Monday, 3 March 2014

Israeli PM Deflects Report on Lebanon Airstrikes

Israeli PM Deflects Report on Lebanon Airstrikes





Israel's prime minister on Tuesday refused to confirm whether his country carried out an airstrike along the Syrian-Lebanon border, but said he would do everything possible to protect the security of Israeli citizens.
Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his vague answer hours after Lebanon's state news agency reported that Israeli aircraft carried out two airstrikes late Monday. While Israel's military refused to comment, Israel has carried out similar airstrikes in the past on suspected weapons shipments believed to be bound from Syria to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.
At a news conference with the visiting German chancellor, Angela Merkel, he said Israel's policy is not to discuss what others claim it did.
"We do all that is needed to protect the security of Israeli citizens," he said.
Israel and Hezbollah fought a monthlong war in 2006 that ended in a stalemate. Israeli officials believe Hezbollah has restocked its arsenal with tens of thousands of rockets and missiles, some of which are capable of striking virtually anywhere in the Jewish state.
Although Israel has refrained from taking sides in the Syrian civil war, Netanyahu has repeatedly vowed to take action to prevent Hezbollah from obtaining "game changing" weapons from its ally Syria. Past Israeli airstrikes are believed to have targeted Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles and guided missiles from Iran. Israel has never confirmed the airstrikes.
Lebanon's National News Agency said the air raids took place near Nabi Sheet, a remote village in Lebanon's eastern Bekaa Valley. The agency did not say what was targeted in the attack. The porous border is frequently used by fighters and smugglers to move people and weapons between Lebanon and Syria. Hezbollah has a strong presence in the area. Arab media reports said Hezbollah had suffered casualties, though neither the group nor the Lebanese military confirmed an airstrike had actually taken place.
Earlier this week, Israel's military chief, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, accused Iran, a key backer of Syria and Hezbollah, of "handing out torches to the pyromaniacs." He spoke during a tour of the Golan Heights, a strategic area near Syria and Lebanon.
"Right now we're in the Golan Heights and it seems quiet and peaceful. I suggest that everyone keeps in mind that underneath this quiet, a storm is brewing — day, night and in every setting," Gantz said. "We have very advanced abilities to deal with the security challenges in this region. This comes alongside improving response at the operational level, and acting speedily in every sphere: air, sea, ground, intelligence and all the support systems that work with them."
Eyal Ben-Reuven, a former deputy head of the Israeli military's Northern Command, said he doubted Hezbollah would retaliate since it had its hands full fighting the Syrian civil war. Having said that, he said Hezbollah was still a dangerous foe and it was imperative that Israel maintain its ability to operate freely in the skies and in the seas and block any more advanced weapons from reaching Hezbollah.
"Israel has always stayed as the main objective for Hezbollah and Iran," he said. "A terror organization gets these kinds of capabilities not for deterrence, but for acts. This is the difference between states and organization. This is something that we have to keep in our hands to prevent this kind of transfer of game-changing weapons," he said.



RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

Oscar Head-Scratchers: 7 Things That Had Us Asking, 'What the...?'

Oscar Head-Scratchers: 7 Things That Had Us Asking, 'What the...?'

View gallery
.
Charlize Theron attended the Oscars solo, then met up with beau Sean Penn to party. (Getty)
There were plenty of viral moments at the Academy Awards — including Ellen DeGeneres's Twitter-breaking selfie! — as well as many LOLs and even some tears. But more than a few times, we were also left asking: What the...?
Here are the 7 things that had us scratching our heads during the 2014 Oscars:
1. Why Didn't Sean Penn Walk the Red Carpet With Charlize Theron?
It was expected that the two-time Oscar winner would attend the show, especially considering his new ladylove and fellow Oscar winner, Charlize Theron, was a presenter. Come red carpet time? Charlize turned heads, but there was no Penn. However, while he stayed away from the main event, he was by the South African beauty's side at the Fame and Philanthropy Post-Oscar Party, which was a benefit for her charity, the Charlize Theron Africa Outreach Project (CTAOP). She made an outfit change, into a black pantsuit, and they held hands on the red carpet and posed with their arms around one another. They later popped by a bash held by Penn's ex, Madonna.
2. What the heck is an EGOT?
Robert Lopez, along with his wife, Kristen Anderson-Lopez, won Best Original Song for "Frozen" ballad "Let It Go," making him the 12th — and youngest — person to ever win an EGOT. A what? An EGOT is when someone wins an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony. His previous awards were for Best Music Direction and Composition, "The Wonder Pets" (Daytime Emmy); Best Musical Theater Album – "The Book of Mormon" (Grammy); and Best Original Score – "Avenue Q" (Tony). Others who have accomplished that include Richard Rodgers, Helen Hayes, Rita Moreno, John Gielgud, Audrey Hepburn, Marvin Hamlisch, Jonathan Tunick, Mel Brooks, Mike Nichols, Whoopi Goldberg, and Scott Rudin.
Robert Lopez joined the EGOT club. Members include Audrey Hepburn and Mel Brooks. (Getty Images)
And those very, very close to EGOT status, but not officially part of the esteemed group, are James Earl Jones, Liza Minnelli, and Barbra Streisand. They all technically have an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony, but, in those instances, at least one of their awards was an honorary achievement. They didn't technically win it, so — sorry! — it doesn't officially count.
3. What was that heroes theme all about?
There were several tributes to heroes throughout the three-and-a-half-hour show, but they seemed a little like random montages. Apparently, the whole point behind them was to inspire the audience, show producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron told Hollywood Reporter. "We wanted to unify the show with an entertaining and emotional theme," they said. "People around the world go to the movies to be inspired by the characters they see on the screen. By celebrating the gamut of heroes who have enriched our moviegoing experience, we hope to create an evening of fun and joy. And that includes the filmmakers and actors who take risks and stimulate us with provocative subjects and daring characters. They are all heroes in the cinematic landscape." Um — OK. We guess that explains it. Right?
4. Who's the Susan Lucci of the Oscars?
While we felt bad watching Leonardo DiCaprio and Amy Adams go home empty-handed again (he's been nominated four times to her five), they aren't actually the biggest losers in the history of the show. In the acting categories, Peter O'Toole had eight noms and no wins, a fact mentioned in his obituary last year. In 2003, the Academy gave him an honorary award and in his acceptance speech he quipped, "Always a bridesmaid, never a bride my foot! I have my very own Oscar now to be with me 'til death do us part." Richard Burton, another movie superstar, was close behind O'Toole with seven nominations and no wins. Neither of these men come close to La Lucci. The "All My Children" star was nominated 19 times before winning her first Daytime Emmy in 1999.
View gallery
.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Amy Adams have a long way to go to catch up to Peter O'Toole. (Getty Images)
5. Why was Jamie Foxx's daughter on the stage when Pharrell performed?
Pharrell made the audience "Happy" with his performance — as Meryl Streep and Lupita Nyong'o can attest. But when the hat-loving crooner was on stage singing the "Despicable Me 2" song, he was flanked dancers of all ages, including… Jamie Foxx's daughter, Corinne. It looked odd to see her bopping around in the background in her pretty white dress, but it made (a little) more sense when we saw a larger shot of the performance and Jamie was there, too. The father/daughter duo has often made the scene together during awards season, but this is the first time we saw them bust-a-move on the Oscar stage. Why they were there at all? Yeah, we're still not sure. It didn't exactly look like they knew the choreography.
View gallery
.
Jamie Foxx and daughter Corinne were both part of Pharrell's act. (Getty Images)

 

6. Where was Ben Affleck?
Ben Affleck's flick "Argo" won Best Picture at the 2013 Oscars, but he was a no-show at Sunday's ceremony. His wife, Jennifer Garner, represented for the pair — and supported her "Dallas Buyers Club" co-stars Jared Leto and Matthew McConaughey. But when it came around to party time, Ben joined Jen for a night on the town. They arrived hand-in-hand at the Vanity Fair bash, where they posed for photos with Glenn Close. Inside, he shared a group hug with the Hemsworth brothers — Chris and Liam — to the envy of many.
View gallery
.
Ben Affleck joined Jennifer Garner at party time. (Getty Images)
7. And how about George Clooney?
A rep for the actor tells us "he was not in L.A.," so he didn't attend the big show to root on his "Gravity" co-star Sandra Bullock. The actor, who has been working on the film "Tomorrowland," was in Tinseltown just a few days before, being spotted out to dinner with a large group in Studio City on Feb. 27. Earlier in the month, Clooney reportedly brought British lawyer Amal Alamuddin as his special guest to a screening of "Monuments Men" at the White House. The "Tomorrowland" actor has been linked to Alamuddin, who represents WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, since October. So, for whatever reason (business or pleasure), he was otherwise engaged on Oscar night.
View gallery
.
Could George Clooney have been off with his lady friend Amal Alamuddin? (Rex USA)
 
 
 

Recommended for You

Traditional Marriage of UJU AND OBINNA.Nnua Asaba!!!!!!May God bless your union

Traditional Marriage of UJU AND OBINNA.Nnua Asaba!!!!!!May God bless your union..


 
 

4 Reasons Putin Is Already Losing in Ukraine

4 Reasons Putin Is Already Losing in Ukraine

Time.com
.
Obama: 'Russia on the Wrong Side of History'
Even a week ago, the idea of a Russian military intervention in Ukraine seemed farfetched if not totally alarmist. The risks involved were just too enormous for President Vladimir Putin and for the country he has ruled for 14 years. But the arrival of Russian troops in Crimea over the weekend has shown that he is not averse to reckless adventures, even ones that offer little gain. In the coming days and weeks, Putin will have to decide how far he is prepared to take this intervention and how much he is prepared to suffer for it. It is already clear, however, that he cannot emerge as the winner of this conflict, at least not when the damage is weighed against the gains. It will at best be a Pyrrhic victory, and at worst an utter catastrophe. Here’s why:
At home, this intervention looks to be the one of the most unpopular decisions Putin has ever made. The Kremlin’s own pollster released a survey on Monday that showed 73% of Russians reject it. In phrasing its question to 1600 respondents across the country, the state-funded sociologists at WCIOM were clearly trying to get as much support for the intervention as possible: “Should Russia react to the overthrow of the legally elected authorities in Ukraine?” they asked. Only 15% said yes – hardly a national consensus.
That seems astounding in light of all the brainwashing Russians have faced on the issue of Ukraine. For weeks, the Kremlin’s effective monopoly on television news has been sounding the alarm over Ukraine. It’s revolution, they claimed, is the result of an American alliance with Nazis intended to weaken Russia. And still, nearly three quarters of the population oppose a Russian “reaction” of any kind, let alone a Russian military occupation like they are now watching unfold in Crimea. The 2008 invasion of Georgia had much broader support, because Georgia is not Ukraine. Ukraine is a nation of Slavs with deep cultural and historical ties to Russia. Most Russians have at least some family or friends living in Ukraine, and the idea of a fratricidal war between the two largest Slavic nations in the world evokes a kind of horror that no Kremlin whitewash can calm.
Indeed, Monday’s survey suggests that the influence of Putin’s television channels is breaking down. The blatant misinformation and demagoguery on Russian television coverage of Ukraine seems to have pushed Russians to go online for their information. And as for those who still have no Internet connection, they could simply have picked up the phone and called their panicked friends and relatives in Ukraine.
So what about Russia’s nationalists? The war-drum thumping Liberal Democratic party, a right-wing puppet of the Kremlin, has been screaming for Russia to send in the tanks. On Feb. 28, as troops began appearing on the streets of Crimea, the leader of that party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, was on the scene handing out wads of cash to a cheering crowd of locals in the city of Sevastopol, home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. “Give it to the women, the old maids, the pregnant, the lonely, the divorced,” he told the crowd from atop a chair. “Russia is rich. We’ll give everybody everything.” But in Monday’s survey, 82% of his party’s loyalists rejected any such generosity. Even the adherents of the Communist Party, who tend to feel entitled to all of Russia’s former Soviet domains, said with a broad majority – 62% – that Russia should not jump into Ukraine’s internal crisis.
That does not necessarily mean Putin will face an uprising at home. So far, the anti-war protests in Moscow have looked almost pathetically temperate. But sociologists have been saying for years that Putin’s core electorate is dwindling. What underpins his popularity – roughly 60% approved of his rule before this crisis started – is a total lack of viable alternatives to Putin’s rule. But this decision is sure to eat away at the passive mass of his supporters, especially in Russia’s biggest cities.
In Monday’s survey, 30% of respondents from Moscow and St. Petersburg said that Russia could see massive political protests of the kind that overthrew the Ukrainian government last month. Putin’s only means of forestalling that kind of unrest is to crack down hard and early. So on Feb. 28, Russia’s most prominent opposition activist Alexei Navalny was put under house arrest less than six months after he won 30% of the vote in the Moscow mayoral race. Expect more of the same if the opposition to Putin’s intervention starts to find its voice.
The economic impact on Russia is already staggering. When markets opened on Monday morning, investors got their first chance to react to the Russian intervention in Ukraine over the weekend, and as a result, the key Russian stock indexes tanked by more than 10%. That amounts to almost $60 billion in stock value wiped out in the course of a day, more than Russia spent preparing for last month’s Winter Olympic Games in Sochi. The state-controlled natural gas monopoly Gazprom, which accounts for roughly a quarter of Russian tax revenues, lost $15 billion in market value in one day – incidentally the same amount of money Russia promised to the teetering regime in Ukraine in December and then revoked in January as the revolution took hold.
The value of the Russian currency meanwhile dropped against the dollar to its lowest point on record, and the Russian central bank spent $10 billion on the foreign exchange markets trying to prop it up. “This has to fundamentally change the way investors and ratings agencies view Russia,” said Timothy Ash, head of emerging market research at Standard Bank. At a time when Russia’s economic growth was already stagnating, “This latest military adventure will increase capital flight, weaken Russian asset prices, slow investment and economic activity and growth. Western financial sanctions on Russia will hurt further,” Ash told the Wall Street Journal.
Even Russia’s closest allies want no part of this. The oil-rich state of Kazakhstan, the most important member of every regional alliance Russia has going in the former Soviet space, put out a damning statement on Monday, marking the first time its leaders have ever turned against Russia on such a major strategic issue: “Kazakhstan expresses deep concern over the developments in Ukraine,” the Foreign Ministry said. “Kazakhstan calls on all sides to stop the use of force in the resolution of this situation.”
What likely worries Russia’s neighbors most is the statement the Kremlin made on March 2, after Putin spoke on the phone with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. “Vladimir Putin noted that in case of any escalation of violence against the Russian-speaking population of the eastern regions of Ukraine and Crimea, Russia would not be able to stay away and would resort to whatever measures are necessary in compliance with international law.” This sets a horrifying precedent for all of Russia’s neighbors.
Every single state in the former Soviet Union, from Central Asia to the Baltics, has a large Russian-speaking population, and this statement means that Russia reserves the right to invade when it feels that population is threatened. The natural reaction of any Russian ally in the region would be to seek security guarantees against becoming the next Ukraine. For countries in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, including Armenia, a stanch Russian ally, that would likely stir desires for a closer alliance with NATO and the European Union. For the countries of Central Asia, Russia’s traditional stomping ground on the geopolitical map of the world, that would mean strengthening ties with nearby China, including military ones.
China, which has long been Russia’s silent partner on all issues of global security from Syria to Iran, has also issued cautious statements regarding Russia’s actions in Ukraine. “It is China’s long-standing position not to interfere in others’ internal affairs,” the Foreign Ministry reportedly said in a statement on Sunday. “We respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.”
So in the course of one weekend, Putin has spooked all of the countries he wanted to include in his grand Eurasian Union, the bloc of nations he hoped would make Russia a regional power again. The only gung-ho participants in that alliance so far have been Kazakhstan (see above) and Belarus, which is known as Europe’s last dictatorship. Its leader, Alexander Lukashenko, has so far remained silent on the Russian intervention in Ukraine. But last week, Belarus recognized the legitimacy of the new revolutionary government in Kiev, marking a major break from Russia, which has condemned Ukraine’s new leaders as extremists and radicals. The Belarusian ambassador in Kiev even congratulated Ukraine’s new Foreign Minister on taking office and said he looks forward to working with him.
As for the impoverished nation of Armenia, a late-comer to Russia’s fledgling Eurasian alliance, it has also recognized the new government in Kiev while stopping short of any official condemnation of Putin’s intervention in Ukraine so far. But on Saturday, prominent politicians led an anti-Putin demonstration in the Armenia capital. “We are not against Russia,” said the country’s former Minister of National Security David Shakhnazaryan. “We are against the imperial policies of Putin and the Kremlin.”
Russia’s isolation from the West will deepen dramatically. In June, Putin was planning to welcome the leaders of the G8, a club of western powers (plus Japan), in the Russian resort city of Sochi. But on Sunday, all of them announced they had halted their preparations for attending the summit in protest at Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. So much for Putin’s hard-fought seat at the table with the leaders of the western world.
In recent years, one of Russia’s greatest points of contention with the West has been over NATO’s plans to build of a missile shield in Europe. Russia has seen this as a major threat to its security, as the shield could wipe out Russia’s ability to launch nuclear missiles at the West. The long-standing nuclear deterrent that has protected Russia from Western attacks for generations – the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction, or MAD – could thus be negated, Russia’s generals have warned. But after Russia decided to unilaterally invade its neighbor to the west this weekend, any remaining resistance to the missile shield project would be pushed aside by the renewed security concerns of various NATO members, primarily those in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Whatever hopes Russia had of forestalling the construction of the missile shield through diplomacy are now most likely lost.
No less worrying for Putin would be the economic sanctions the West is preparing in answer to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. Depending on their intensity, those could cut off the ability of Russian companies and businessmen in getting western loans and trading with most of the world’s largest economies. Putin’s allies could also find it a lot more difficult to send their children to study in the West or to keep their assets in Western banks, as they now almost universally do. All of that raises the risk for Putin of a split in his inner circle and, potentially, even of a palace coup. There is hardly anything more important to Russia’s political elite than the security of their foreign assets, certainly not their loyalty to a leader who seems willing to put all of that at risk.
And what about the upside for Putin? There doesn’t seem to be much of it, at least not compared to the damage he stands to inflict on Russia and himself. But he does look set to accomplish a few things. For one, he demonstrates to the world that his red lines, unlike those of the White House, cannot be crossed.
If Ukraine’s revolutionary government moves ahead with their planned integration into the E.U. and possibly NATO, the military alliance that Russia sees as its main strategic threat would move right up to Russia’s western borders and, in Crimea, it would surround the Russian Black Sea fleet. That is a major red line for Putin and his generals.
By sending troops into Crimea and, potentially, into eastern Ukraine, Russia could secure a buffer around Russia’s strategic naval fleet and at its western border. For the military brass in Moscow, those are vital priorities, and their achievement is worth a great deal of sacrifice. Over the weekend, Putin’s actions showed that he is listening carefully to his generals. At the same time, he seems to be ignoring the outrage coming from pretty much everyone else.
 
1:38

Giant Virus Resurrected from Permafrost After 30,000 Years

Giant Virus Resurrected from Permafrost After 30,000 Years

LiveScience.com
Giant Virus Resurrected from Permafrost After 30,000 Years
.
View photo
An ultrathin section of a Pithovirus particle in an infected Acanthamoeba castellanii cell observed by …
A mysterious giant virus buried for 30,000 years in Siberian permafrost has been resurrected.
The virus only infects single-celled organisms and doesn't closely resemble any known pathogens that harm humans.
Even so, the new discovery raises the possibility that as the climate warms and exploration expands in long-untouched regions of Siberia, humans could release ancient or eradicated viruses. These could include Neanderthal viruses or even smallpox that have lain dormant in the ice for thousands of years.
"There is now a non-zero probability that the pathogenic microbes that bothered [ancient human populations] could be revived, and most likely infect us as well," study co-author Jean-Michel Claverie, a bioinformatics researcher at Aix-Marseille University in France, wrote in an email. "Those pathogens could be banal bacteria (curable with antibiotics) or resistant bacteria or nasty viruses. If they have been extinct for a long time, then our immune system is no longer prepared to respond to them."
(A "non-zero" probability just means the chances of the event happening are not "impossible.")
Giant viruses
In recent years, Claverie and his colleagues have discovered a host of giant viruses, which are as big as bacteria but lack characteristic cellular machinery and metabolism of those microorganisms. At least one family of these viruses likely evolved from single-celled parasites after losing essential genes, although the origins of other giant viruses remain a mystery, Claverie said. [Tiny Grandeur: Stunning Images of the Very Small]
In the researchers' hunt for more unknown pathogens, they took a second look at permafrost samples collected from Kolyma in the Russian Far East in 2000. Because the permafrost was layered along steep cliffs, drillers could extract samples from 30,000 years ago by drilling horizontally into the ice, thereby avoiding contamination from newer samples.
The team then took samples of this permafrost and put them in contact with amoebas (blob-like single-celled organisms) in Petri dishes. The researchers then waited to see what happened.
Some of the amoebas burst open and died. When the scientists investigated further, they found a virus had killed the amoebas.
The ancient virus infects only amoebas, not humans or other animals. This pathogen belongs to a previously unknown family of viruses, now dubbed Pithovirus, which shares only a third of its genes with any known organisms and only 11 percent of its genes with other viruses. Though the new virus resembles the largest viruses ever found, Pandoraviruses, in shape, it is more closely related to classical viruses, which have an isocahedral shape (with 20 triangular-shaped faces), Claverie said.
Pathogens reawakened?
The findings raise the possibility that other long-dormant or eradicated viruses could be resurrected from the Arctic. As the climate warms and sea ice and permafrost melt, oil and mining companies are drilling many formerly off-limit areas in Russia, raising the possibility that ancient human viruses could be released.
For instance, Neanderthals and humans both lived in Siberia as recently as 28,000 years ago, and some of the diseases that plagued both species may still be around.
"If viable virions are still there, this is a good recipe for disaster," Claverie said. "Virions" is the term used for the virus particles when they are in their inert or dormant form.
But not everyone thinks these viruses spell potential doom.
"We are inundated by millions of viruses as we move through our everyday life," said Curtis Suttle, a marine virologist at the University of British Columbia in Canada, who was not involved in the study. "Every time we swim in the sea, we swallow about a billion viruses and inhale many thousands every day. It is true that viruses will be archived in permafrost and glacial ice, but the probability that viral pathogens of humans are abundant enough, and would circulate extensively enough to affect human health, stretches scientific rationality to the breaking point."
"I would be much more concerned about the hundreds of millions of people that will be displaced by rising sea levels than the risk of being exposed to pathogens from melting permafrost."
The findings were published today (March 3) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 Original article on Live Science.

Teen Sues Parents for Cash, College Tuition. Does She Have a Case?

Teen Sues Parents for Cash, College Tuition. Does She Have a Case?


 
 
Photo: Rachel Canning/FacebookA New Jersey teenager claiming that her mother and father tossed her out of their home and cut her off financially is suing them for immediate support, current private-school fees and future college tuition. The parents, meanwhile, say that daughter Rachel Canning, 18, moved out voluntarily after refusing to abide by their rules.

More on Shine: Daughter's Facebook Brag Costs Her Family $80,000

“We love our child and miss her. This is terrible. It’s killing me and my wife,” Rachel's father, Sean Canning, a town administrator and retired police officer, tells the Daily Record. “We have a child we want home. We’re not Draconian and now we’re getting hauled into court. She’s demanding that we pay her bills but she doesn’t want to live at home, and she’s saying, ‘I don’t want to live under your rules.’” The rules, he notes, include reconsidering her relationship with a boyfriend who may be a bad influence, being respectful, and abiding by her curfew. He and his wife, Elizabeth, who live in suburban Lincoln Park, about 25 miles outside of New York City, have kept their daughter’s car because they paid for it, says Canning, and he admits that they did stop paying Rachel's tuition at the private Morris Catholic High School. A hearing is scheduled to take place on Tuesday in the Morris County Superior Court.

More on Yahoo: Kobe Bryant Settles Memorabilia Lawsuit, Parents Apologize for Trying to Auction Off His Stuff

For months, Rachel — an honor student, cheerleader, and lacrosse player — has been living with the family of her best friend and classmate, Jaime Inglesino, whose father, attorney John Inglesino, is bankrolling Rachel’s lawsuit. He’s also requesting in the lawsuit that the Cannings reimburse him for the legal fees, so far totaling $12,597, according to the paper.

Rachel’s attorney, Tanya Helfand, is not taking calls as she prepares for Tuesday's hearing, her office tells Yahoo Shine. Rachel did not return a call from Yahoo Shine, and the Morris County court was closed on Monday due to inclement weather. 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.

It’s not unheard of for youngsters to take legal action against their parents for various offenses — from a pregnant Texas teen who sued her parents for allegedly pressuring her to get an abortion, to a pair of Illinois siblings in their 20s who sued their mom (unsuccessfully) for bad mothering. Even so, the Canning case is an extremely unusual one, according to experts in family law. That’s because similar suits typically involve either a divorce situation, with parents disagreeing on a child’s financial support, or a fight for emancipation, in which a teen is declared financially independent from parents.

“This young woman is actually saying, ‘I want to compel the court to continue to support me financially. That’s what’s unique in this case,” Mary Coogan, assistant director of the nonprofit Advocates for Children of New Jersey, tells Yahoo Shine. “So this young lady is in a unique situation because it does become very fact-sensitive. There’s really no law directly on point.” What families in similar situations have done, in Coogan’s experience, is to file for what’s called a “family crisis petition,” in which the court will try to mediate an agreeable outcome between the parents and their child.

Talking the situation through would be a better route than a lawsuit, Kenneth Neumann, a New York divorce mediator and psychologist with the Center for Mediation & Training, tells Yahoo Shine. “We often use the legal system as a way to deal with disagreements when we should be using therapy or mediation,” he says, noting that Rachel’s case is “extremely rare,” and that he’s “not had a case like this in 30 years,” with the most unique angle being that the parents are not in disagreement. Unfortunately for Rachel, Neumann says, “I don’t think she has much of a case. This sounds like just another 18-year-old who got into a thing with her parents.”


Related:
12-Year-Old Sues Parents After Drunk Driving Car Accident
Bus Driver Fired for Helping Hungry Students Fights Back With ACLU Lawsuit