Thread: Girl sues parents for support Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026998
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Read all about it.

What interests me is that:
My question, aside from the almost unbelievable absurdity of all of this, is: WHERE IS THE CHURCH?

The girl attends a Catholic school. Why hasn't the school or the church made any attempt to intervene?

Discuss.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
It strikes me as an odd reaction to a breakdown in your relationship with your daughter, to respond with, lets try to fuck up your future. Which makes me wonder what was happening in the home prior to this.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Read all about it.

Despite her claim to be an honors student, cheerleader, and otherwise all-around good kid, she was in fact suspended from school for truancy, and has shacked up with her boyfriend in her boyfriend's parents' house, of all places.
No, the article says she went to stay at her boyfriend's home for two nights, and then moved to the house of a friend, where she has been staying since. And yes, the article says she was suspended for truancy, but it also makes it clear that she is back at school now, in fact, the school is educating her gratis at the moment. Which means they must see something worthwhile in her.

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Not only are her boyfriend's parents apparently in full cahoots with the above arrangement, but they are even paying the girl's legal expenses for the lawsuit.
That's the friend's parents. But yeah, it's amazing.

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The family in question appear to be devout Catholics.
Where did you get this from? It's not coming through in the linked article, though I suppose there will have been TV coverage about it also in your part of the world. Just sending your kid to a Catholic school is not evidence of devout Catholicism, is it?

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
My question, aside from the almost unbelievable absurdity of all of this, is: WHERE IS THE CHURCH?

The girl attends a Catholic school. Why hasn't the school or the church made any attempt to intervene?
Well, how can you intervene without getting your head taken off by one party or another once things get to this level? I think by continuing to educate the girl, gratis, after her parents withdrew support, the school at least is sending a message here. And probably they know more about the situation than the reporters who are covering it.

Obviously, the kid could just be an entitled little bitch with an attitude problem. This is entirely possible. But she does have support from some quarters, from people who know her. And child protection officers failed to find any evidence of abuse in the household of a former police chief? Astonishing. Who'da thunk it?
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It strikes me as an odd reaction to a breakdown in your relationship with your daughter, to respond with, lets try to fuck up your future. Which makes me wonder what was happening in the home prior to this.
The only bit I take issue with is the parents not paying her current school fees. Maybe I'm reading it with my behavioural family therapist work hat on, but it reads as though she was acting out in a big way. We don't know the truth of whether she walked out or was kicked out (and on balance I'm going for the former) and given its a "they said/she said" situation it will be impossible to tell. From my experience, one parental, "get out of my sight," or "go away," can be blown up into "My mother told me to get out and never come back," very easily.

I'm interested that the behaviour seems to have started recently, and she's 18. Her honour student status and participation in cheerleading suggests to me that she's been pretty good up until now. Possibly rather spoiled? We don't have enough info though, so its all speculation, but 18 is quite late to start acting out - most kids are well over it by then, or they've started on a life of crime.

My experience of working with police officers as parents is that they often veer between being really permissive and really authoritarian - and spend a lot of time confused. In their jobs they have the law to back them, but they are often very fearful to ask for help in their personal lives because of the likelihood of their vulnerability getting out and affecting their image.

I don't see any mention of mediation or family work in the article. If it went straight to court, my belief is even stronger. Obviously, YMMV.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
It's easy to see the breaking point:
quote:
Her parents told the teen that she could no longer see her boyfriend, who was also suspended from school.
He was a baaaad influence and the parents wanted to nip it at the bud. That might have worked at fourteen, not a chance at eighteen.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
One thing she alleges is verbal and at least the threat of physical abuse by her parents. If this can be proven, doesn't she have the right to seek a safe place and shouldn't the parents be held responsible?

Please understand, I am not affirming this did indeed happen, just asking if it is true, how would that affect your opinion of the situation?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
One thing she alleges is verbal and at least the threat of physical abuse by her parents. If this can be proven, doesn't she have the right to seek a safe place and shouldn't the parents be held responsible?

Please understand, I am not affirming this did indeed happen, just asking if it is true, how would that affect your opinion of the situation?
Yes. I am saddened, though not really surprised, to see how many (not so much here but very much in the media) have rushed to accept the parents' version of events.

Right now we have a she said/they said situation. We either have a spoiled, ungrateful kid who refuses to live by her parents' rules yet wants them to support her... or we have an abused child who is finally willing to speak out about the abuse, seeking refuge and the ability to move on with her life. Or something somewhere in between. At this point, there's no way of knowing which is the reality.

If indeed she is fleeing abuse, one of the issues she will face is that, even tho she is over 18, all of the need-based financial aid to pay for college in the US is pegged to her parent's income. This may be why she is pursuing the lawsuit-- to be able to establish that she is "emancipated" so that she can qualify for aid based on her own income, not theirs. I have a student who is in precisely that situation, and it's not easy to establish. I and others in our institution have spent hours writing letters, documenting her situation, in the attempt to establish that determination in order to qualify her for aid. Part of the problem is that abusive parents often use finances as a control mechanism, so they'll give a lot of manipulative and inconsistent messages. They'll promise to pay tuition, but then there's strings attached... and those strings might be anything from something rather reasonable (as long as you stay off drugs and work hard in school) to something abusive (as long as you live at home where dad can continue to abuse you).

Again, there's just no way at this point of knowing what we're dealing with. Just would argue that we need to slow down before accepting either party's version of events wholesale.

A tragic situation either way.
[Votive]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
If the article is correct, she is in fact attempting to establish that she is NOT emancipated, does not wish to be emancipated--what she wants is for them to pay her bills regardless of her residency. That seems to me like trying to have it both ways. If you are in fact being abused, for goodness sakes leave and seek emancipation, so your financial aid will be calculated on tge basis of your own income alone and be that much higher. Plus you can cut the financial dependence that ties you to your abusers and gives them power over you. But why you would voluntarily demand to stay unemancipated and financially depndent in a case of true abuse--i don't get it.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
One thing she alleges is verbal and at least the threat of physical abuse by her parents. If this can be proven, doesn't she have the right to seek a safe place and shouldn't the parents be held responsible?

Please understand, I am not affirming this did indeed happen, just asking if it is true, how would that affect your opinion of the situation?
I should say at the outset that I work with the parents of challenging teens.
Making an accusation of parental "abuse" is a very common strategy among my client group. I've had kids ring child protection because a parent wouldn't let them use the computer, mum's phone, or watch a porn dvd. Obviously they don't tell officials the real reason:instead they say "Dad's been hitting me," or abusing me. I'd say about 75% of my kids will make false allegations of this nature, which is why I'm a bit of a skeptic over this story.
The dad being a police officer makes it a particularly effective ace in the hole, as the last time I dealt with a similar situation the dad had lost his job and his reputation. It was subsequently proved that the child was lying and his employer had to make restitution.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If the article is correct, she is in fact attempting to establish that she is NOT emancipated, does not wish to be emancipated--what she wants is for them to pay her bills regardless of her residency. That seems to me like trying to have it both ways. If you are in fact being abused, for goodness sakes leave and seek emancipation, so your financial aid will be calculated on tge basis of your own income alone and be that much higher. Plus you can cut the financial dependence that ties you to your abusers and gives them power over you. But why you would voluntarily demand to stay unemancipated and financially depndent in a case of true abuse--i don't get it.
If her case is anything like my students', the point of the suit might be to make it clear one way or another. The suit will either resolve she is not emancipated, and her parents will support her education. Or it will resolve she is emancipated-- making her eligible for financial aid. What's deadly for a student hoping to complete their education and move ahead is the manipulative, coercive money-with-strings attached that an abuser will use to keep you dependent (by making you ineligible for aid) while maintaining control over you.

Again, no way of knowing if that's what's going on here or not. It may be that she is just a spoiled brat who wants it both ways. I'm just saying we don't know at this point.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The other thing that strikes me as odd is why, emancipated or not, she thinks they're obliged to pay for her college education. Once I turned eighteen, my parents left me to handle that on my own, as an adult. (And yes, it really sucked.) And my father even stopped the minimal child support payment he was making to my mother--and no court said he had to keep on. Has the law changed, or something?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I think that one reason that people are taking the parent's side more is because there are more spoiled children than abusive parents. Of course, it's also just a more comforting narrative.

Re college, I think that people in this country have to have been on their own for two full years before they can apply for financial aid without having their parents' financial situation taken into consideration. (I know that an acquaintance couldn't go to college for that reason a few years ago anyway.) If that is still the case, that may be why it's worth it to her to sue.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I did have to obtain their data, though they were under no obligation to actually pay what tge computer formula spit out as "expected family contribution." I simply had to take care of that bit too.

Of course, you might need a court order to get some parents to supply the data.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
According to this article she is asking $650 per WEEK while in high school in addition to tuition. I have friends raising a family on less than that!

The parents say "shortly before she turned 18, she told her parents that she would be an adult and could do whatever she wanted." I often hear kids claim they are adults and can do whatever they want, ignoring that they are still living in their parents' home.

Sometimes I think we should move the age of majority back to 21.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Belle Ringer:
quote:
Sometimes I think we should move the age of majority back to 21.
You'd do that to unhappy, abused parents? [Disappointed] [Biased]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
There was a case in Italy a few years back where a man in his thirties was living at home and his mother decided to stop cooking his meals. He successfully sued to compel to continue to cook for him as her parental obligation.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think that one reason that people are taking the parent's side more is because there are more spoiled children than abusive parents. Of course, it's also just a more comforting narrative.

I am not sure that is true. There are certainly a lot less cases like this, than there are documented cases of child abuse.

This young woman also has a fairly serious mental health condition, usually associated with issues of overcontrol. Entering into a battle for control with her, if you had understood the dynamics of eating disorder, strikes me as a major error of judgement.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think that one reason that people are taking the parent's side more is because there are more spoiled children than abusive parents. Of course, it's also just a more comforting narrative.

I am not sure that is true. There are certainly a lot less cases like this, than there are documented cases of child abuse.
Certainly if the girl is not abused, everyone looks bad. There are not many cases of children suing their parents, but there are many children whose parents don't discipline them and let them run around wild until they get into trouble. If they're lucky, it's mild trouble. If the parents are mostly honest, I'd guess that's the case here.

I guess I would like to hope that a girl of her age canny enough to end up in a trial like this could have found some convincing evidence of abuse. But many here definitely know more about this sort of thing than I, maybe it is easy to hide abuse of even a clever teenager.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Going back to the original post: where is the church? What would you expect the church to do? This is a lawsuit and (as far as I can tell) the church is not a party to it. Should the church hire an attorney to appear as amicus curiae? Or is the church expected to have been aware of the problem earlier and to have done something about it? A more troubling question is what side the church should take: the girl's side, her parents' side, or simply the side of the truth. The latter, of course, is the role and job of the court.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Going back to the original post: where is the church? What would you expect the church to do? This is a lawsuit and (as far as I can tell) the church is not a party to it. Should the church hire an attorney to appear as amicus curiae? Or is the church expected to have been aware of the problem earlier and to have done something about it? A more troubling question is what side the church should take: the girl's side, her parents' side, or simply the side of the truth. The latter, of course, is the role and job of the court.
Both the girl and her parents are within the sphere of the Church, so both should be cared for pastorally. It is not the job of the Church to duplicate the efforts of courts and social workers, who will have the unhappy task of unraveling the web of she said/they said. Nor is it to play the role of cut-rate therapist to "fix" either party. But regardless of where the truth lies, this is a family shattered and damaged-- for whatever reason. The role of the Church then, I would suggest, is to come alongside both the girl and her parents, in deep prayer and practical support. To love them in tangible ways as they walk through this painful journey.
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
In all fairness, it's perfectly possible that all that has already been happening. 'Church supports family' or 'Catholics broker peace deal' aren't the kind of headlines papers are much interested in printing, or even including as details in passing.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Somehow I feel that had Mr. and Mrs. Canning approached their pastor or the school principal or guidance counselor ("Rachel doesn't think she should have to obey us in this matter; what should we do?"), the parties wouldn't be in court right now.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
In all fairness, it's perfectly possible that all that has already been happening. 'Church supports family' or 'Catholics broker peace deal' aren't the kind of headlines papers are much interested in printing, or even including as details in passing.
Oh, yes, I certainly didn't mean to imply those things aren't happening. Hopefully they are. As you say, not likely to be in the press if it is.


quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Somehow I feel that had Mr. and Mrs. Canning approached their pastor or the school principal or guidance counselor ("Rachel doesn't think she should have to obey us in this matter; what should we do?"), the parties wouldn't be in court right now.
You're giving clergy and school personnel waaaay more influence than we generally have, sad to say. In real life I haven't found my words have anywhere near enough sway to stop a good lawsuit.

Which doesn't mean the Church can't, or shouldn't (or didn't, to Panda's point) reach out. Just that I don't have such over-inflated notions of my own power. God's power, though... which is why we pray.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
It has occurred to me that no matter how the trial turns out, Rachel loses. If the judgment is against her, she obviously loses. If it is for her, the victory was gained by her friend's father, not by herself. In either case, she has not managed to strike a blow for independence. She is at an age when she should strike such a blow.

The fact that she does not want to be considered as emancipated suggests that she finds dependence attractive. I don't think that's healthy.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

The fact that she does not want to be considered as emancipated suggests that she finds dependence attractive. I don't think that's healthy.

Moo
Or, again, that she needs to establish legally one way or another in order to qualify for aid.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
That's a very kind way to look at it--but what I'm reading suggests (heck, states) that she DOES in fact have a preference, which is for parental money and NOT emancipation-with-likelihood-of-extra-financial-aid. Which troubles me.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
That's a very kind way to look at it--but what I'm reading suggests (heck, states) that she DOES in fact have a preference, which is for parental money and NOT emancipation-with-likelihood-of-extra-financial-aid. Which troubles me.
I don't think we can know that at this point. The actual purpose of a lawsuit may very well be just to get them on the record one way or another. Again, I have a student right now who is in precisely that situation, her efforts to document her emancipation in order to qualify for aid apart from her parents' income has been hellish and has set back her education over a year. Her case may similarly have to go to a civil suit in order to resolve.
 
Posted by BessHiggs (# 15176) on :
 
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm deluded, but if she's adult enough, in the eyes of the law, to file a lawsuit (regarless of who is paying the lawyers), then she's an adult. Emancipated, for whatever that means, as a legal adult in this country. For the first 18 years of your life, your parents are obligated to provide food, shelter, clothing, care, and an education. After that magic 18th birthday...not so much so.

[anectdote] I worked with a girl who was pissed off at her her parents because they didn't buy her a brand new sports car for her 16th birthday. Spoiled brats are spoiled brats. [/anectdote]

[ 08. March 2014, 07:42: Message edited by: BessHiggs ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The most helpful skill set in dealing with teenage flexing of independent wings is industrial relations negotiations. Cooling off periods, talks about talks, third party mediation, finding effective compromises which will work at least for a while, restoring the peace, looking for "win-win" answers. You are trying to model reasonable behaviour to the often unreasonable. It can be very wearing and wearying, but it comes with the territory.

Sure, you sometimes get into withdrawal of privileges, groundings etc. Late in the game, and always with the knowledge that, whatever the gain, something gets lost when you have to resort to force majeure. During this time of change, loving relationships are not generally fostered by force majeure.

And if you are really lucky, and work really hard at it too, you may emerge from the dark tunnel to discover that you have a mutually respectful adult-adult relationship in place of the parent-child relationship with which you started.

This court case is a classic example of the kind of hideous mess you can get into when force majeure locks horns with stubborn resistance. And a very expensive way to find that out, to boot.

[ 08. March 2014, 10:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
In the article Belle Ringer linked to, somehow this seems the most bizarre, but I can't quite put my finger on why:
quote:
Inglesino told the the Daily Record that he and his wife decided to pay for the lawsuit because they fear Canning will lose opportunities for a strong education and a happy future without her parents’ contributions.
I suppose my reaction is something like "why is that any of the Inglesinos' business?" but I'm not sure if that's quite it.

[ 08. March 2014, 12:13: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I don't think she should have a case at all. Frankly. It is too late for family therapy probably, suing shows she's no Smurf, though the parents are also be blameworthy.

While lawyers like the idea for the threshold for suing to be rather low ($35 cost to register one here, wonder what it is there?), I can't see the parents winning it and registering costs against their daughter.

Perhaps it would be best to give the courts and lawyers the treatment recommended by Dick the Butcher in Henry VI. Or preferably kill the lawsuit very quickly. The court and lawyers have no business meddling in a family conflict and tragedy like this. None.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...her efforts to document her emancipation in order to qualify for aid apart from her parents' income...
According to the article I cited upthread, this gal is asking $650 per WEEK plus tuition. Nowhere that I've heard of in USA hands out that kind of money through social services.

The case might be a battle over a boyfriend. Parents told her give him up or get out. She got out. She wants zero consequences for her choice. (Don't most kids keep the boyfriend and lie to the parents about it?)
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BessHiggs:
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm deluded, but if she's adult enough, in the eyes of the law, to file a lawsuit (regarless of who is paying the lawyers), then she's an adult. Emancipated, for whatever that means, as a legal adult in this country. For the first 18 years of your life, your parents are obligated to provide food, shelter, clothing, care, and an education. After that magic 18th birthday...not so much so.
Except that for federal financial aid for higher education including student loans, her parents' income has to be known and used in the calculation unless she is over 24 or can prove her parents have disowned her. Her parents can make it really difficult for her to go to college just by refusing to give the information (or if wealthy, by giving the info but refusing to pay one cent towards it). On the face of it the lawsuit may be to force her parents to pay but if she loses completely it also establishes beyond a doubt that her parents won't pay and so their income should not be used when calculating financial aid. I also wonder what health insurance she has (dependent coverage can continue until 26 but if her parents drop her is she eligible for medicare or can she afford to pay for her health insurance).
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Powerful attorney John Inglesino, who took Rachel under his wing, let her get drunk on vodka in his Rockaway Township house when she was 15, according to a report in the Daily Mail.

...Rachel’s parents also claim the Inglesino family hosted parties and paid for rides in limousines filled with wine coolers.

“Rachel was angry because we would not host an alcoholic party,” her dad said in court papers.

“Rachel’s first time drinking alcohol was at the Inglesino house.”
More facts? Apparently the relationship with the man sheltering her goes back some years, and so does the parents' disapproval of his ways of dealing with their daughter.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Powerful attorney John Inglesino, who took Rachel under his wing, let her get drunk on vodka in his Rockaway Township house when she was 15, according to a report in the Daily Mail.

...Rachel’s parents also claim the Inglesino family hosted parties and paid for rides in limousines filled with wine coolers.

“Rachel was angry because we would not host an alcoholic party,” her dad said in court papers.

“Rachel’s first time drinking alcohol was at the Inglesino house.”
More facts? Apparently the relationship with the man sheltering her goes back some years, and so does the parents' disapproval of his ways of dealing with their daughter.
ewwww... that does shed new-- and dark-- light on the matter. Much cause for concern there. This may turn out to be about neither spoiled privileged kids nor abusive controlling parents-- but something far darker.


[Votive]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Powerful attorney John Inglesino, who took Rachel under his wing, let her get drunk on vodka in his Rockaway Township house when she was 15, according to a report in the Daily Mail.

...Rachel’s parents also claim the Inglesino family hosted parties and paid for rides in limousines filled with wine coolers.

“Rachel was angry because we would not host an alcoholic party,” her dad said in court papers.

“Rachel’s first time drinking alcohol was at the Inglesino house.”
More facts? Apparently the relationship with the man sheltering her goes back some years, and so does the parents' disapproval of his ways of dealing with their daughter.
She sounds like a typical teenager to me - but her parents look as if they are completely intolerant, not willing to make allowances (literally!)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I'm finding it hard to laugh about entitled teens when it's possible there's a predator (though not a parental one) involved...
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
John Inglesino, the man who is sponsoring the lawsuit, is a well-known tort lawyer. He appears to think that suing people is one of the first things you should think of doing in a difficult situation.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
John Inglesino, the man who is sponsoring the lawsuit, is a well-known tort lawyer. He appears to think that suing people is one of the first things you should think of doing in a difficult situation.

Moo
If he also has a habit of getting 15 year olds drunk, then inviting them to leave their unreasonable parents and come live with him, I'm afraid that might not be the worst of his traits...
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm finding it hard to laugh about entitled teens when it's possible there's a predator (though not a parental one) involved...
That's what worries me. It didn't sound right from the beginning that some unrelated adult was willing to bankroll her lawsuit... And where's the freakin' boyfriend in all this? He seems to have dropped out of the picture altogether.

[ 09. March 2014, 01:11: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm finding it hard to laugh about entitled teens when it's possible there's a predator (though not a parental one) involved...
That's what worries me. It didn't sound right from the beginning that some unrelated adult was willing to bankroll her lawsuit... And where's the freakin' boyfriend in all this? He seems to have dropped out of the picture altogether.
I was willing to see the bankrolling parent as either gullible-soul-hoodwinked-by-pouty-teen or courageous-caring-adult-protecing-vulnerable-abused-child... until I heard about the pattern of getting her drunk that led up to his "generous" offer of more --um, accommodating-- room & board. Now the whole thing is looking potentially much, much darker. I hope I'm wrong, but the pattern of his behavior is giving me the willies. And not in a good way. I'm seeing the kid as a victim now, but in a whole different way...


[Votive]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Yes, I thought potentially "publicity seeking public figure/lawyer finds another excuse to embarrass other public figure/retired police chief" which would be bad enough; but this would be worse. And do you know, has anyone heard anything of the boyfriend? I thought at first he was the son of this guy; but if so, he seems to have faded out of the picture, which is not what I'd expect if that relationship was the font and source of all this mess. I mean, what PITA boyfriend is going to miss the chance to show up and look righteous and supportive in court, or on the Facebook post? And yet it seems he has...
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Okay, I've had a Google (yeah, yeah, should've done that before) and apparently he is NOT related to the lawyer she's staying with. The first articles I read were wrong. And if it were my son, I'd certainly try to keep him out of this shitstorm, so no blame to them for lying low.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Apparently the relationship with the man sheltering her goes back some years, and so does the parents' disapproval of his ways of dealing with their daughter.
ewwww... that does shed new-- and dark-- light on the matter. Much cause for concern there. This may turn out to be about neither spoiled privileged kids nor abusive controlling parents-- but something far darker.
My thought on reading that was to wonder how parents can let children reach age 15 without giving them the opportunity to try alcohol in a safe home environment. By that age, they should be treating her as much like an adult as possible, to encourage her to act that way.

On the boyfriend point, I asked my daughter last year (she was five, we'd watched a film in which the situation occurred) what she would do if I told her she wasn't allowed to see a boy whom she wanted to be friends with. It took her about half a second to give her response: "I would kick you in the nuts".

It astonishes me that there seem to be parents who would want a daughter to give any other answer to that question than that one. If there's anything in the world worth fighting for, the right to choose your friends is it.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Eliab, it was interesting your reading of this. I am not comfortable that another family has taken it upon themselves to introduce other people's children to alcohol consumption. But it really reminded me that there is a huge Pond divide on attitudes to alcohol and young people. I've read a few American novels when bits of the plot have been hinged on people giving alcohol to minors or covering up parties when children have been drinking aged 15 or 16. It's a completely different world to our 13 year olds getting drunk on the streets, which isn't ideal either. And our almost European attitudes to teaching children to treat alcohol appropriately,
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Eliab, your comment about supplying alcohol to under 18s may well work in the UK, but not necessarily elsewhere. That sort of action, even in your own home, may be held to be a criminal offence here and in many US states also.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Eliab, your comment about supplying alcohol to under 18s may well work in the UK, but not necessarily elsewhere. That sort of action, even in your own home, may be held to be a criminal offence here and in many US states also.
And it's the context that makes this look so very suspicious. This isn't a parent looking the other way while their son/daughter holds an after-prom party and raids the liquor cabinet. This is not giving your own son or daughter a small glass of wine at dinner. This is alleged to be a grown man getting a 15 year old drunk and supplying her with alcohol in a number of potentially compromising situations-- not with her peers, but with this same older adult-- who then ends up becoming her "caretaker" and her living under his roof.

Again, my *danger* meter is pinging.

If I were the parents I would want to be doing something much more significant than just cutting off $$. But perhaps they have tried and this is just one aspect of a larger picture.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

My thought on reading that was to wonder how parents can let children reach age 15 without giving them the opportunity to try alcohol in a safe home environment. By that age, they should be treating her as much like an adult as possible, to encourage her to act that way.

I totally agree with this. I've lived in a European country where children were introduced to wine at a young age and which had no minimum age for drinking alcohol in restaurants and bars. The usual practice was to give young children diluted wine at meals and to decrease the dilution with advancing age. It was common to see teenagers leaving school in the afternoon and gathering with their friends in the cafes and bars where it was left to the discretion of bar staff as to what they would be served. A couple of beers or glasses of wine was OK but they wouldn't be served with spirits or allowed to become drunk.

In the UK parents can give alcohol to any child over the age of five and certain low-alcohol drinks can be served in licensed premises to people of 14 or over if they are having a meal. In practice there has always been some discretion allowed to bar staff. When I was a 15 year-old, many years ago, I used to go to an after-school ice-skating club which ended at the time the bar opened and the bar would serve us certain alchoholic drinks. AFAICR these included lager and lime, shandy made with beer (not just the bottled stuff) cider, Babycham, and something called CherryB. In the opinion of the barman Babycham had been invented specifically for girls.

[ 09. March 2014, 12:57: Message edited by: justlooking ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
justlooking - the legal situation is that children are only allowed in pubs if there is a children's room. A young person of 16 may be bought a glass of beer, wine or cider with a meal. Nobody under 18 may buy an alcoholic drink for themselves or others.

Your barman was definitely acting illegally.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Eliab, your comment about supplying alcohol to under 18s may well work in the UK, but not necessarily elsewhere. That sort of action, even in your own home, may be held to be a criminal offence here and in many US states also.
If that's really true, I actually find that quite a shocking intrusion into how one parents one's children. Is such a law actually enforced or is it de facto ignored?

I also, though, find it shocking that someone should presume to give alcohol to somebody else's fifteen year old child without apparently taking any account of what her parents' take was likely to be. That's also an improper intrusion.

On the other hand, weirdly, this story seems to have reached our Daily Mail. So that makes me wonder whether it was ever true in the first place.

[ 09. March 2014, 13:49: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
justlooking - the legal situation is that children are only allowed in pubs if there is a children's room. A young person of 16 may be bought a glass of beer, wine or cider with a meal. Nobody under 18 may buy an alcoholic drink for themselves or others.

Your barman was definitely acting illegally.
This provision
quote:
However if you’re 16 or 17 and accompanied by an adult, you can drink (but not buy) beer, wine or cider with a meal.
used to be for age 14 and did not include wine - the provision was for alcoholic drinks below a certain strength so most wines would not have been included.

Yes, the barman was acting illegally but ISTM there was provision for common-sense which was accepted in practice if not in law. I've been served alcohol in school uniform along with other 16 - 18 year olds - no questions asked despite it being a city centre bar. My point is that in the past, in the UK, bar staff were allowed a certain discretion in practice if not in law and it was generally accepted that alcohol in moderation was OK for teenagers. I can also recall going out for a meal with a group of sixth-formers aged 16 and 17 where we ordered and were served with several bottles of wine.

[ 09. March 2014, 14:13: Message edited by: justlooking ]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And where's the freakin' boyfriend in all this? He seems to have dropped out of the picture altogether.
If he had his wits about him, he'd run yelling and screaming as far away as he could get!
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On the other hand, weirdly, this story seems to have reached our Daily Mail. So that makes me wonder whether it was ever true in the first place.
This seems as good a quote as any with which to remind people that this is speculation about living persons, some of it unpleasant. What the Daily Mail prints is its responsibility, but the Ship is keen to steer clear of legal trouble. Please bear this in mind when posting. Admins advised.

/hosting
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
justlooking - the legal situation is that children are only allowed in pubs if there is a children's room. A young person of 16 may be bought a glass of beer, wine or cider with a meal. Nobody under 18 may buy an alcoholic drink for themselves or others.

Your barman was definitely acting illegally.
Yes, but it wasn't unusual in the 70s and early 80s. My experience as a 16 year old was much the same as justlooking's. A group of us 16 & 17 year olds (all friends from church as it happens!) used to go to the same pub that the choir went to after rehearsal. The adults from the choir knew who we were and I'm pretty certain the landlord was aware too. Provided we didn't make a racket or cause any trouble, he turned a blind eye.

[ 09. March 2014, 17:43: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Yes, this is how I remember it too. At the end of the school term when we were 16, 17, 18, we pupils used to go to the same pub as the teaching staff - we all just made sure we were in different bars. No one turned a hair.

M.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
One of the smaller but symptomatic things that really annoys me about politicians and other public figures is when they go on about the iniquities of underage drinking when you know that they did it themselves because everybody did, and I assume, does.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Not everybody does. Based on what I've heard on the Ship, I suspect it's much more common in the UK. Though we have plenty of kids who do here, too, but it still seems like an order of magnitude difference.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
For the record, in this country one may legally introduce one's own children to alcohol when they are under 21 in one's own home, but not in public, and not anyone else's children anywhere.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
From Enoch:

If that's really true, I actually find that quite a shocking intrusion into how one parents one's children. Is such a law actually enforced or is it de facto ignored?

It is no more an intrusion than the law saying that if as a matter of parenting I beat Dlet to within an inch of his life every second evening, I can't be charged with assault.

With drinking at home, it would be more a question of obtaining sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. That may be difficult.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D: From Enoch:

If that's really true, I actually find that quite a shocking intrusion into how one parents one's children. Is such a law actually enforced or is it de facto ignored?

It is no more an intrusion than the law saying that if as a matter of parenting I beat Dlet to within an inch of his life every second evening, I can't be charged with assault.

With drinking at home, it would be more a question of obtaining sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. That may be difficult.
Sorry, but that's disproportionate and a nonsense comparison. Beating Dlet to within an inch of his life every second evening is cruelty so severe as to outweigh the normal and proper inhibition against the state/law intruding itself into peoples' family lives. I would imagine most people in most countries would think it is weird to regard it as anything other than my business whether I let my 17 year old son or daughter drink beer or wine at home, or what I regard as the best way to encourage him or her in a sensible attitude towards alcohol.

Is this Australia's example of Kinder-egg syndrome? There seems to be a rule that every country has to have at least one bit of law that looks nuts to anyone from anywhere else.

I am sure we have plenty, though perhaps if one lives in a place one is blind to what looks odd to others. Not being able to buy more than two packets of aspirins simultaneously, certainly strikes me as peculiarly and pointlessly interfering.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I have a faint suspicion that Gee D was referring to something else, and you two are at cross purposes for the moment...
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I have a faint suspicion that Gee D was referring to something else, and you two are at cross purposes for the moment...
And getting far off the point... which is not at all about whether or not a parent should be allowed to give their teen a beer at dinner, but about whether an older unrelated male should get 15 year old girls drunk against their parent's wishes and away their supervision, (possibly deliberately) generating a familial rift, swoop in and move the girl into your home, then have the gall to sue the parents for support.

That's several light years away from letting your own son or daughter have a sip of wine in your own home.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I found some court records of the case.

There was a child protective services investigation of the abuse complaints; the conclusion was that the complaints were unfounded. One allegation was that the parents had broken the furniture in the girl's room and kicked in the door. The investigation showed that there was no damage.

After reading the legal submissions from both sides, I think the parents are far more reasonable.

Moo
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I have friends who enjoy going to a sports bar and playing trivia against other teams in the bar or by satellite. When their kid was a child, no problem bringing him along. When he was about 14, he could no longer enter the building. Serving under-aged people can get a bar server or bar owner in big trouble.

I guess everyone figures no cop will suspect they are serving beer to a child, but having a teenager hang out and asking a cop to NOT jump to the conclusion the teen is drinking, that's asking for trouble. Big noise before it shakes out, disrupting business. (Of course by 14 many teens have a fake IDs.)

Kids are not supposed to consume alcohol in USA. Usually no one cares what you serve your own kid in your own home, but serving someone else's kid can result in a fine or jail time. I think parents rarely file charges, the police get involved when things are way out of line, like the party spills into a neighbors property without permission or a kid crashes a car drunk on the way home, something very public.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Something that's really sad about this case, is that whatever the rights and wrongs - and having read the papers linked to, my instinctive sympathies are with the parents - what does it do for the future prospects of the family ever getting back to any sort of normality or for this unfortunate adolescent negotiating her passage to adulthood successfully? The fact that this is all been in the press, even in foreign countries, and people, including me, can read the court papers, can't help.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
One thing I noticed in the court documents was that the girl's submission contained at least one lie.

She said that she currently held various responsible positions at school. She had held them, but they were all taken away from her when she was caught drinking alcohol at a school dance.

It's quite possible that the parents have lied too, but there is no evidence of that at present.

There is one thing about the American attitude towards teenage drinking that many shippies don't understand. Many American teenagers have cars, and teenage drunk driving kills quite a lot of people. Adult drunk driving kills lots of people also, of course, but the combination of alcohol and lack of experience makes teenage drunk drivers especially dangerous.

In the late 1980s, the federal Department of Transportation said it would withhold federal highway funds from any state that had a lower legal drinking age than twenty-one. I think it would be better if this were handled on a more local level.

Moo
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In the late 1980s, the federal Department of Transportation said it would withhold federal highway funds from any state that had a lower legal drinking age than twenty-one. I think it would be better if this were handled on a more local level.
It used to be handled at the local level and that created problems. Kids drove from the home county or state to the nearby county or state with the lower age limit. Then they drove home drunk (if getting drunk was the goal, as is surprisingly often seems to be). But the drive home could easily be 30 or 50 miles. That's a lot of drunken time on the road.

Changing to a uniform age limit put the drunkenness "underground", but kept the kids much closer to home, a shorter drunk drive home after the party. That shorter drunken drives was a goal of the uniform age.

Before that, the age was 18 for a while, then some places raised it to 19 because 18 is high school senior which means some high school students can legally buy booze to bring to a party and supply younger friends at school. 19 is out of high school, no longer attending school parties.

The bigger question to me is why the kids like to get drunk or get each other drunk. Hangovers are miserable!
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
All of which is interesting, but really tangental to this case. This case isn't about teens sneaking out to score some beer and drink it behind the 7-11. It's not about parents giving kids a glass of wine at dinner. It's not about clueless parents looking the other way while their teen has a kegger in the basement. This case quite possibly isn't even about what it appears to be on the surface-- a dispute between a teen & parents about appropriate discipline and/or financial support vs. independence.

The key dark secret, possibly, at the core of this case, is why an unrelated adult male is nurturing a relationship with this girl over several years, supplying her with alcohol & getting her drunk on a regular basis, in a way that seems designed to drive a wedge between her and her parents, then swoops in to move her into his place and sue her parents to provide $$ support for this cozy arrangement.

[ 10. March 2014, 19:03: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
This seems as good a quote as any with which to remind people that this is speculation about living persons, some of it unpleasant. What the Daily Mail prints is its responsibility, but the Ship is keen to steer clear of legal trouble. Please bear this in mind when posting. Admins advised.

/hosting
What part of this post by a host are you finding difficulty with?

Don't let there be a next time, or one of us might just delete this thread to keep us clear of legal complications.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
oh, sorry. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
She's returned home.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I note in that article it says:
quote:
Canning left her parents’ house on Oct. 30, two days before she turned 18 after a tumultuous stretch during which her parents separated and reconciled and the teen began getting into uncharacteristic trouble at school.
It does place the whole situation in a rather different context.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0