What do your parents owe you?
Rachel Canning, an 18-year-old from New Jersey, believes that her parents owe her a lot. Rachel is suing her parents for $650 in weekly child support, tuition at Morris Catholic High School ($12,700 a year according to their website), and her legal fees.
Rachel claims that her parents were abusive, and forced her to move out. Her parents claim that Rachel left because she would not follow house rules including chores and a curfew. Rachel was living with the family of one of her friends who is also currently paying her legal fees.
State Superior Court Judge Peter Bogaard denied her motion for financial support, but ordered everyone back to court on April 22. This case will examine the question as to whether her parents are obligated to financially support their daughter.
Laws being made in our country speak to our culture’s expectations of emerging adults to grow up and care for themselves. Under the Affordable Care Act, an emerging adult can now stay under their parent’s health insurance until 26. While I am not necessarily opposed to this law, we must understand that laws set expectations, and expectations direct behavior. This is the reason why Rachel Canning’s lawsuit is important. This case explores several topics in our society including: autonomy, the age of adulthood, responsibility of parents/children, and the abilities of parents to direct a household.
In this article, I want to look at the right of parents to impose consequences on their children’s behavior. Rachel’s parents claim that Rachel broke the rules established in their home, and therefore she had to leave the home. If she would abide by those rules, then she is free to return (which she recently did return home).
Parents cannot control behavior (although we would like to!), but they should be able to make appropriate consequences for behavior that they deem unhealthy. Law experts worry that a decision in support of Rachel could lead the way to greater law suits. What if a 16-year-old sues dad for a car? What if a 10-year-old sues mom for an i-phone? A decision which favors Rachel over her parents appears to remove power from parents to guide and direct their children’s behavior. It also removes power from parents to impose consequences on their children’s behavior.
Many emerging adults have been given complete freedom, but are not dealing with the consequences. Parents step in too often when their children make bad decisions because they cannot handle the child’s pain. Freedom does not make an individual an adult, autonomy does. Parents and emerging adults must both value autonomy in order to fully mature.
Autonomy is the ability of an individual to make their own decisions and deal with those consequences. In this case, Rachel is stating that she has the freedom to make her own decisions (and her parents agree), however, she apparently is not willing to live with the consequences of those decisions. Rachel wants to be able to make her own decisions regardless of the consequences.
Many parents struggle with allowing children to deal with the consequences of poor decisions. If a child gets a bad grade, then they will call a teacher, or help them do the homework. If they get a speeding ticket, the parents pay the fees. Instead of a child learning that poor decisions bring negative consequences, the child expects that their parents to deal with the consequences.
Dealing with the consequences of actions is a concept that is found throughout scripture, and is often referred to the principle of sowing and reaping. In Galatians 6:6-9, Paul teaches that the individual will reap what they sow, although it might not be according to the world’s timeline, but according to God’s timeline.
I believe that our society should rally to support the rights of parents who make emerging adults deal with the consequences of their actions. As we give them autonomy (not just freedom), they are ready to face the road ahead.
What are your thoughts? Did your parents ever set consequences for your decisions?
