That and I could never imagine a circumstance in which I would ever do that to my sons no matter how poorly they acted. My first impulse would to keep them close and help them as much as possible. But perhaps that is why I dont have problem kids in the first place.
Or spoken like a person without girls. That said I would imagine I'd have to be in a very extreme situation to kick out my son/daughter. Though I'd be a bit more aggressive, I'd probably be more like my aunt who has her 30-something son still living with her.
I am not sure why I love a daughter less :hmm:
Yep confirmed then. My comment wasn't that you'd like a daughter less but more on the level of drama that a daughter (particularly a teenaged one) brings to the table.
It seems like the parents are confident in their own righteousness and very uncompromising; and it seems that they've brought up a daughter who has the very same qualities.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 02:01:08 PMYep confirmed then. My comment wasn't that you'd like a daughter less but more on the level of drama that a daughter (particularly a teenaged one) brings to the table.
I have two younger sisters; neither of them brought more drama to the table than my brother or I did when we were their age.
Should have added "can" :blush:
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 02:11:08 PM
Should have added "can" :blush:
Any member of a family can add more drama than others. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2014, 01:59:40 PM
I'll stand by my statement - you can not simply say "bad kids = bad parents".
Stand all you want. Parent who abandons their kids always = bad parent
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 02:22:08 PM
Stand all you want. Parent who abandons their kids always = bad parent
Sometimes you have to do tough love, especially with adult children.
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
I have two younger sisters; neither of them brought more drama to the table than my brother or I did when we were their age.
I'm sure it varies. But my daughter brings way more drama than my son ever did. It's cute-- for now.
Semi-related, my sister in law sent us a video of her walking in on her 4-year old daughter crying & wailing like something horrible just happened. She asked her what was wrong and my niece instantly stopped crying & non-chalantly said "Nothing, mommy. I'm just practicing my crying." :D
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2014, 02:33:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 02:22:08 PM
Stand all you want. Parent who abandons their kids always = bad parent
Sometimes you have to do tough love, especially with adult children.
Perhaps, but do as I say or you are completely cut off is a total failure.
There is a question of paying for her education though. Maybe the high school tuition if her parents put her in that school, but lots and lots of parents pay zero for their kids' school. For most of us it's shitty public school and then go get in debt for college. Is there a parental responsibility to educate their kids?
On one level I think there obviously is (both from a moral and an evolutionary perspective), but we've been in the process of dumping that burden on the state for a long time. And more recently, on the kids themselves.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2014, 03:00:30 PM
There is a question of paying for her education though. Maybe the high school tuition if her parents put her in that school, but lots and lots of parents pay zero for their kids' school. For most of us it's shitty public school and then go get in debt for college. Is there a parental responsibility to educate their kids?
On one level I think there obviously is (both from a moral and an evolutionary perspective), but we've been in the process of dumping that burden on the state for a long time. And more recently, on the kids themselves.
Yeah, that is the interesting question. At least in Canada the obligation does exist and normally arises in divorce cases where the custodial parent claims it as part of support payments.
There is also a little known corresponding duty of support of adult children to their parents in some circumstances.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 02:53:14 PM
Perhaps, but do as I say or you are completely cut off is a total failure.
Perhaps, but "you are an adult now, so choose to obey the rules of the house, or find someplace else to live" isn't the same as "you are completely cut off." That isn't to say that the parents are not failures - almost all parents are, to some extent - but that their position is not completely unreasonable.
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2014, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 02:53:14 PM
Perhaps, but do as I say or you are completely cut off is a total failure.
Perhaps, but "you are an adult now, so choose to obey the rules of the house, or find someplace else to live" isn't the same as "you are completely cut off." That isn't to say that the parents are not failures - almost all parents are, to some extent - but that their position is not completely unreasonable.
I dont see much of a difference. In my view if a parent has to resort to a my house my rules or get out form of communication it is pretty much at the point of complete failure.
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2014, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 02:53:14 PM
Perhaps, but do as I say or you are completely cut off is a total failure.
Perhaps, but "you are an adult now, so choose to obey the rules of the house, or find someplace else to live" isn't the same as "you are completely cut off." That isn't to say that the parents are not failures - almost all parents are, to some extent - but that their position is not completely unreasonable.
Isn't the current case about funding education as well as living arrangements?
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2014, 03:31:35 PM
Isn't the current case about funding education as well as living arrangements?
It is about whether the daughter can continue to go to a private school against the wishes of the parents. I am not sure that them funding a private school for a time creates a legal obligation for them to do so as long as the daughters wants them to (or, maybe just until the end of the school year, which would be the same things since she is a senior). I could see that obligation going both ways. The parents say her college fund is available to her, but only for college.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 02:53:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2014, 02:33:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 02:22:08 PM
Stand all you want. Parent who abandons their kids always = bad parent
Sometimes you have to do tough love, especially with adult children.
Perhaps, but do as I say or you are completely cut off is a total failure.
Well obviously if the relationship has broken down so much people are suing each other there is a lot of fail going on. But I was just speaking generally.
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2014, 03:37:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2014, 03:31:35 PM
Isn't the current case about funding education as well as living arrangements?
It is about whether the daughter can continue to go to a private school against the wishes of the parents. I am not sure that them funding a private school for a time creates a legal obligation for them to do so as long as the daughters wants them to (or, maybe just until the end of the school year, which would be the same things since she is a senior). I could see that obligation going both ways. The parents say her college fund is available to her, but only for college.
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?
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2014, 03:44:15 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2014, 04:55:36 PM
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.
The real problem is that private schools exist in the first place, isn't it?
Quote from: Ideologue on March 05, 2014, 05:57:59 PM
The real problem is that private schools exist in the first place, isn't it?
And private families.
That's another big problem with America.
The lumpen proletariat has arrived.
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2014, 03:44:15 PM
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 :P
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2014, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2014, 03:44:15 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 05:04:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2014, 04:55:36 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2014, 06:11:50 PM
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."
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 06:35:15 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 06:35:15 PM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2014, 06:46:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 06:35:15 PM
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.
:huh:
You were the one who used the example of a kid doing well in school but not at home.
Quote from: merithyn on March 05, 2014, 06:46:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 06:35:15 PM
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.
I'd still like to spank this girl.
That's meaningless. You'd like to spank every girl.
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2014, 06:45:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 06:35:15 PM
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.).
Quote from: dps on March 05, 2014, 08:46:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2014, 06:45:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2014, 06:35:15 PM
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.
Laws can change. What's the parents' actual responsibility irrespective of law? What do you owe the kid just because you did them the disservice of bringing them into this awful world?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2014, 10:30:07 PM
Laws can change. What's the parents' actual responsibility irrespective of law? What do you owe the kid just because you did them the disservice of bringing them into this awful world?
I see trees of green,
red roses too.
I see them bloom,
for me and you.
And I think to myself,
what an awful world.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2014, 10:30:07 PM
Laws can change. What's the parents' actual responsibility irrespective of law? What do you owe the kid just because you did them the disservice of bringing them into this awful world?
I don't plan to bring my kids into NJ.
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.
Private schooling only serves to further the sense of entitlement that obviously this kid has in spades.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2014, 10:30:07 PM
Laws can change. What's the parents' actual responsibility irrespective of law? What do you owe the kid just because you did them the disservice of bringing them into this awful world?
My opinion? Parents are morally (again, I make no comments on the legality) obliged to do the best that they can to further the best interests of their children. I approve of parents who attempt to live by this, and dissaprove of parents who don't.
Now, I readily admit that the "best interests of the child" are not furthered by simply giving the child everything that they want, and that confrontations with one's children - over discipline, over lifestyle, over opinions - are inevitable. In many cases, the parent has to withhold things from the child, for that child's own good.
That said, in this case, according to the article in the OP, the parents of an adult child are claiming (admittedly through their lawyer) that if the adult kid simply comes home and obeys their rules, all will be foregiven and they will pay for her schooling. So them not paying for schooling isn't about the schooling, it is about her disobedience. They have set up a conflict of wills, in which she gets the education that her parents apparently otherwise feel appropriate if and only if she knuckles under to them.
I simply cannot accept that this is truly "in the best interests of the child". It looks more to me like a contest of pride and spite. No doubt teenagers can be plenty prideful and spiteful - having been one, I look back and cringe ;) - but parents are allegedly supposed to be more mature than that.
If this was over a vacation, or a toy, or something of that sort, it would be no biggie - maybe the kid would be better off having perks taken away, maybe that would really be "in her best interests". But it is over her education, which strikes me as fundamentally different. One's education in HS affects one's future chances. Her parents are setting it up so that the kid's future chances depend on the kid's pride breaking, which is just plain foolish.
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 01:10:32 AM
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 agree, but of course that is an observation about the choices the parents have made in how they raise their child, not an observation about the legal ramifications of those choices.
I think the parents are making some poor decisions, but that doesn't make them decisions that the legal system should have a say in...
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2014, 10:07:43 AMI agree, but of course that is an observation about the choices the parents have made in how they raise their child, not an observation about the legal ramifications of those choices.
I think the parents are making some poor decisions, but that doesn't make them decisions that the legal system should have a say in...
Yeah, I don't have a strong opinion on how the legal system should handle this; I'm commenting primarily on the parenting priorities.
More spankings.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2014, 10:43:02 AM
More spankings.
Yes and send the twat to public school.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2014, 10:43:02 AM
More spankings.
I believe that at 18 that would be considered assault, unless the daughter consents.
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 10:47:17 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2014, 10:43:02 AM
More spankings.
I believe that at 18 that would be considered assault, unless the daughter consents.
Sigh
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 10:47:17 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2014, 10:43:02 AM
More spankings.
I believe that at 18 that would be considered assault, unless the daughter consents.
Hippie.
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 01:10:32 AM
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.
You will do well raising teenagers.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 06, 2014, 10:58:08 AMYou will do well raising teenagers.
Thank you :hug:
Quote from: 11B4V on March 06, 2014, 10:56:41 AMHippie.
At what age should you no longer be able to hit your children?
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 11:06:26 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 06, 2014, 10:56:41 AMHippie.
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. ;)
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 11:06:26 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 06, 2014, 10:56:41 AMHippie.
At what age should you no longer be able to hit your children?
Hit or discipline?
By Washington state law, 18.
QuoteRCW 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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 06, 2014, 11:07:42 AMThe 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?
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 11:11:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 06, 2014, 11:07:42 AMThe 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. ;)
Quote from: 11B4V on March 06, 2014, 11:10:52 AMHit 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?
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2014, 06:11:50 PM
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.
QuoteIn 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.
The back of a hairbrush works well, but I prefer a switch. Leaves less marks when the police and CPS come knocking.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2014, 11:18:31 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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'.
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 01:10:32 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2014, 11:36:29 AMI 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 :)
Quote from: Malthus on March 06, 2014, 11:23:11 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2014, 11:18:31 AM
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.
:huh: You were the one who brought that issue up; now that you assumption is disproven, the issue is moot?
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 11:38:30 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2014, 11:36:29 AMI 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? :P
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 06, 2014, 11:10:52 AMHit 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
Quote from: Malthus on March 06, 2014, 11:23:11 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2014, 11:18:31 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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!
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2014, 11:45:00 AMThanks. I can conceive of a situation where that might be useful to me. Can you? :P
Of course I can. Why else would I post? :hug:
Quote from: dps on March 05, 2014, 08:46:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2014, 11:49:22 AM
*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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2014, 06:06:07 PMI 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?
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 06:20:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2014, 06:06:07 PMI 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2014, 06:39:13 PMHe 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.
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 06:20:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2014, 06:06:07 PMI 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?
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2014, 06:20:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2014, 06:06:07 PMI 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?
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.)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2014, 06:39:13 PM
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.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2014, 09:31:04 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2014, 07:51:48 AMI 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?
:huh:
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 11:04:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2014, 09:31:04 AM
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.
:yes:
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'.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2014, 12:05:08 PM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2014, 12:05:08 PM
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'.
:lol:
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).
I can't conceive. :(
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2014, 12:05:08 PM
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:
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 11:04:57 AMI 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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2014, 12:19:55 PM:lol:
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.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 11:04:57 AM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2014, 01:38:33 PMWell 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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2014, 12:19:55 PM
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?
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 01:37:23 PMLike 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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2014, 01:41:12 PMThat's not in the story, either. Where does that come from?
This part of the original article:
QuoteAn 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 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.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 01:43:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2014, 01:41:12 PMThat's not in the story, either. Where does that come from?
This part of the original article:
QuoteAn 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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2014, 01:43:07 PMBasically 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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2014, 01:38:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2014, 12:19:55 PM:lol:
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2014, 01:38:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2014, 12:19:55 PM:lol:
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%.
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2014, 01:45:11 PM
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?
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2014, 01:48:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 01:43:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2014, 01:41:12 PMThat's not in the story, either. Where does that come from?
This part of the original article:
QuoteAn 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.
That's baaaaaaaad.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2014, 02:18:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2014, 01:45:11 PM
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.
Well yeah, compared to the U of M.
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.
The fist time in a long time I have beaten you to that particular punch. :D
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 07, 2014, 02:38:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 02:10:47 PMYeah 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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2014, 02:23:40 PM
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.
QuoteNo 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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2014, 03:22:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2014, 02:23:40 PM
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.
QuoteNo 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. :)
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2014, 03:22:11 PMI am, as always, grateful when you or CC tell me what I think.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2014, 07:51:48 AMI 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?
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2014, 02:38:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2014, 02:37:04 PM
Well yeah, compared to the U of M.
The go-to. :D
I only wish that my children could follow in my legacy at the esteemed University of Manitoba... :(
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2014, 03:45:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2014, 02:38:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2014, 02:37:04 PM
Well yeah, compared to the U of M.
The go-to. :D
I only wish that my children could follow in my legacy at the esteemed University of Manitoba... :(
But you wouldn't help assist them. :(
Quote from: The Brain on March 07, 2014, 01:09:11 PM
I can't conceive. :(
For which the whole world is thankful.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 01:37:23 PM
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.
I don't tend to be the "my house/my rules" kind of person. Once my kids reached adulthood, they were given a wide berth to make their own decisions. At that point, I figure I either raised them right or I didn't. The only rules were a) do nothing illegal in my house and b) be respectful of your housemates. If they went to school, they could live rent-free. If not, they paid a reasonable rent.
That being said, I could see a situation where I would lay down the law. If my child were going wild - drugs, drinking dangerously, making very poor choices - and wanted to go straight, I could see saying, "Okay. Come home, live by the rules that I give you until you've proven that you can be trusted, and I will support you and pay for you to go to school. If you can't do that, then you're out on your own. I will support you every step of the way so long as you are making every effort to straighten your life out." If they walk away from that, I would withhold the majority of financial aid to them, aside from buying them groceries or paying the odd bill for them. I certainly wouldn't pay for an education that I wouldn't expect them to be able to actually follow through on.
Having grown up surrounded by addicts, I know what my limits are regarding what I can and will do for them. There is a time when you really do have to say, "I'm here for you when you're ready, but until then, I have to step back." Or at least, when I have to. It's a self-preservation thing. It won't stop my loving or caring for my child, but I have to make sure that I'm a whole enough person to be there when they're ready to come back.
That sounds eminently reasonable too, Meri.
Going straight? Just a phase, hopefully.
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2014, 07:37:59 PM
Going straight? Just a phase, hopefully.
There was a time when I wondered if one of my boys might not be gay, and I thought, "Okay, how do I support him as he navigates life?" Only to find out that no, he was just incredibly comfortable with his sexuality and had no need to prove he was manly.
Me: Um... son? Why do you have make-up on?
Son: :unsure: :blush:
Me: Is, um, there something that you want to talk to me about?
Son: :huh: What do you mean?
Me: Well... the make-up... reading Twilight... I just... you know.... I'm here if you need to ... tell me anything....
Son: :rolleyes: Mom, if I read Twilight, I have something to talk to girls about. And if I let the girls put make-up on me, where is my face?
Me: :huh: :lol: Ah, okay. Well, cold cream is in the bathroom.
Son: Thanks, Mom! :hug:
Quote from: merithyn on March 07, 2014, 10:01:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2014, 07:37:59 PM
Going straight? Just a phase, hopefully.
There was a time when I wondered if one of my boys might not be gay
:hmm: :P
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2014, 10:07:31 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 07, 2014, 10:01:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2014, 07:37:59 PM
Going straight? Just a phase, hopefully.
There was a time when I wondered if one of my boys might not be gay
:hmm: :P
I'd have been thrilled to have a gay son. Instead, I got a gay nephew. :)
Quote from: merithyn on March 07, 2014, 10:18:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2014, 10:07:31 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 07, 2014, 10:01:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2014, 07:37:59 PM
Going straight? Just a phase, hopefully.
There was a time when I wondered if one of my boys might not be gay
:hmm: :P
I'd have been thrilled to have a gay son. Instead, I got a gay nephew. :)
I was taking the sentence on its face and ignoring the day-to-day usage of such phrasing. -_-
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2014, 02:35:40 PM
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.
Not to knock your plan, which makes sense in many ways, but it would be very hard to get into Harvard law school with a U of A undergrad degree. Or a University of Montana degree. I think it's the same for a lot of elite post-graduate fields -- elite undergraduate colleges are heavily favored by admissions. A class of Harvard law students includes a big group of people who went to Harvard undergrad, another large group who went to other Ivies, small but substantial groups who went to top liberal arts colleges or top public universities, and a tiny group who went to lower-ranked public or private schools.
The undergrad GPAs are not treated equally by admissions. One of the top law schools, I think Stanford, used to have a formal system for discounting or boosting by X decimal points the GPA an applicant had based on how rigorous/competitive they determined the undergrad to be. They had to give it up officially after it became public, but it appears that the same thing is happening on a less formal basis at all of them. So a 4.0 at a good but comparatively "unselective" school just will never be considered equivalent to a 4.0, or even a 3.8, at a "top" undergraduate school.
Of course, this is only something to worry about if you are actually faced with the situation where one of your sons seems likely to pursue these kind of post-college degrees. College kids certainly screw themselves up all the time, and being close to home could be a lifesaver.
Fair enough Mihali, and obviously my boys are a long way from worrying about university admission, with the oldest just starting pre-school this year.
But U of A is not equivalent to the U of Montana. It's generally ranked top five in the country. It is one of the top public schools in this country (not that we really have any private universities of note). And *sigh*, yes, it's ranked higher than U of M. It's actually very competitive to get into - there are other local universities that are easier.
I'll happily support Capetano on his claim about Ivy League graduate selectivity. :sleep:
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2014, 03:22:11 PMI am, as always, grateful when you or CC tell me what I think.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2014, 07:51:48 AMI 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?
:huh: You do know the difference between a question and a statement, correct? <- look for that little symbol.
Quote from: merithyn on March 07, 2014, 05:00:20 PM
I don't tend to be the "my house/my rules" kind of person. Once my kids reached adulthood, they were given a wide berth to make their own decisions. At that point, I figure I either raised them right or I didn't. The only rules were a) do nothing illegal in my house and b) be respectful of your housemates. If they went to school, they could live rent-free. If not, they paid a reasonable rent.
That being said, I could see a situation where I would lay down the law. If my child were going wild - drugs, drinking dangerously, making very poor choices - and wanted to go straight, I could see saying, "Okay. Come home, live by the rules that I give you until you've proven that you can be trusted, and I will support you and pay for you to go to school. If you can't do that, then you're out on your own. I will support you every step of the way so long as you are making every effort to straighten your life out." If they walk away from that, I would withhold the majority of financial aid to them, aside from buying them groceries or paying the odd bill for them. I certainly wouldn't pay for an education that I wouldn't expect them to be able to actually follow through on.
Having grown up surrounded by addicts, I know what my limits are regarding what I can and will do for them. There is a time when you really do have to say, "I'm here for you when you're ready, but until then, I have to step back." Or at least, when I have to. It's a self-preservation thing. It won't stop my loving or caring for my child, but I have to make sure that I'm a whole enough person to be there when they're ready to come back.
Exactly. It is possible for the parents and child in this case to be in exactly that kind of circumstance. it is possible that they had a "deal" where she had to meet certain standards to remain in private school, and she failed to live up to that. There are many easily-imagined (by people with imaginations) scenarios in which the parents are in the right here. We just don't know. Personally, I doubt it; retired (or un-retired) cops aren't know for being reasonable and full of give-and-take, but I can certainly imagine it.
Quote from: merithyn on March 07, 2014, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 01:37:23 PM
snip
snip
On a side note, my god the drama on a teenagers facebook. I have been dealing with 17 y/o teenage drama/angst.
Facebook, texting, these fucking teenagers dont get a break from each other.
Thank god I didn't have to deal with too much teenager rebellion with my goddaughter. Other than that period when she was 14-15.
OH MY GOD DAD. I HAVE RIGHTS. I WANT TO GO ON A DATE WITHOUT A CHAPERONE. YOU ARE RUINING MY LIFE! WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MEET HIM FIRST? WE ARE JUST GOING TO THE MOVIES!
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2014, 11:06:01 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 07, 2014, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 01:37:23 PM
snip
snip
On a side note, my god the drama on a teenagers facebook. I have been dealing with 17 y/o teenage drama/angst.
Facebook, texting, these fucking teenagers dont get a break from each other.
I feel eternally grateful that my sons never went in for that kind of thing, and my daughter thinks it's all a big joke. Whenever anyone tries to "get at her" on Twitter/Instagram/etc, she dies laughing that anyone would think that would be hurtful to her. She also has no problem putting her phone down and walking away every now and then for a break from "high school bullshit".
:wub:
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2014, 11:06:01 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 07, 2014, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2014, 01:37:23 PM
snip
snip
On a side note, my god the drama on a teenagers facebook. I have been dealing with 17 y/o teenage drama/angst.
Facebook, texting, these fucking teenagers dont get a break from each other.
:console:
I wonder what bullshit I'll have to deal with in 15 years. It won't be Facebook, but I'm sure it'll be something.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2014, 08:06:00 AM
:huh: You do know the difference between a question and a statement, correct? <- look for that little symbol.
:huh: You are familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question, right? <- look for that little symbol combined with the intent to make a point rather than obtain an answer.
I've already dug out a prison cell in the basement for the teenage years, here's hoping it isn't necessary.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 08, 2014, 03:59:50 PM
I've already dug out a prison cell in the basement for the teenage years, here's hoping it isn't necessary.
Did you get the blueprints for it from CdM?
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2014, 11:59:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2014, 08:06:00 AM
:huh: You do know the difference between a question and a statement, correct? <- look for that little symbol.
:huh: You are familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question, right? <- look for that little symbol combined with the intent to make a point rather than obtain an answer.
When you ask such questions, make sure you plainly indicate your intent that the reader not considered it a question. I will continue to do the same. :showoff:
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2014, 08:33:54 PMWhen you ask such questions, make sure you plainly indicate your intent that the reader not considered it a question.
When you ask such questions, make sure you plainly indicate your intent that the reader not considered it a question. :showoff:
QuoteI will continue to do the same. :showoff:
We know. At this point no one expects you to improve your posting style.
Habits in place for several thousand years are hard to crack.
Crack is whack.
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2014, 11:30:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2014, 08:33:54 PMWhen you ask such questions, make sure you plainly indicate your intent that the reader not considered it a question.
When you ask such questions, make sure you plainly indicate your intent that the reader not considered it a question. :showoff:
I do. :showoff:
It is, of course, just possible that seeing the difference between rhetorical and real questions is just another thing you "couldn't conceive of." :hug:
QuoteWe know. At this point no one expects you to improve your posting style.
You are correct to note that it is impossible to improve my posting style. :showoff:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 07, 2014, 11:12:37 PM
The undergrad GPAs are not treated equally by admissions. One of the top law schools, I think Stanford, used to have a formal system for discounting or boosting by X decimal points the GPA an applicant had based on how rigorous/competitive they determined the undergrad to be. They had to give it up officially after it became public, but it appears that the same thing is happening on a less formal basis at all of them. So a 4.0 at a good but comparatively "unselective" school just will never be considered equivalent to a 4.0, or even a 3.8, at a "top" undergraduate school.
When I was researching law schools, my recollection was that admissions offices actually did the opposite of what you are describing: they basically treated all GPA's equally regardless of degree of difficulty or "eliteness." But maybe that is not necessarily the case at the most elite law schools.
Funnily enough, at UF law school, there were a few Harvard, Yale, Columbia etc. undergrad grads in my class. None of them were at the top of the class though.
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2014, 11:41:52 PM
But U of A is not equivalent to the U of Montana. It's generally ranked top five in the country. It is one of the top public schools in this country (not that we really have any private universities of note). And *sigh*, yes, it's ranked higher than U of M. It's actually very competitive to get into - there are other local universities that are easier.
It really depends what you are looking for and what fields your kids will one day be interested in studying. Cal Tech for example is not just the best university in the world but it prefers its undergrad students for its Masters and PhD programs. That makes it very attractive because if someone gets accepted there they are set for their academic careers.
I dont put much importance in the rankings within Canada because frankly after you get past U of T and UBC there is a pretty big drop off. For example in the most recent rankings U of T was ranked 21 in the world and UBC was 30. U of A came in around the 120s as I recall.
Now that wont matter as much if your kids are only going to get an undergraduate degree and particularly if they just want to stay in Alberta. If they have aspirations to continue their studies you have to think hard about what area they wish study and whether the U of A will give them an appropriate start. It may be the case that it does but since you dont live next to the top flight schools in Canada you might want to reflect on your notion that U of A would be a good start in all circumstances.
Quote from: stjaba on March 10, 2014, 07:17:25 AM
Funnily enough, at UF law school, there were a few Harvard, Yale, Columbia etc. undergrad grads in my class. None of them were at the top of the class though.
:lol: I'm sure they weren't. Law school is a whole different pathological ballgame, and relying on your native intelligence and academic writing skills doesn't get you very far...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 10, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: stjaba on March 10, 2014, 07:17:25 AM
Funnily enough, at UF law school, there were a few Harvard, Yale, Columbia etc. undergrad grads in my class. None of them were at the top of the class though.
:lol: I'm sure they weren't.
Yeah, he kind of walked into that one.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2014, 11:34:04 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 10, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: stjaba on March 10, 2014, 07:17:25 AM
Funnily enough, at UF law school, there were a few Harvard, Yale, Columbia etc. undergrad grads in my class. None of them were at the top of the class though.
:lol: I'm sure they weren't.
Yeah, he kind of walked into that one.
:unsure: I was being in earnest... (See Edit.)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 10, 2014, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2014, 11:34:04 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 10, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: stjaba on March 10, 2014, 07:17:25 AM
Funnily enough, at UF law school, there were a few Harvard, Yale, Columbia etc. undergrad grads in my class. None of them were at the top of the class though.
:lol: I'm sure they weren't.
Yeah, he kind of walked into that one.
:unsure: I was being in earnest...
I would have earnestly meant it as well. ;)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 10, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: stjaba on March 10, 2014, 07:17:25 AM
Funnily enough, at UF law school, there were a few Harvard, Yale, Columbia etc. undergrad grads in my class. None of them were at the top of the class though.
:lol: I'm sure they weren't. Law school is a whole different pathological ballgame, and relying on your native intelligence and academic writing skills doesn't get you very far...
At UF law, the Ivy alums seemed to generally rest on their laurels, whereas the top students busted their asses from day one. My perception was the Ivy kids figured they were smarter than most of the state school alums in law school so they didn't need to work as hard.
In reality, at schools like UF, there are tons of students who get accepted to Ivies and Ivy caliber schools but decide to attend UF because it is literally free if you have the grades, the best school in the state, and has a great alumni network. For instance, I got into U Chicago for undergrad with a partial scholarship, but I opted for UF since it was still the best choice for me. Had I wanted to go into investment banking or consulting or some similar field, Chicago would have been a better choice, but I knew I wanted to go to law school and probably stay in state for that, so going to Chicago would have led to debt and nothing else. Most of law school friends who did well and were also UF undergrad alums were also similarly situated.
Quote from: stjaba on March 10, 2014, 12:15:14 PMAt UF law, the Ivy alums seemed to generally rest on their laurels, whereas the top students busted their asses from day one. My perception was the Ivy kids figured they were smarter than most of the state school alums in law school so they didn't need to work as hard.
In reality, at schools like UF, there are tons of students who get accepted to Ivies and Ivy caliber schools but decide to attend UF because it is literally free if you have the grades, the best school in the state, and has a great alumni network. For instance, I got into U Chicago for undergrad with a partial scholarship, but I opted for UF since it was still the best choice for me. Had I wanted to go into investment banking or consulting or some similar field, Chicago would have been a better choice, but I knew I wanted to go to law school and probably stay in state for that, so going to Chicago would have led to debt and nothing else. Most of law school friends who did well and were also UF undergrad alums were also similarly situated.
That doesn't surprise me. Most people consistently overrate their intelligence, and few more so than those with fancy degrees. :D
EDIT: With that I'll sign off to belatedly abort this lawyer/legal education hijack. :homestar:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2014, 11:16:25 AM
It really depends what you are looking for and what fields your kids will one day be interested in studying. Cal Tech for example is not just the best university in the world but it prefers its undergrad students for its Masters and PhD programs. That makes it very attractive because if someone gets accepted there they are set for their academic careers.
I believe Cal tech claims that they have no such preferences. Their claims would be consistent with their undergraduate admissions process, which is purely merit-based (no preferences for minorities, athletes, or legacies). Now, Cal Tech may end up taking a vastly disproportionate share of its graduate students from its own student population, but that is at least partially explicable simply by the fact that its undergraduate admission standards are by far the toughest in the world (I remember seeing a fairly authoritative study that showed that the median admitted student at Harvard wouldn't be in the top 80% of the incoming Cal Tech class, or something like that).
So what you are saying is what you are saying isnt all that different from what I said except you feel the need to say it in a slightly different way that makes no practical difference.
Grumble away Grumbler, Grumble away.
Besides that you claim they give their undergrad students preference in graduate admissions and grumbler claims otherwise.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 10, 2014, 03:05:16 PM
Besides that you claim they give their undergrad students preference in graduate admissions and grumbler claims otherwise.
And yet the greater number of their post graduate students are from Cal Tech :hmm:
Yeah, I wouldnt expect you to see that there is no practical difference either. But continue to argue things that are pointless. It looks as good on you as it does on Grumbles.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 08, 2014, 11:15:17 AM
Thank god I didn't have to deal with too much teenager rebellion with my goddaughter. Other than that period when she was 14-15.
OH MY GOD DAD. I HAVE RIGHTS. I WANT TO GO ON A DATE WITHOUT A CHAPERONE. YOU ARE RUINING MY LIFE! WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MEET HIM FIRST? WE ARE JUST GOING TO THE MOVIES!
You should consider arranged marriages with the Houses of Europe for you daughters.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2014, 03:11:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 08, 2014, 11:15:17 AM
Thank god I didn't have to deal with too much teenager rebellion with my goddaughter. Other than that period when she was 14-15.
OH MY GOD DAD. I HAVE RIGHTS. I WANT TO GO ON A DATE WITHOUT A CHAPERONE. YOU ARE RUINING MY LIFE! WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MEET HIM FIRST? WE ARE JUST GOING TO THE MOVIES!
You should consider arranged marriages with the Houses of Europe for you daughters.
I am pretty sure it was with that in mind that he acquired his estate in France.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2014, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 10, 2014, 03:05:16 PM
Besides that you claim they give their undergrad students preference in graduate admissions and grumbler claims otherwise.
And yet the greater number of their post graduate students are from Cal Tech :hmm:
Yeah, I wouldnt expect you to see that there is no practical difference either. But continue to argue things that are pointless. It looks as good on you as it does on Grumbles.
:huh: I thought grumbler made his point quite pleasantly and wasn't unnecessarily argumentative. And I do think it is a relevant distinction in light of the discussion we were having re: whether having a highly-ranked/"elite" undergraduate degree is important for getting accepted by a highly-ranked/"elite" graduate program.
You are right, I should have cut him some slack for not being his usual self.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2014, 07:38:13 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/nj-teen-loses-first-legal-battle-parents-pay-001646897--finance.html
The "abortions should be mandatory" example.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2014, 03:22:37 PM
You are right, I should have cut him some slack for not being his usual self.
Unfortunately, you
are being your usual self. :(
Talk about unnecessarily argumentative! :lol:
BTW, according to cal tech, 3 of 36 graduate students in physics admitted in 2013 (the last year data is available) were from cal tech - the same number as from USTC and national Taiwan University.
http://www.pma.caltech.edu/GSR/gradclass2013.html (http://www.pma.caltech.edu/GSR/gradclass2013.html)
Still want to argue for a Cal Tech preference for their own undergrads? I'd love to see the data that claim is based on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2014, 11:16:25 AM
I dont put much importance in the rankings within Canada because frankly after you get past U of T and UBC there is a pretty big drop off. For example in the most recent rankings U of T was ranked 21 in the world and UBC was 30. U of A came in around the 120s as I recall.
I thought McGill was competitive too?
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2014, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2014, 11:16:25 AM
I dont put much importance in the rankings within Canada because frankly after you get past U of T and UBC there is a pretty big drop off. For example in the most recent rankings U of T was ranked 21 in the world and UBC was 30. U of A came in around the 120s as I recall.
I thought McGill was competitive too?
McGill is one spot below UBC, at #33 in the reputation rankings. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking)
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2014, 04:50:27 PMMcGill is one spot below UBC, at #33 in the reputation rankings. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking)
Thanks :hug:
... that makes it harder for me to find the will to continue our snarky back and forth, though :(
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2014, 04:52:11 PM
... that makes it harder for me to find the will to continue our snarky back and forth, though :(
That's so yesterday. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2014, 04:50:27 PM
McGill is one spot below UBC, at #33 in the reputation rankings. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking)
Tied with UT Austin? Ooooooh the indignity.
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2014, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2014, 11:16:25 AM
I dont put much importance in the rankings within Canada because frankly after you get past U of T and UBC there is a pretty big drop off. For example in the most recent rankings U of T was ranked 21 in the world and UBC was 30. U of A came in around the 120s as I recall.
I thought McGill was competitive too?
It generally is. But imo their high rankings are more a matter of resting on past glory. University funding in that Province has been broken for some time now. I am a bit surprised the results havent shown up in the rankings.
Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2014, 04:54:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2014, 04:50:27 PM
McGill is one spot below UBC, at #33 in the reputation rankings. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking)
Tied with UT Austin? Ooooooh the indignity.
I liked how Texas A&M is ranked ahead of Brown. The list is clearly geared towards research universities since schools like Amherst aren't ranked, at least not in the top 100.
Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2014, 04:54:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2014, 04:50:27 PM
McGill is one spot below UBC, at #33 in the reputation rankings. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking)
Tied with UT Austin? Ooooooh the indignity.
Below UDub, suck it Valmy!
Quote from: stjaba on March 10, 2014, 05:46:59 PM
I liked how Texas A&M is ranked ahead of Brown. The list is clearly geared towards research universities since schools like Amherst aren't ranked, at least not in the top 100.
It is world "reputation," so, yeah, the research universities are going to dominate.
Quote from: katmai on March 10, 2014, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2014, 04:54:15 PM
Tied with UT Austin? Ooooooh the indignity.
Below UDub, suck it Valmy!
I hadn't scrolled down far enough to see UDub, but you are right! :P
You don't need to do any scrolling to see Michigan. :showoff:
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2014, 07:24:59 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 10, 2014, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2014, 04:54:15 PM
Tied with UT Austin? Ooooooh the indignity.
Below UDub, suck it Valmy!
I hadn't scrolled down far enough to see UDub, but you are right! :P
You don't need to do any scrolling to see Michigan. :showoff:
I had to scroll to even see Harvard. :(
Apparently she moved back in with her parents.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 13, 2014, 09:49:22 AM
Apparently she moved back in with her parents.
I bet that is not awkward at all.
They truly are the worst parents and pursued a horrible course of action.
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2014, 09:50:33 AM
They truly are the worst parents and pursued a horrible course of action.
You are so judgmental.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2014, 10:16:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2014, 09:50:33 AM
They truly are the worst parents and pursued a horrible course of action.
You are so judgmental.
I mean I've seen where people kicked children out and those kids turned into prostitutes or worse. Why would they have even considered such a course of action?
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2014, 10:35:28 AM
I mean I've seen where people kicked children out and those kids turned into prostitutes or worse.
Not everything is about
you.
Is my mockery failing. :(
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2014, 12:40:18 PM
Is my mockery failing. :(
I thought I was playing along with your mockery. :(
You redirected it.
:lol:
:D :(
I would spank her bottom until it was red.