Rachel Canning's lawyer: Why she sued her parents (Opinion)

rachel canning tanya helfand lawsuit child support morris county new jersey.JPG
Rachel Canning is sworn in during a hearing at the Morris County Courthouse on March 4. The Morris Catholic High School senior was suing her parents after they threatened not to pay her private school and future college tuition. (John O'Boyle/The Star-Ledger)
Follow on Twitter
on March 20, 2014 at 5:15 PM, updated March 20, 2014 at 5:18 PM

By Tanya N. Helfand

As Rachel Canning’s legal counsel, I feel compelled to shed some light on who Rachel really is, how she came to live with the Inglesinos and the legal merits of her case.

As an 18-year-old high school student attending a private Catholic high school, Rachel has a 3.5 GPA, is an accomplished athlete and has waitressed part time for many years, paying for her own clothes and vehicle expenses. She is not a drug user or addict. Her parents are both employed and earn in the top 3 percent of families nationwide. Her father has a master’s degree. Rachel’s parents had told her they would be paying for her college education and she operated under this assumption while growing up.

Due to differences she had with them, Rachel’s parents advised in the fall of her senior year of high school that she would no longer have their financial support. At this time, Rachel was also advised by a school teacher and psychologist not to return home due to this conflict. Contrary to reports that Rachel left her parents’ home as a willful teenager, unwilling to live by their rules, it was her high school administrators who proactively reached out to a number of families looking for a place for Rachel to stay in the interim.

The Inglesinos have two daughters, one a classmate of Rachel’s, who was familiar with the conflict at Rachel’s home. The Inglesinos graciously allowed Rachel to stay in their home with the sincere hope and expectation that this matter between Rachel and her parents could be resolved amicably. Their kind and generous deed should only be viewed positively.

As for the legal merits of Rachel’s lawsuit, in New Jersey, a child is not automatically emancipated at the age of 18. Every day, divorced or unmarried parents in family court are ordered to pay child support and college expenses for their children, typically through age 22 and 23. The courts take college expenses (and sometimes even graduate school) into consideration when determining child support in such matters.

By law, child support is the right of the child. If a child’s parents are no longer together, the custodial parent cannot negotiate a waiver of parenting time for a waiver of child support. The child support money is owed to the child.

Lincoln Park honor student Rachel Canning is suing her parentsRachel Canning walks into the courtroom with John Inglesino and attorney Tanya Helfand walk into the courtroom before a hearing at the Morris County Courthouse on March 4.  
In New Jersey, if a teenage child of 15, 16 or 17 runs away or is thrown out of a home, no matter who is at fault, and ends up on public assistance or is helped by a government agency, the government agency will find a home for the child and then order the parents to pay support — regardless of how the child behaved or what precipitated the child leaving the home. It is the parent’s financial responsibility, not the taxpayers’, to support their child. And at 18, a child can bring a lawsuit on her own.

In addition, New Jersey is a “no fault” state, which means the law doesn’t consider morality or emotions surrounding the end of a marriage or child-parent relationship when determining financial support. Support is simply a function of financial and other objective factors.

In New Jersey, an unemployed wife can cheat on her husband, file for divorce and still receive substantial alimony.

Why should a child of divorced or unmarried parents receive court-ordered support and a college education, but a child from an intact family not receive these same benefits? Why should a spouse whose affair breaks up a marriage receive permanent alimony under the law, but a high school girl be left with nothing?

The Canning case is not about children suing their parents for video games — it’s about food, shelter and education considering the means of the family. Does Rachel deserve any less?

The family has reunited and I understand they are working together to ensure a positive future for Rachel. No one could argue it is in everyone’s best interest when families in crisis can resolve their differences themselves, or with the help of a professional, outside of court. A lawsuit should always be a last resort.

I am hopeful that Rachel will have a bright and successful future.

Tanya N. Helfand is founder of the Helfand & Associates law firm in Whippany.