■羅通多早前在父母家門前接受傳媒採訪。但敗訴後現已搬離父母住處。 網上圖片【原文】下文摘錄自香港《文匯報》2018年5月24日報道：
歐美不少年輕人收入偏低，加上大城市樓價（property price）高企，部分人即使已踏入成年（adulthood）多時，仍要跟父母同住。美國紐約州一對父母不滿30歲兒子羅通多（Michael Rotondo）長期賦閒在家，而且8年來均沒付家用，近月多次要求他離家自立，甚至給他現金資助搬家，但羅通多一一置若罔聞，父母無計可施下向法院提告，紐約州最高法院（New York State Supreme Court）最終裁定羅通多敗訴，意味他很可能須即時遷出。
「啃老族」兒子 8年未付家用
羅通多接受傳媒訪問時透露，他高中畢業後不久曾找到工作，更搬出父母住所獨居約一年半，其間與伴侶誕下一名兒子，然而好景不常，羅通多隨後被裁員（laid off），於是搬回雙親住處。
去年9月他在撫養權（custody）官司敗訴，兒子歸母親照顧，羅通多提出上訴（appeal），並以沒收入為由獲取法援（legal aid）。羅通多的雙親這時要求他找工作，羅通多則要求先爭回兒子撫養權，父母不久後不再向他提供食物，也禁止他使用家中的洗衣機。
羅通多的父親馬克（Mark Rotondo）2月2日給兒子一封信，命令他在14天內搬出，揚言採取「任何必要措施」執行這決定。羅通多未有理會父親信件，母親克里斯蒂娜（Christina）同月13日再寫信，表示已諮詢律師意見，再給羅通多30天寬限期（grace period），羅通多繼續置之不理。
父母二人見無計可施，5天後決定給羅通多1,100美元（約8,633港元），助他尋找新居，並要求他求職，但同樣無法趕走兒子。
無計可施 決定提告
馬克夫婦3月再兩度去信羅通多，但對方一直拒絕遷走，二人本月初忍無可忍，向法院控告兒子。羅通多抗辯時指出，父母過去8年均沒要求他繳付家用、做家務（chore）或維修（maintenance）家居，他認為這已是雙方共識（consensus），更舉出類似案例，要求按照普通法（common law）原則，給予6個月寬限期。
法官格林伍德（Donald Greenwood）讚賞羅通多細心研究案例，但指出案例只適用於極少數個案，直斥羅通多要求半年寬限期「太不像話」（outrageous），其父母亦已給予充足通知，因此判（sentence）他敗訴。羅通多聞判後揚言上訴，稱自己沒準備好搬家，只想獲給予合理的準備時間。
Parents Sue 30-Year-Old Deadbeat Son
【譯文】Because of low income and soaring property prices in big cities, many young adults in the European and American regions still have to live with their parents even if they have entered adulthood for many years. A New York couple was so desperate to get their 30-year-old son Michael Rotondo, who reportedly had been living at home without getting a job for eight years, to move out on his own; after he had ignored their offer of money to get him a new house, the couple finally opted for the last resort to sue their son in the New York State Supreme Court and received favorable outcome that the son was ordered to take immediate action to vacate.
Rotondo said to the media outlets that he had found a job shortly after graduation from high school and moved out of home for about 1.5 years, and later had a son with a woman; however, he was subsequently laid off and then moved back to his parents' house.
Last September, he lost custody of his son in a lawsuit and his son was then taken back by his mother. He made an appeal and was granted legal aid for having no income. Even though being requested by his parents to find a job, Rotondo insisted on having the custody of his son regained first.
The disappointed parents later no longer provided food for him and banned him from using the washing machine as well in response to his failure to move out as demanded.
Too Broke to Move Out
Rotondo's father Mark had sent a notice to him on February 2, giving him a grace period of 14 days to vacate, otherwise the parents would take "whatever actions are necessary" to enforce the decision. Receiving no response from Rotondo, his mother Christina sent him another notice on February 13, granting him 30 more days to move out and saying that they had sought legal counsel.
As their son took no action, they further offered him a cash incentive by gifting him US$1,100（approximately HK$8,633）to find a new place and asked him to hunt for a job, but still failed to kick him out.
The parents left two more notes in March but still received no signs of their son's moving out. With no other options, they eventually took legal action against him to file for an ejectment.
Rotondo disagreed and claimed he had never been expected to contribute to household expenses, chores or maintenance of the premises, and believed this was a mutually agreeable consensus reached by both sides and further cited similar cases to argue that he should be, in accordance with the common law, entitled to a six-month notice before an eviction.
Parents Win Suit to Kick Son Out
The judge Donald Greenwood praised Rotondo for his detailed legal research, but said that the studies were only applicable to an extremely small number of cases. He described his claim for six months' grace period as "outrageous" because he had been given more than enough notice to vacate, therefore sentencing him to lose.
Rotondo responded that he would appeal the judge's decision, saying that he was not well prepared for moving out the property and requesting for more reasonable time to leave.■龐嘉儀
考考你
1.「啃老族」又稱為"NEET"（「尼特族」），它的全稱是什麼？
2. 「啃老族」被西方稱作什麼世代？
3. 相對於"Empty nest"（「空巢期」，即子女成年後離家）的失落，「啃老」現象令父母面對什麼難題？
4. 哪個國家也出現父母與子女因為「啃老」問題而對簿公堂的情況？
1. Not currently engaged in Employment, Education or Training
2. 回力鏢世代（Boomerang generation）
3. "Cluttered（雜亂）nest"、"Crowded（擠迫）nest"
4. 意大利