A few days before she turned 18, Rachel Canning ran away from home to be with her boyfriend. Almost four months later, still refusing to return home, she sued her parents. As stated in paragraph 1 of the certification (affidavit) attached to her complaint, she sought:

[E]nforcement of litigant’s rights, transportation costs, child support, health coverage, educational costs, college costs, and legal fees.

Although her lawsuit is elsewhere described as an effort to force her parents to pay for college, Rachel wasn’t joking about child support. From paragraph 14:

I have been living at the home of the Inglesino’s [sic] since November, who are the parents of my classmate and friend. They have provided me with shelter and guidance for the past four months. Without their help, I would be homeless and on welfare until I go away to school. My parents should pay child support to the Inglesino’s [sic]. The Child Support Guidelines, if my parents earn $300,000 per year is $654 per week.

The Inglesinos had significantly involved themselves in the Canning family’s affairs. From paragraph 20:

Mr. Inglesino and my attorney attempted to resolve these issues by consent without the need for litigation and expense. However, my parents have asserted through counsel that because I am 18, they have no responsibility for me.

But Rachel’s parents were recalcitrant. From paragraph 22:

I also ask the Court to order my parents to reimburse the Inglesino’s [sic] for my legal fees. A Certification of Services is attached separately. They refused to settle by consent and are causing this litigation.

Rachel’s father disputed Mr. Inglesino’s good faith in pursuing settlement “by consent.” From paragraphs 67, 69 and 73 of Sean Canning’s certification:

Mr. Inglesino’s attempt to reconcile with us consisted of a Christmas Eve breakfast at Paul’s Diner in Mountain Lakes. …

Mr. Inglesino never made mention of a figure, but told me that we would receive a letter which demanded an answer by January 3, 2014 and suggested I get a lawyer. That was the extent of the “consent” by Mr. Inglesino. A shakedown on Christmas Eve, while my daughter was being enabled by them and missing Christmas with her family. In fact, at one point Mr. Inglesino advised that he had the means to fund a lawsuit and alluded that I was not able to do so. …

The fact that the Inglesino family has subsidized a lawsuit, rather than providing responsible guidance in abiding by a parent’s rules is not an acceptable societal norm.

Rachel’s lawyer, Tanya Helfand (paid by Mr. Inglesino), commends Mr. Inglesino’s generosity. From an op-ed she wrote for the NJ Star-Ledger:

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.

Mr. Inglesino, of course, is John Inglesino, a politically connected New Jersey lawyer. From New York Times:

Yet one of the biggest no-bid contracts to come out of the investigation was for the monitor itself: Mr. Christie appointed the law firm of John Inglesino, a Republican who served as a Morris County freeholder from 2001 to 2007, and Herbert Stern, a former United States attorney, whom he has described as a mentor. Mr. Christie was also a freeholder, from 1995 to 1997. Their firm ultimately billed the state for more than $10 million.