Rachel Canning, an 18 year old high school student and cheerleader is suing her parents for support after being kicked out by her father, a retired NJ police chief for refusing to live by his rules.
The girl has launched the suit whilst living with a friend’s family who are shelling out thousands for her legal fees.
Whilst the specifics of how Rachel Canning came to leave her ‘comfy abode’ on November 1, 2013, the day she turned 18 are not necessarily clear, the teen is adamant that she has been sabotaged after having received acceptance letters from several universities.
Told filed court papers: ‘My parents have rationalized their actions by blaming me for not following their rules,’
They stopped paying my high school tuition to punish the school and me and have redirected my college fund indicating their refusal to afford me an education as a punishment.’
According to DailyRecord.com, Rachel Canning’s parents, Sean and Amy Canning owe Morris Catholic $5,306 in tuition since they’ve neglected to pay since the start of the family feud. Rachel Canning is in her final term at the school at present.
Siding with the student are school administrators.
Wrote Morris Catholic president Michael St. Pierre in a certificate to the court: ‘Rachel has excellent grades and will not be removed from the school for this non-payment; however her parents do have a contractual obligation to pay. Rachel is certainly unable at this time to attend Morris Catholic High School full-time and support herself financially,’
St. Pierre told the school called New Jersey Child Protection and Permanency last fall after abuse allegations from Rachel and what he called ‘difficult meetings between Rachel and her father, Sean Canning.’
To date Sean Canning admits a state worker visited the home just prior to Rachel’s alleged ‘abandonment,’ but that the official found the teen simply to be ‘spoiled’ and didn’t pursue the abuse allegations.
Offered Sean Canning: ‘We love our child and miss her. This is terrible. It’s killing me and my wife. We have a child we want home. We’re not draconian and now we’re getting hauled into court. She’s demanding that we pay her bills but she doesn’t want to live at home and she’s saying “I don’t want to live under your rules.”
Rachel Canning’s father contends that his daughter left on her own accord because she was simply unwilling to follow his demands she be respectful, do her chores, and give back some of her sister’s borrowed belongings.
‘We’re heartbroken but what do you do when a child says “I don’t want your rules but I want everything under the sun and you to pay for it?”’
Pleaded Sean Canning: ‘I’m a liberal, liberal parent,’
‘I wish I could have grown up in my house. I was tougher on my cops at work than I’ve ever been at my home, that’s for sure.’
The father has admitted he’s stopped paying his daughters high school tuition but says she’ll receive her existing college fund.
That though ‘is just not enough,’ tells John Inglesino, an attorney and former local city official whose already paid $12,597 for Rachel’s lawyer Tanya N. Helfand, who claims his daughter friend is ‘emotionally distraught by her parents’ sudden rejection of her.’
Kids, I need to pause for a moment and take a long swig of my chamomile tea as the soap opera commercial plays in the background.
‘Rachel is likable, communicates exceptionally well and is highly motivated to attend and excel at a college appropriate for her. That is why my wife and I have decided to fund this lawsuit. We know that if Mr. and Mrs. Canning are not required to fulfil their legal obligations as parents, that Rachel’s ability to fulfil her potential will be greatly diminished,’ Inglesino wrote to the court.
RachelCanning’s suit demands that her parents pay her college tuition and expenses, transportation costs, cover her current high school tuition and even pay her legal fees.
Her attorney’s argument that these are all reasonable demands border on the presumption that the teen who seeks to study biomedical engineering, will be a student.
Helfand says her client has not ‘moved beyond (her parents’) sphere of influence’ and per New Jersey law may be deemed non-emancipated.
‘A child’s admittance and attendance at college will overcome the rebuttable presumption that a child may be emancipated at age 18,’ reads an earlier state court decision.
But that’s not the way Laurie Rush-Masuret, an attorney for Rachel Canning’s parents see it. Claiming instead that Rachel removed herself from that ‘sphere of influence’ when she voluntary left her parents’ home.
Family law attorneys Sheldon Simon disagrees.
‘A child is not emancipated until they’re on their own…Even if a child and the parents don’t get along that doesn’t relieve the parents of their responsibility,’ Simon told the DailyRecord.
Simon added he’s never seen anything like the lawsuit in 40 years of practice.
Judge Peter Bogaard has scheduled a the first court hearing for Tuesday in Morristown, Pennsylvania. Hopefully he will be gently sipping on his chamomile tea too…
And then there were these comments on the web that made me wonder as well:
At 18, she can legally leave her home and be self-supporting. At 18, her parents can tell her to leave and be self-supporting. If they signed a contract with the school, they need to meet those obligations. If not, the tuition is her problem. College expenses are her problem, not her parents’. They are not required to provide support in any way, shape or form for someone who is legally an adult. She has no legal right to ask them for anything financial.
The parents are not legally obligated to pay for an expensive private school. If she wanted to be out on her own she should have been prepared to go to public school. It’s a shame they raised her so entitled and spoiled that she would actually sue her own parents at age 18 rather than follow the rules of the house to stay there.
Apparently, she’s an ugly person inside and the outer veneer is just a mask. The one who disgusts me in this whole matter, is the father of the classmate – Inglesino. I hope karma bites this piece of work bad someday for intervening into the Canning family. Just another shark attorney looking to make a splash in the media and Rachel Canning is to naive, stupid (?), immature, you name it…to see she’s a pawn in his agenda. I can see offering the young adult a place to flop while encouraging her to deal maturely with her parents, but to foot the lawsuit, obtain the lawyer, and continue to provide a place for her to dwell all undermines the Canning’s parents abilities to parent as THEY see fit. If she doesn’t like it she can leave, and apparently she did…. BUTT OUT INGLESINO!
The brat is spoiled, and the parents did it. By the time she reaches 18, she has had in ingrained in her that she is not responsible for anything, that her parents are. I wouldn’t give her another penny.
if she left on own i figure she can find a way to pay the bills
last time i checked they have public schools there an loans for college