Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That previous article didn't include the following:
Morris County Court Judge Peter Bogaard also ruled that Rachel’s parents must keep her on their health insurance policy and keep status quo on all college savings accounts set up for her.
I mean REALLY. This is slightly less than my weekly pay and I have to pay for an apartment and all the expenses of an apartment (my parents help me with rent). But seriously. For about 3 months before I moved my parents offered to pay my rent and I felt like I was literally rolling in cash. I don't even know what 18 year old me would do with that much money.
Don't really have a dog in this fight but it's funny to me how so many people claim things are legal and illegal without looking at the law or the facts of the case. Half the people in this thread claim to know definitely how the judge is going to rule, and that is just impossible. I've read and/or been apart of too many cases where it appeared clear cut one way and the ruling went a completely different way. Heck, who thought Citizen's United would be decided how it was? Did you really think Roberts would validate Obamacare? The moral of the story is if a case makes it past initial pleadings the judge feels there is a valid legal question.
A lot depends on how contracts are written --- a college fund might specify something and that would have to be honored legally. Sometimes it doens't matter who is nice and who isn't, what matters can be the specific wording.
That we don't know. Hopefully though, her parents didn't set up the college fund to be automatically hers at age 18.
After reading that long, long article I posted, I agree she's a spoiled brat. However, there are a few things bothering me.
Before she was 18, her parents went to Los Vegas and left her to watch her two younger sisters. While she was at the school dance, she got into trouble. The teacher insisted she call her parents. When she called, they kept hanging up on her without knowing why she was calling. What kind of parents do that when they're out of town with three children at home? She could have been calling to say her younger sister was run over by a car. When they finally answered the phone, they were screaming at her for calling them. The teacher witnessed all of this, and that's why they reported the family to CPS.
I don't give much weight to the social worker exonerating the parents and deeming her a spoiled brat. Social workers spend much of their days with impoverished children. It's difficult for them to see emotional and mental abuse when they're in luxurious homes. All they see is this child has everything in the world. And, yeah, she's a spoiled brat. Even spoiled brats don't deserve to be treated like garbage.
The principal's statement to the court mentioned uncomfortable meetings with Rachel and her father. He didn't say that implying that Rachel was the problem. As a matter of fact, the school is standing behind Rachel and allowing her to continue attending the school without payment because the school considers her to be a good student.
It's noteworthy because schools see families in a very real light over an extended period of time. Social workers who stop by for one visit don't get an accurate picture. It doesn't seem the social worker even took the school's report seriously.
They kicked her out. She asked if she can come home. They said she can come home but she had to give up her boyfriend. The fact she refused to give up her boyfriend to return home isn't really the question. The question is if they literally kicked her out initially. That's what the court will decide. But it really doesn't matter what the courts say about the college fund because the parents have publicly said they are giving her the college fund.
What they're adamant about not paying is the high school tuition. I think their willingness to give her the college fund but refusal to pay the high school tuition validates her claims that they are punishing her and the school for calling DPS. Her father inaccurately believes she is responsible for DPS being called.
It's still an interesting case. I can understand why it's getting so much publicity. If she wins, this sets a major precedent in New Jersey. The first judge was afraid to set that precedent and asked both parties to try to find an agreement and reconciliation for the sake of Rachel. Maybe they will reach a settlement before the next court date. If they don't, the next judge could rule either way. I do like that the first judge ordered the family to continue providing health insurance.
After reading that long, long article I posted, I agree she's a spoiled brat. However, there are a few things bothering me.
Before she was 18, her parents went to Los Vegas and left her to watch her two younger sisters. While she was at the school dance, she got into trouble. The teacher insisted she call her parents. When she called, they kept hanging up on her without knowing why she was calling. What kind of parents do that when they're out of town with three children at home? She could have been calling to say her younger sister was run over by a car. When they finally answered the phone, they were screaming at her for calling them. The teacher witnessed all of this, and that's why they reported the family to CPS.
I don't give much weight to the social worker exonerating the parents and deeming her a spoiled brat. Social workers spend much of their days with impoverished children. It's difficult for them to see emotional and mental abuse when they're in luxurious homes. All they see is this child has everything in the world. And, yeah, she's a spoiled brat. Even spoiled brats don't deserve to be treated like garbage.
The principal's statement to the court mentioned uncomfortable meetings with Rachel and her father. He didn't say that implying that Rachel was the problem. As a matter of fact, the school is standing behind Rachel and allowing her to continue attending the school without payment because the school considers her to be a good student.
It's noteworthy because schools see families in a very real light over an extended period of time. Social workers who stop by for one visit don't get an accurate picture. It doesn't seem the social worker even took the school's report seriously.
They kicked her out. She asked if she can come home. They said she can come home but she had to give up her boyfriend. The fact she refused to give up her boyfriend to return home isn't really the question. The question is if they literally kicked her out initially. That's what the court will decide. But it really doesn't matter what the courts say about the college fund because the parents have publicly said they are giving her the college fund.
What they're adamant about not paying is the high school tuition. I think their willingness to give her the college fund but refusal to pay the high school tuition validates her claims that they are punishing her and the school for calling DPS. Her father inaccurately believes she is responsible for DPS being called.
It's still an interesting case. I can understand why it's getting so much publicity. If she wins, this sets a major precedent in New Jersey. The first judge was afraid to set that precedent and asked both parties to try to find an agreement and reconciliation for the sake of Rachel. Maybe they will reach a settlement before the next court date. If they don't, the next judge could rule either way. I do like that the first judge ordered the family to continue providing health insurance.
I love this post. I'd rep you again if I could!
If she ran away, she would've showed up at the doorstep apologizing. They kicked her out...
With college costs they way they are right now, I don't blame her for trying. Teens these days are guaranteed to be saddled with massive student loans and debt that their parents cannot have fathomed would have happened to them. Tuition in the 60s and 70s were hardly the tune they are now, perhaps in the hundreds for some public colleges (as my former boss would brag about).
Oh really. I borrowed $20,000 to get an MBA in 1977. That's about $80,000 in today's money. It was worth it.
No one is "guaranteed" to be "saddled" with huge school debt. Community college is almost free. If you go to a school that is not particularly competitive and are a good student, there is scholarship money available. Lots of people work their way through college.
The only thing I think her parents need to pay for her is her high school tuition. They put her in that school, they should pay for it. And if I were them I would pay that. Looks better to the judge IMO.
As for her tuition for college HA! I paid for my college and am still paying off those loans for another 4-5 more years! I hope no judge makes her pay. If she wants to be a big girl and leave because mom and dad don't like her bf, that's HER problem, not her parents.
They said they have no issues paying her tuition for her high school if she moves home and I agree with them. If she chose to run away and doesn't want to come home, well, guess what, you now get to support yourself. That is just how the real world works. From the photos from that last article, she was MORE than taken care of with the $500+ prom dresses, the nice hair cuts/colors, a lovely home, etc. She is a spoiled brat. Sorry, but your parents not wanting you to have a boyfriend in 9th grade is NOT unusual. The parents probably created this monster with the overindulgence, but someone needs to smack this girl upside the head. If I were that judge I would have required the girl to go work in the inner city or at a food shelf or something so she gets a dose of reality....
If she ran away, she would've showed up at the doorstep apologizing. They kicked her out...
What makes you think she would apologize for anything? The girl left of her own accord - that is clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
They said they have no issues paying her tuition for her high school if she moves home and I agree with them. If she chose to run away and doesn't want to come home, well, guess what, you now get to support yourself. That is just how the real world works. From the photos from that last article, she was MORE than taken care of with the $500+ prom dresses, the nice hair cuts/colors, a lovely home, etc. She is a spoiled brat. Sorry, but your parents not wanting you to have a boyfriend in 9th grade is NOT unusual. The parents probably created this monster with the overindulgence, but someone needs to smack this girl upside the head. If I were that judge I would have required the girl to go work in the inner city or at a food shelf or something so she gets a dose of reality....
Agree 100%!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The girl left of her own accord - that is clear. 
