« First « Previous Comments 47 - 60 of 60 Search these comments
Can anything be supported or opposed by those who are not already born?
If you ask me, no.
But this also concerns the abortion debate! I am strongly pro-choice.
Pardon me for sounding a bit alarmist, but this is really bad news for our economy, our society, and all of civilization.
A global cap-and-trade birth permit program will ensure that child births occur in places that can most afford them.
Only those who are already born support not having kids.
That's brilliant. Can anything be supported or opposed by those who are not already born? I tell ya, sometimes you really hit on all cylinders.
Good morning to you too, SBH. I see you are getting warmed up.
Rin, I will hold you responsible for putting an end to the human race.
Check this out.
"We need more babies"
You've got my niece, Rosie Jr, the Horsewoman of the Apocalypse. Don't worry about me, putting an end to the human race :-)
We just learned that the U.S. birthrate fell for the sixth straight year in 2013 to an all-time low.
Pardon me for sounding a bit alarmist, but this is really bad news for our economy, our society, and all of civilization.
Exactly! Who's going to pay for all us baby boomers in our retirement years?
It's all Rinn's fault.
We just learned that the U.S. birthrate fell for the sixth straight year in 2013 to an all-time low.
Pardon me for sounding a bit alarmist, but this is really bad news for our economy, our society, and all of civilization.
Exactly! Who's going to pay for all us baby boomers in our retirement years?
It's all Rinn's fault.
What are you talking about, I've got to pay taxes on that dividend income :-)
The arrangement between parents and children is a highly personal matter, but for children to expect that parents will pay no matter their talent, aptitude, work ethic, choice of major and school is just completely unjust and borders on delusion and parasitism. At the very least the parent should see the drive, desire and talent to perform in the classroom and expect that the child will be a professional student and do due diligence to perform on midterms/finals/projects/essays, etc.
Considering that most ppl are zombies anyways (just look at the current crop of smart phone users on the streets), won't much of the work be done by robots/expert systems in the future?
If so, then why have any kids at all?
Basically, the pro-kids crowd is saying that on the average, every other child will be some creative genius, who'll keep advancing society. Truth is that most ppl are a bunch of sycophantic idiots whose job it is, to be a b*tch for corporate America. Others, who're not employable, end up on something like the Jerry Springer show.
won't much of the work be done by robots/expert systems in the future?
IMO, robots and artificial intelligence will replace 99% of all jobs in 20 years. Yep, computers can be creative too.
McGarvey continues in the post, which she called “The Age of Entitlementâ€:
Note that there is no article about the daughter and grandparents' side of the story. They are keeping quiet, it is the parents that are making a stink.
CIC, they can complain all they want, it's in the Divorce Agreement. On top of that, there's a reason NJ law (along with dozens of other states) are this way. It's because too many Yuppies tried to get out of paying for the kids of their first marriage, sometimes because they were self-centered, sometimes because their new spouses whipped their weak asses.
The arrangement between parents and children is a highly personal matter, but for children to expect that parents will pay no matter their talent, aptitude, work ethic, choice of major and school is just completely unjust and borders on delusion and parasitism. At the very least the parent should see the drive, desire and talent to perform in the classroom and expect that the child will be a professional student and do due diligence to perform on midterms/finals/projects/essays, etc.
There's no reason to doubt in this case, that the daughter was a good student. She got good grades at the CC and was accepted into several decent schools, including Temple.
Nor was she a drug addict, a bum, an alcoholic or had repeat problems with the law.
The only thing the mother can dig up to defend herself is that they had some problems with chores and the girl may have underage drunk a few times. That's hardly unusually bad or odd behavior in a 19-year old.
The parents didn't even want to pay the CC tuition, which was nothing - they had to be sued for that, too.
The article above notes "3 Courses AND a F/T Job during the summer" but doesn't say who wanted what when. It seems to me that the parents were trying to get her to quit school. 3 Courses in a short summer session is a pretty big load, plus an F/T job, seems a little much.
I understand that after she was kicked out of her Disney internship, a program she participated in to help prepare for college, she was upset and angry at the rules her mother and I set for her. She was kicked out of the program for underage drinking, and so we had to set boundaries.
First, note, prepare for College. She would have been 17-18. This wasn't at College, but when she was in HS or had just graduated.
We're only getting the parents' side of the story, which seems highly inflated.
I doubt she showed up drinking on the job. More likely, she went away somewhere, maybe to Disney itself, the kids brought some Coors back to the dormitories outside work hours, she drank and got caught because Disney's zero tolerance policies. Big Deal!
Because of this one incident, the parents don't wanna pay for college? Gimme a break.
Tell me the father didn't sneak a beer at some point between 17-21. Did grandpa nix paying for his whole college experience?
Parents are either controlling, but I suspect, cheap Yuppies. When you go away to college for 4-years, there are no chores and no curfews. Why wouldn't they let her go away to start with? Because of one incident that happened during or just after HS? PFffft, I say, PFFt.
By the way, the parents already been to court twice, and have lost both cases.
http://abc7chicago.com/education/parents-reordered-to-pay-for-daughters-tuition-refuse/428899/
And Caitlyn claims she was thrown out, and didn't leave voluntarily.
"Instead of following our rules, she decided she is going to leave her mother's house, where she was living, and move in with her grandparents," said Michael.
And that's where the trouble started.
"Caitlyn did not voluntarily leave the home. She was thrown out by her mother," said Rochester.
And the relationship crumbled.
Caitlyn's grandmother, Angela Ricci, says, "They just don't want to pay because they have to pay by the middle of the week. The balance they owe. This has been going on for two years."
It's interesting to note that her grandparents are the ones who paid for the attorney to sue their own son, Caitlyn's father Michael.
The grandparents' brief comments paint a very different picture of the private war being waged inside this family.
Furthermore, it's the parents who first filed a motion for them to be emancipated from the daughter first - then Caitlyn and her Grandparents sued back.
And he paints a very different picture of the family's dynamic.
"They questioned her morality. They accused her of awful, awful things," said Rochester.
Caitlyn's parents joined together and filed a motion to emancipate their estranged adult daughter but on the Friday before Mother's Day, Maura says the court papers arrived - she was suing them.
"Did I ever expect my daughter to sue me? No, of course not. It's heart breaking," said Maura.
A judge, turning to a New Jersey legal precedent known as 'Newburgh' that says divorced parents may be required to contribute to their children's education, no matter their age.
The judge ruled in Caitlyn's case her parents have to pay $16,000 this year.
BTW, Guess who got knocked up by whom in an unplanned pregnancy during college during their sophomore/junior year?
« First « Previous Comments 47 - 60 of 60 Search these comments
Caitlyn Ricci, 21, has been battling her parents over college tuition in court since August 2013. On Monday, a judge ruled that Michael Ricci and Maura McGarvey must pay $16,000 toward their daughter’s tuition for Temple University, where Caitlyn is a student. Earlier, another judge ruled the parents, who are divorced, must also foot the bill for a community college she attended before transferring to Temple. In his own words, Michael Ricci offers his take on his family’s ordeal to Yahoo Parenting exclusively.
Most nights before I fall asleep, I have tears in my eyes thinking about the difficulty my family is going through. My daughter is suing her mother and me for $16,000 towards college tuition, and a judge has ruled in her favor. My daughter moved out, and I only ever see her in court. It’s certainly not what I wanted for my family.
Every day I wake up and miss my daughter. I miss talking to her, seeing her, asking her about her day, and being involved in her life. I understand that after she was kicked out of her Disney internship, a program she participated in to help prepare for college, she was upset and angry at the rules her mother and I set for her. She was kicked out of the program for underage drinking, and so we had to set boundaries. That included chores, a curfew, and summer classes. When Caitlyn left our home in February 2013, to go to her grandparents, we thought we’d let her go for a couple days and then she would come home. When we called her grandparents to ask that they send her home, they said, “No, she can stay here as long as she wants.†That’s when we knew we had problems.
Maura and I have mutually parented Caitlyn her entire life. We’ve never before been that divorced couple that is in and out of court. We went to court only once — for our divorce. Although we may have disagreed at times, we always had Caitlyn’s best interests in mind. Always.
I found out through Twitter that my daughter was attending Temple [University in Philadelphia]. Yes, Twitter. And now, even after her mother and I agreed that if Caitlyn transferred to a state college we would help her financially (even though she hasn’t spoken to us in almost two years), a judge is telling me that if my daughter wants to go to Temple, she can go, and we have to pay for it. Basically, Caitlyn can go anywhere she wants and we have to pay. We have no say.
I am disappointed in the New Jersey Family court system for making parenting decisions for my daughter, as if they know what is best for her. The bottom line is, she made a mistake when she got kicked out of her internship program. There are consequences for her actions. She didn’t want to abide by our rules, so she left. We asked her several times to come home and she never did. It makes my blood boil listening to a judge tell me that my daughter can go to any school in country she wants to, have no relationship with her parents, and we have to pay! We offered in-state tuition and she wants to go out of state. Common sense would say she should pay for it. The law is ridiculous. My ex and I have met with legislators who are writing a new bill that protects parents from this happening again. Do you realize that if you are married in the state of New Jersey, you are not under any legal obligation to pay for college? But, if you get divorced, you must contribute? Please, someone tell me how that makes sense. Not only do you have to pay, but apparently you have to pay for any college they want to go to, anywhere in the country. My ex and I have five kids between us, a mortgage, and other expenses. Why don’t they take any of that into account?
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/dad-speaks-out-after-21-year-old-sues-him-to-pay-104864515872.html
#housing