We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Several issues with Rush's POV.
First, nobody knows those Facebook posts are hers, or if someone else posted in her name. It's quite possible any number of people she named as administrator did them. She may have given tacit approval, but it's still distorted.
Secondly, her parents are upset and angry about these distortions. While they are obviously angry at her creation of this mess, as parents they do care and would prefer this hadn't gone to court to begin with.
Third, I have no idea how they raised her, nor does Rush. We are making a huge assumption here to believe they were her 'friends'. If anything, I'd argue they were probably as tough on her as most parents seem to be, which is why she left. Now we can disagree on varying levels of parental 'friendliness', but I think it's absurd for Rush to label them without knowing the details of what happened in that household.
Rush is more comedy act than social observer. His 'insights' are mostly as much garbage as Jon Stewart's.
He doesn't have kids, so as far as I'm concerned he has no idea what it's like to raise a kid. I know very good parents, excellent parents, whose kids went off the rails. Sometimes it's not the parents, it's just the kids.
When I posted about this several days ago, I was clear that I made no judgments about the girl in question or the means by which the parents raised her. My main point was that once you're out of the house, you're on your own, but if you're in the house, you live by my rules.
These are simple rules.
I do think the only interesting point Rush raises, and it's hardly insightful since it's a theme which Libertarians like me have been harping on regarding the Liberals for several years, is the issue of greed. Is it 'greedy' to feather your nest for retirement and 'ignore' your child's young adult 'needs'? No. It's normal. The parents did NOT ignore her needs - they merely made the requirement she live by their rules if she sought to receive their assistance. Is that terrible? Is that greedy?
But who is more greedy, the parents who earn a living and 'greedily' prepare for retirement, or the girl who doesn't want to work for what she needs and demands someone else pay for it?
My issue here isn't about the parents or the girl - they have major issues. My issue is the courts agreed to hear this case. It should have been sent to an arbitrator or the parties sent to family therapy. This doesn't belong in the courts. The judge is wrong. This is NOT a public policy issue. It is a personal issue.
The unsurprising (to me) aspect of this story is how completely oblivious everyone is to the nearly blinding irony of it all. None of the pundits or blog sages have even a small clue, it seems. This girl is doing what gets done in every 'family' court in the nation on a daily basis. The only difference here is that she isn't waiting for her parents to split up. That's it. Everyone accepts as totally normal that seperated couples will fight over who pays how much for the costs of the child. Here, the child isn't waiting. So, what's the big deal? Sure, I realize that the money in most instances would pass through the hands of the mother. But, there is no doubt that someone would be forced by the court to pay for the child's expenses and college costs. The real significance, apart from the darkly humorous, ironic myopia of nearly everyone, is that the court system is clearly using this as a test case. The lawyers need to be fed. Since there is no logical reason to wait for a couple to split apart before forcing them to pay for the costs of raising a child, why wait? Equality under the law is being promoted, childhood poverty is being eliminated and the lawyers have, as they always do, come to our rescue.
She's an adult. The only matter at issue here is the final tuition at the private high school. In reality, that isn't even an issue since although 18 she might be able to claim admission to the local public school for the rest of this school year, then she's out on her ear. GED time.
Children have no claim against parents for college expenses, nor living expenses after 18.
Hate to break this distressing news to you, but you are factually incorrect. So-called adult children are now covered under thier parent's health insurance until age 26 or 27. Moreover and specific to this topic, adult children often have their college and living expenses paid by one or both parents. It is mandated by court order for every college bound child of seperated or divorced couples as a matter of routine. Children remain dependant for purposes of financial support if they remain in or enroll in college. Often, the 'children' are well into their thirties. The girl in this case is the product of a broken family, substantively the same as in a normal divorce case, so the court can and will decide how much will be paid and by whom. This can and probably will be considered a divorce of a child from her parents. Justification for the court's involvement is called the 'best interest of the child' policy. The child will be appointed a legal guardian to help her protect her legal rights and arrange for a safe place to live, etc. Though mediation may be the next suggested step, it will come down to a judge's decision. Just like every other case involving a child of a broken home. Finally, since she is used to having her private school paid for, she is entitled to having the same standard of education she has grown accustomed to. There is no question here of going to public school. At the end of the day, the parents will need to pony up the money for her legal expenses, living expenses and school costs throughout her college carreer. It's all legal. Welcome to the future.
This girl will win her appeal, it will be remanded with instructions and the parents will be ordered to pay her costs. About sueing the kid for retirement, old people have a different set of parents, it's called the State.
That's an interesting perspective, and one my wife and I discussed.
Companies do not like to see litigants. Even if the details of the case were sealed, the media coverage is such she can't be looked at as a viable candidate for many jobs, except perhaps the legal profession, but I believe she's interested in something health-related.
We tell our boys to remember that many decisions they make at their age (late teens) will come back to either benefit or haunt them, so it's important to make wise decisions.