This part of the report seems much more reasonable than the headline:
But the Daily Record reports that, in the suit, Rachel alleges that her parents decided to cut her off “from all support both financially and emotionally” as of her 18th birthday, which was November 1. Her suit also demands the following of the Cannings: that they take care of an outstanding $5,306 Morris Catholic tuition bill; pay their daughter’s current living and transportation expenses; and free up her existing college fund, as she’s already been accepted to several universities. /quote]
So that’s school fees that the parents are most likely accountable for anyway - she was a minor when they sent her there (even if she wanted to go there, it was technically not her choice), and even if you turn 18 early in the school year that doesn’t entitle you to apply as an independent adult wrt fees. Not having the fees paid may also prevent her graduating. This is a debt they took on and she is the one who suffers more more from them not paying. That sum should just be paid, no issue.
Also living costs; it says current but doesn’t specify. Supporting your child in their last year of high school would be absolutely normal. It would be very difficult for an 18-year-old to suddenly get a job that paid all of their living costs mid-way in the last year of high school.
Freeing up her college fund also sounds reasonable. Yes, it’s probably the parents who paid into it - perhaps also grandparents, etc, but that’s not the point: if they set this up as a college fund for i]iher /i]then she should be able to use it to go to college. She’s not asking for them to just hand over the cash.
In adddition, if her parents continue to not support her (including releasing the college funds) while claiming that they will support her, it would mean that she couldn’t claim fees/grants as an emancipiated minor and would be liable for full fees. Perhaps this is part of a step for her to claim herself as an emancipated minor.
Also, while it might well be entirely true that all the father wanted was “reconsidering her relationship with a boyfriend who may be a bad influence, being respectful, and abiding by her curfew,” (the father’s quoted words), that could also be interpreted as “give up any boyfriends that we don’t like, call me Sir, and get home at 7pm”. Plus never talk back and act like an automaton despite your good grades, etc. I’ve known kids on both sides of the divide so I have no idea which this kid is. The fact that at least one other parent, one who is willing to take on this kid, thinks the rules are too much, sways me towards the latter.