Check out the link for more on the story. No I don't have any "interest" in Distractify. However, they put forth a more comprehensive article with imbedded comments.
Foreign cultures have some strange rules regarding kids and parents. I know several people that are supporting their parents financially because it is part of their culture.
She needs to go see FJB and his wife, Dr. Jill. They’ve got all kinds of money to send idiots to college.
“So the parents spent most of her college money on what they wanted (without asking her permission), plus they did the same with her sister’s fund. Seems like her parents lack morals.”
So, it is their money. Your morals suck since you think children should dictate what parents do with their own money.
Muslims?..................
Slightly off topic, but I think many woke American feminists think that America is ruled by a patriarchy which disrespects women and tries to keep them down.
The posted story is about a different culture. Which seems to disrespect women and tries to keep them down. The people who seem shocked by how the money was spent seem to have grown up in the American culture. Which is an indication that the American culture respects women and is happy to see them get ahead. But other cultures don’t. So maybe America isn’t such a patriarchy after all.
The Aunt left the money to the girls.
The parents were custodians of that money. It was not theirs.
Since my husband and I already planned to pay for the first two years of college for each child, we needed help with getting them cars.
My father left $5K for each of my kids. We bought them good, used cars when they graduated high school. The kids knew the car was from Grandpa and were okay with it.
I hope she gets the money back.
I support the parents here. Brother’s wedding is more important than some useless women’s studies college degree that will turn her into a man-hating harridan. Long live the parents.
Normally, I would be with the parents. Not in this case.
The aunt left her niece HER money and specified what it was to be used for. That was not the parents’ money to use as they wished. That was the daughter’s money at that point.
The parents then stole from her by spending it on what they wanted to spend it on. That’s not OK. The daughter has every moral right to be pissed off about this and she’s got a good legal case too.
I thought the bride’s parents pay for the wedding?
The great aunt should have locked that money up legally for the niece. Shame on the parents for spending it but legally what can be done?
I’m guessing Pakistani immigrants
“Culture Doesn’t Value Education for Women”
“Aunt married ‘a British Man’ and moved to America”
“Money was needed for son’s wedding.”
All VERY Muslim/South Asian stuff.
i think the parents are dead wrong- i hope their baby boy has to take care of them in their old age.
First, in the USA it is common that female's family pays for
the wedding, NOT the groom's. Had this been from personal savings
she would have every right to be pissed. That it was not, and her
inheritance has disappeared she should consider it to be a lesson
learned. Perhaps that lesson: her parents think more of their
sons than they do their daughters.
This is like child stars in hollywood where the parents spent the money the kid made and left the kid broke when the kid grew up.
I have relatives who have stolen the life savings of family members. I have talked to others and they have stories of their own. Too common.
_________________________________
Why was the Coogan law created?
The original Bill was passed in 1939 by the State of California in response to the plight of Jackie Coogan, who earned millions of dollars as a successful child actor only to discover, upon reaching adulthood, that his mother and stepfather had spent almost all of his money.
https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/young-performers/coogan-law
Let’s post something that is ambiguous unless you read the article and get people with limited comprehension arguing and calling each other names.
The article certainly paints the parents are villains, but whether they are legally liable or simply morally reprehensible (or perhaps neither) depends on facts not in the article and legal nuances that may or may not be within the writer’s understanding.