Saturday, March 8, 2014
New Jersey teen sues her own Parents
Unlike most of the other states, New Jersey Emancipation laws says that once a child a turned 18, a parents child support obligation does not end automatically. If either parent wants to be released from these obligations a court order must be entered. Then the court will decide from there whether or not they think the child is still in need for support or not.
A teenager in New Jersey named Rachel Canning has brought her parents to court with the claim that they kicked her out of her house and have refused to finance her high school, and college education. She asked the court to make her parents pay for her private highschool and college expenses, as well as transportation and living expenses. Also she wants them to pay for the legal fees from this case. So this would come out to a $650 weekly child support.
Both sides have their own stories, the parents claim that she: "took it upon herself to run away so that she could live her life without any parental supervision and without any rules." While she claims that she was forced to leave and she suffered verbal and physical abuse. Her parents have also said that she lied in her court filing and to child welfare workers involved.
So far the court has denied her the first round of her suit, with the judge saying that there was no emergency basis for Rachel to ask for the money.
"What will the next step be? Are we going to open the gates to a 12-year-old suing for an Xbox?"-Judge Peter Bogaard
So what do you think of this case? Who do you think is in the wrong? Do you think that Rachel should get the money under the NJ Emancipation law?
Here's some Links
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26441941
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/justice/student-sues-parents-new-jersey/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/rachel-canning-suing-parents_n_4899542.html
http://www.weinbergerlawgroup.com/children-parenting/child-support/emancipation-legaladults.aspx
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I do not believe Rachel Canning should be able to sue her parents, and I find the case as ridiculous as the judge did.
Rachel seems to have made some bad choices and is blaming her parents for her own inability to deal with the consequences.
Except under extreme circumstances, I don't believe children should be able to sue their parents at all. If a teenager is especially angry at his/her parents, it is not acceptable to use legal action to retaliate and rebel against them.
Similar to most of our opinions that it would be wrong to disallow same-sex couples from being married--particularly because of the strain it would have on their families--it would also be morally wrong to allow disgruntled teens from destroying their family through malicious legal action.
I don't know who's right or who's wrong. I just feel bad for both side of the party. I hope they are able to reconcile in the future. I hope Rachel wasn't abused, but at the same time, I hope Rachel is not trying to abuse the system.
The case is a rather particular one for it raises the question whether a child can sue their parents. I think in cases where the child is abused or has reasonable causes, the child has the ability to sue their parents. However, I feel there would be a bias against the child, for parents and adults tend to have an upper hand because of their age/status. People tend to listen to adults and parents rather than a child, which I think is sometimes unfair. I don't know what could be done to fix that, but I hope kids who really need legal protection are able to get it.
"What will the next step be? Are we going to open the gates to a 12-year-old suing for an Xbox?"-Judge Peter Bogaard
I don't think the judge could have phrased this any better. By using the legal system to get what she wants, Rachel Canning's actions, as well as her case, opens many opportunities for others to do the same. It's scary to think about, but at the same time, like Alex said, it will become harder to sift out those who really need legal protection from those who are just using the system to get what they want, even if it's unjustified, and that I think, is the real problem.
Aside from that, as outsiders, we obviously don't know the full story, making it hard to judge who to side with. Rachel left her parents' premises months ago, and I think that in that span of time, they have been given a lot of opportunities to reconcile. I don't really think that anyone wins or loses in this situation. More than college tuition or any financial issue, their relationship as a family has already taken the most damage, and things like that don't necessarily get fixed with court rulings.
Post a Comment