Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

This 18 year-old has it together (rolls eyes).


Recommended Posts

I understand parents wanting to cut off their kids when they turn 18, but not while they're still in high school.  I mean why mess with her head just a few months before high school graduation?  I understand it's a private high school they may not want to pay for anymore, but why risk hurting her grades like that?  That's the only thing I think the parents did wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with the parents but they did cut off paying for her private high school.

 

Regardless, parental options are very limited when a child turns 18 and they refuse to abide by the rules of the house.  I will say this, she may have a case thanks to the ACA and the requirement that insurers cover dependants up to age 26. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with the parents but they did cut off paying for her private high school.

 

Regardless, parental options are very limited when a child turns 18 and they refuse to abide by the rules of the house.  I will say this, she may have a case thanks to the ACA and the requirement that insurers cover dependants up to age 26. 

 

I don't see what the ACA has to do with anything aside from health care coverage. The ACA also doesn't require that parents maintain coverage past age 18, it merely allows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what the ACA has to do with anything aside from health care coverage. The ACA also doesn't require that parents maintain coverage past age 18, it merely allows it.

 

I'm not saying it will.  Merely that it could.  It does require insurers to maintain coverage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The girl doesn't have a case and her boyfriend's dad that initiated the law suit should be dragged through the streets apologizing to the entire township for being such an asshole. This brat ran off to **** her boyfriend at his parents house and now wants to continue hurting her parents. They did the right thing, cut ties, emancipate themselves from a brat teenager that knows no responsibility. I hope the Judge spends ten minutes then sides with the parents and demands financial restitution from the scumbag lawyer for starting this shit storm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it will.  Merely that it could.  It does require insurers to maintain coverage.  

 

We used to be required to insure full time students up to a certain age, depending on the state, mostly to age 26.  Now it requires us to cover children up to age 26 regardless of student status but the parents are not required to cover the dependent.

 

I know that is basically what you said, just wanted to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best friend's dad is a colossal jackass, he should tell the girl to pull her head out of her ass and go home.  Instead he "bankrolls" a lawsuit?  Mind-boggling what a tool this guy is.  I can't believe they found a lawyer who would take the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think even this board has clear enough vision to see individual stories and judge them on their own merit.

 

 

There in fact may be two sides to story.  From the Daily Record (linked in the yahoo story)

 

Morris Catholic President Michael St. Pierre said in a certification to the court that the school did call DCP&P based upon some allegations by Rachel and “some difficult meetings between Rachel and Mr. Canning.”The court record also includes a letter from Morris Catholic English instructor and campus minister Kathleen Smith, who wrote that she was a witness to a rough encounter between Rachel and her mother in mid-October 2013 and heard Elizabeth Canning call her daughter a foul name and say she didn’t want to speak to her daughter again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about the rest of the case, but I see no way a court says, "Yeah, the parents are liable to pay her future college tuition."

 

Is there any instance or precedent where a court makes parents pay for a childs college tuition?

 

When people start including this kind of stuff the case moves into frivolous territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably right Brandon, but that doesn't really matter. If the court is willing to hear the case, that will mean huge legal fees for the parents. I'm not sure what the percentages are, but I'm guessing a huge majority of these civil suits are all intended to produce settlements.

 

She might get $25K out of her parents just for the effort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's usually the goal and why the lawyer dad is an asshole as he's essentially investing in a settlement.

 

On the flip side, if the parents win their lawyer can seek fees from the daughter/lawyer dad combo.

 

The parents should seek that mediation opposed court/trial.

 

But yeah, I know a few business owners that spend too much time in court dealing with lawsuits and they even say they usually just settle at some point because it saves them money.

 

Hopefully this gets tossed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...