NJ teen loses first legal battle to make parents pay for education

[knitter4democracy]

172. From the court docs, some interesting points:

1. The school reported the parents after directly observing neglectful behavior (parents in Las Vegas when daughter was at Homecoming dance). The conflict seems to stem from that.

2. The plaintiff was told not to go back home by her therapist and school officials.

3. She does have a job and has actually held more than one.

4. The issues with her parents are massive (separation, arguing in front of plaintiff, dad getting her drunk at a wedding and telling people she was his date...).

5. In the parents' response, they say that the Child and Protective Services charge came from her lying about being abused, but in the Plaintiff's motion, she clearly states the name of the teacher who called it in over neglect, not abuse. They don't answer that.

6. The parents' response keeps saying that they just wanted to impose fair rules, but I don't see where they're responding to some of the more severe allegations of inappropriate behavior and problems in the home. They just call her rebellious and move on--that's a red flag.

7. The parents repeatedly argue that they should not pay for anything to do with college because they were not consulted about it. Interesting.

8. The parents' main response (before the fact-finding responses) just repeats a generalized story over and over with "rules" cited but not made clear as to what they are.

In my personal experience in reading many, many court documents, the Plaintiff has laid out a case with witnesses listed and specifics given. The Defendants have responded with a very emotional response (though they then cite many legal case precedents) with few specifics and entire areas of the motion ignored. Honestly, this case is a mess. The young woman has screwed up big-time, sure, but it sounds like she's had good examples in that in her parents.