I read this interesting story in the US about a daughter who successfully sued her parents for about $16,000 claiming that they are obligated to pay for her college tuitions. Here are some news reports that you can watch about it:
Now to my knowledge the parents had no lawyers whereas the daughter did. Since they lost the case, they refuse to abide to the court ruling and a blog was created where they are sharing their thoughts about it which you can see at:
This was kind of a fascinating story I thought about a family court system in general. At the same time, in many ways this is such a complex social issue where bias plays such a factor in the decision making process I feel where these kinds of cases should be more about exposing both sides of the story in a detailed fashion and then allowing the community to decide what they want to do as a result.
For example, I was reading the comments and the usual responses are either the girl should get a life as she is an adult or that the parents should suck it up as they brought her into this world and it’s their responsibility. A key thought for me is that a point is brought up on how we don’t know the full story. On one side of the fence some claim that maybe the girl is some kind of addict where these kinds of actions are feeding her addiction. Example, maybe like a drug addict that will lie, cheat and steal to get their next fix.
On the other side some claim the parents may have done extremely bad things to the daughter to warrant all this. Example, maybe the daughter was fending for herself as the parents went out partying all day. It makes me wonder, why is it so hard for people to know the whole story if it went through a court case? To me, that shows that either documentation accessibility is non practical for the average person or that the logistics of the process doesn’t focus enough in finding out the whole story.
In this case for example, I can imagine how one’s intent/motives wouldn’t be a primary category to investigate and document in court. However, in context of making a decision I would think it would play a huge role. Example, even if there was a law that says a person must be fed a certain amount of food a day, if in context we know that the person refused to eat anything unless they were provided with luxurious items such as caviar then it would be kind of silly.
One of those cases where having more real people weigh in on a situation and forcing both parties to openly give out the facts would be more beneficial than simply trying to apply a law in a generic way.