Find Out What Happened to the Teen Who Sued Her Parents for Tuition, Living Expenses

Superior Court Judge says Rachel Canning won't be receiving a $600 per week payment from her parents for school tuition and living expenses.

Screen grab
Screen grab
By Jason Koestenblatt

Morristown, New Jersey – An 18-year-old woman who sued her parents for financial support after leaving home in October was denied by a Superior Court Judge Tuesday.

Rachel Canning, a Morris Catholic High School senior now living with a friend in Rockaway Township, filed suit against her parents, of Lincoln Park, in February, seeking an outstanding tuition payment, future college tuition payments, and current living expenses.

Judge Peter Bogaard, according to ABC News, asked the court, whether it was wise to "establish a precedent where parents live in basic fear of establishing rules of the house?"

In Canning’s suit, an emergency order was requested in the amount of more than $600 per week, according to court documents (see full written testimony here). Additionally, Canning said her outstanding Morris Catholic tuition of $5,306 was also due, adding that to the suit. Because the deadline for payment is not until May 1, Morris Catholic said Canning may continue attending the school and Bogaard denied the need for an emergent payment, according to nj.com.

Canning left home in October – two days prior to turning 18 – and stayed with her boyfriend for two days, the documents showed. Once the Catholic institution learned of the situation, it forbade Canning from staying there with repercussions of not being allowed back at school.

The honor student then took refuge at the home of friend Jaime Inglesino in Rockaway Township. Inglesino’s father, John Inglesino, is a former Morris County freeholder and current attorney for the township of Parsippany-Troy Hills. Inglesino has provided payment for Canning’s legal fees up to this point, the documents show.

Bogaard said awarding the payment to Rachel Canning “would represent essentially a new law or a new way of interpreting an existing law,” nj.com reported.

While Canning’s attempt at receiving immediate payment was not approved, the family is due back in court April 22 for another hearing. The case could go to trial on the grounds that the 18-year-old was “emancipated” when she left home, and no longer required financial assistance from her parents.

"To be clear, my clients never abandoned nor abused their child and they have asked her to come home," ABC News quoted Laurie Rush-Masuret, the attorney for Canning's parents Sean and Elizabeth.

CeeDee March 09, 2014 at 04:32 PM
Another BPC(beyond parental control) brat.
Jim C March 15, 2014 at 08:57 AM
Spoiled brat can flip burgers..
Karl Miller March 31, 2014 at 04:55 AM
When you bring a child in to this world you are bound to them, inextricably and forever. Children need their parents to teach them and guide them, not just until they turn 18, but for the rest of their lives. Shame on her parents for cutting off her education and potentially damaging her opportunities because she had a boyfriend they didn't like. They should accept that she is a child that is still learning, a child whose brain won't fully mature until she's 25, and that she needs their help and support now more than ever. It amazes me how petty these posts are. One can never "repay" the debt to their parents. But parenting is not some favor you do for your kids, not some debt you are owed! It is a moral imperative. If you do not give your child everything you have, if you don't do everything in your power to help your child become successful, how can you look at yourself in the mirror or fall asleep at night? These parents are lucky to have an honors student dedicated to her studies. Punishing her by sabotaging her education is insane to me. A kid is not a slave who must always follow the rules. They will fight and kick and say horrible things and as a parent you have to suck it up and keep doing everything in your power to help that kid become successful.
Barbara March 31, 2014 at 01:08 PM
First of all, none of us knows the full (and truthful) story in this case. It's pretty clear that either 1) you don't have kids, or 2) you have kids and they are not teenaged or young adults, or 3) you have kids who are not doing what they need to do responsibly, or 4) you have no money worries that would compel you to deny your child something he/she wants. Parents certainly should be there for their children to support their "healthy" endeavors and to love them but NOT support their destructive behavior. Our job as parents is to MAKE OUR CHILDREN INDEPENDENT…NOT to give them "everything you have". This is ludicrous. Children need to realize that things take effort and that the world does not revolve around their needs and wants. There is nothing stopping her from working AND going to school…a win-win for her; she can do what she wants, get an education, and feel good that she is able to take care of herself.
JATO April 02, 2014 at 12:04 PM
You read my mind Barbara. Children are entitled to make mistakes and learn from it. She remarkably found out the hard way and went back home.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »