The world can rest an easy retreat after Rachel Canning finally agreed to a truce and move back in with her parents after having previously attempted to sue her parents for her financial upkeep after moving out.
Told Rachel Canning’s lawyer, Angelo Sarno in a press conference this afternoon: ‘My clients will be known for this for quite some time… As far as my clients are concerned it’s over, it’s done,
‘Rachel’s back home.’
Kids, time to throw a party, get the grog and blow up those balloons.
But not so fast.
Added Sarno, who is still sounding off caution to the wind: ‘This is a long process, it’s only the beginning,’
‘This is a private matter. It should have never been brought to the court’s attention. It should have never been brought to the public.’
Sarno added that the family wishes for the matter to remain private from now on, nevertheless felt the pressure to address their reunion in case it came out later.
Told the lawyer: ‘Her return home is not contingent on any financial and/or other considerations,
‘They’re not athletes, they’re not actors. They didn’t ask for this attention… Please respect the Canning’s privacy.’
‘This is a happy situation.‘
He said that while they are happy that it is now resolved, their two other children have been affected.
‘Nothing good can come from this.’
While Rachel Canning may have at last returned home, it seems things are far from over as Judge Peter Bogaard had scheduled an April court date to consider the over-arching question of whether the Cannings are obligated to financially support their adult daughter.
At the time the judge admonished the teen for her bad manners and her attempts to publicly shame her family. Told Bogaard in front of a packed courtroom: ‘Have you ever in your experience seen such gross disrespect for a parent? I don’t see it in my house.’
Added the judge who reacted against claims that the teen was being sullied against tough rules and claims of inappropriate behavior (which he clearly believed that the teen had made up or blown out of proportion): ‘‘What kind of parents would the Canning’s be if they didn’t try to set down some strict rules?
‘I’m not going to put myself in anyone’s shoes, he’s (father Sean) trying to raise a child. It’s clear to me all the positive qualities Rachel obviously has, in terms of sports and academics, but I’m not going to step on a father for how he tries to get his child on the right tracks when she has obviously come off the tracks, to put it mildly.’
Of note Rachel Canning’s controversial legal battle was being funded by the father of her best friend, millionaire lawyer John Inglesino. The Cannings have told that they the lawyer enabled their daughter’s behavior and encouraging her to take the matter to court.
Throughout the trial, she was living in her friend’s large mansion in Rockaway Township, New Jersey.
Since the girl’s appearance in court, many have come to publicly scorn John Inglesino which may to some degree may have led to the lawyer reconsidering his continued pledge to the girl who was forced to return to her family with her tail wagging between her legs.
Then there were these comments on the web this afternoon that made me wonder as well:
That’s the problem, her parents forgiving, relenting, allowing. What’s it gonna take before they see their daughter for who she really is and realize how they are enabling her behavior. The best thing they could do for her is kick her to the curb.
When your parental authority is undermined by other irresponsible people all ties to that relationship should be severed as soon as possible! In this case it should have ceased years before the lawsuit if the underage drinking was allowed as alleged.
Counting the weeks till she leaves home AGAIN.