<p>^^^</p>
<p>Heck, I don’t think I’ll ever be done being a parent. My 90 year old (now deceased) dad used to say that you’re never done helping/supporting your kids. While in his 80s, he was helping me put up shelves in the study room. (miss you daddy!)</p>
<p>“Just a comment to TV, because on one hand I do get what you’re saying. But in reality, having been through the experience (but not sued) I do have a dog in the race. Do you think it’s okay that my second husband contributes the lionshare of my son’s efc? I mean, obviously, my son and I think it’s grand<br>
But we don’t buy new cars or rack up consumer debt or quit jobs for no reason and mysteriously have money for things all the time EXCEPT college, so hey, we were in a position to help, while biodad had a long list of excuses”</p>
<p>Unlike you, I have no dog in this race. I have never been divorced or had step kids etc. I think that is why I can look at this logically and not through the clouded lens of experience like some of you are. In fact, the only people sticking up for this gross injustice are the couple of you that have gone through it. </p>
<p>You asked if I thought it was fair that your 2nd husband contribute the majority of the money. My answer is yes. Just like your 1st husband’s alimony stopped when you got married again. </p>
<p>You also said that because your ex spent money that you thought was frivolous that the judge should be able to compel him to pay. What would you think if a judge told you that he thought you should have to give up X or Y or Z, and you didn’t agree with it? Should a judge be able to control how you spend your money, or even how much you spend? I am sure will agree the answer is no, but this situation allows for that. I have no problem with judges awarding child support and even including money for college at the time of the divorce decree. I see that as completely different because it is money that is given while the child is still 18 and is intended to meet their current or future needs. That is a TON different that suddenly telling a parent that they have to fork our big money for a child that is now 18 and supposedly an adult. </p>
<p>Here is my final comment on the matter.</p>
<p>If it is ok to do this for a 20 or 22 yo child, the why not a 30 yo kid that suddenly “finds himself” and wants to go to college?</p>
<p>If it is just because college is so important that we are making these exceptions to the rule then why not a judge saying a parent has to pay for a kids apartment when they are in their 20s. Heck, shelter is more important than education in terms of surviving. </p>
<p>Or, how about this- two bioparents disagree on the importance of college so a judge settles this matter and forces the parent who disagrees to pay anyway. </p>
<p>Or maybe both parents know the child isn’t college material and is just going to party so refuse to pay for school, but the kid sues them both and the judge forces them to pay their life savings for their college?</p>
<p>None of my examples are farfetched. The are all the legal equivalent of what is happening in a couple of states. The bottom line is that the age of majority has to be drawn somewhere and that has been determined to be 18. At that age you can legally kick a kid out of the house and have nothing to do with them ever again. There can’t be exceptions for this situation, or that situation, that are randomly decided by a judge. Otherwise who is to say what slippery slope that leads to.</p>
<p>“Every court in the land has ruled time and time again that a parent’s responsibility for a child ends at 18.”</p>
<p>You are wrong. Sorry. Divorced parents are ordered to pay for college all the time. Further, in NYS, children between the ages of 18 and 21 fall into a special category. While they are legally adults, they may still have child support eligibility, even if their parents are not divorced. If the child can prove to the court that their parent or parents threw them out of the house or that they left because they were physically abused in the home, the law says that they are entitled to collect child support from their parents.</p>
<p>Also TV, many people do not get alimony (or if they do, for a very limited period). You can get divorced. Doesnt mean you are not a parent.</p>
<p>M2C- I agree, but legally I don’t have to. Then again, at some point most of us become the parent and the parent becomes the child.</p>
<p>Kayf said “You are wrong. Sorry. Divorced parents are ordered to pay for college all the time.”</p>
<p>I am not wrong. I am talking about cases other than those involving this subject. This is the only type of case I can find that doesn’t use a firm 18 age limit for parental responsibility and, even then, it is only a handful of states, and there is a reason for that. States that have tried to institute a similar policy have ultimately decided it was unconstitutional and State Supreme Courts have ruled that in almost every case.</p>
<p>Here is a link to just one state out of the dozens that I found</p>
<p>By Associated Press
January 31, 2009 11:52 AM
CONCORD, N.H. - New Hampshire courts can’t force divorcing couples to pay for their child’s college education, the state Supreme Court ruled, even when one or both the parties initially agree - in writing - to pick up the tab.</p>
<p>And another</p>
<p>The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a similar provision providing for post-majority support as a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. It reasoned that since married parents do not have to support their adult children, it was discriminatory to force divorced parents to do so. See Curtis v. Kline, 666 A.2d 265 (Pa. 1995). (Courts have apparently split over the constitutionality of such requirements).</p>
<p>Continue reading on Examiner.com Virginia mulls discrimination against divorced parents: child support college mandate - Washington DC SCOTUS | Examiner.com <a href=“http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/virginia-mulls-discrimination-against-divorced-parents-child-support-college-mandate#ixzz1oXq8k4ID[/url]”>http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/virginia-mulls-discrimination-against-divorced-parents-child-support-college-mandate#ixzz1oXq8k4ID</a></p>
<p>TV, you did not qualfy your original statement. TV, it may be a handful of states, but many are populated states, like NY, Mass, NJ. Also, if we dont allow kids to drink at 18, how can you say it is clear they should be treated as adults.</p>
<p>Yes, NH has law on this. <a href=“http://www.agwolfson.com/fll/fll-1104-PayingForCollege.php[/url]”>http://www.agwolfson.com/fll/fll-1104-PayingForCollege.php</a></p>
<p>but other states, thankfully, dont want to dump college costs on taxpayers just becuase parents get divorced.</p>
<p>That is another subject that I am just as outraged about because it too makes no sense. Wait, you can die for your country, vote, etc but can’t drink. How stupid. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t drink.</p>
<p>“but other states, thankfully, dont want to dump college costs on taxpayers just becuase parents get divorced.”</p>
<p>I’m curious what you mean by this. How do taxpayers foot the bill?</p>
<p>Another interesting point: It seems from what I have read, that judges, even in the states that have such provisions, are predisposed to granting much smaller awards if college costs are sprung on the divorced parent late in the process.</p>
<p>TV, taxpayers foot the bill if CP qualifies for state or federal aid, and NCP wont contribute. There have actually been threads here, along the line of should I get divorced so my kid gets more aid. In NY, a kid could in theory get Pell Grants and NYS TaP. So yeah, we, the taxpayers pay, if the courts wont make parents. </p>
<p>Judges can take into account a number of factors. I would think a highly paid TV person might have to pay for a private school, even if sprung on him(or her).</p>
<p>TV: My mistake. The age is 21/22 not 22/23. The reason for the two numbers is because some kids need 5 years to finish their undergrad degree, like many engineering majors, which contain 5 year programs. In any case, its sad to me to see any parent, be it the mother or father, think for even one second that their parenting duties are over at a certain age. Thats such an old fashion way of thinking. But apparently, in this world many think like you and thats the reason we have so many kids floundering. Sorry but the fact is that as a parent your job never ends!!! I was a fairly independent young adult. I paid for most of my college expenses and when I got out of school, I wanted to get my own apartment. My parents really wanted me to live home, but once I made it clear that I wanted to spread my wings and be on my own, they supported me. They came with me to look for apartments and ‘yes’ financially even helped me by buying me a full sized mattress and boxspring, a microwave oven and lots of other little essentials that I needed. Because of their love and support I knew this new venture in my life was going to be great!!! Did I ask them to pay my rent? Absolutely not, but I knew that if something happened they would be there for me. </p>
<p>Thats what good parents do. They support their kids all the way, all the time, any way they can. My husbands parents are the same way. Consequently, between the two families there are 8 children who have had 17 kids. Everyone is doing very well. Why? Because they have all been brought up by supportive, loving families. Families who try ‘what ever they can’ to help when times are tough!!!</p>
<p>Honestly, its sad to hear you speak of your own son as a slouch.</p>
<p>“Honestly, its sad to hear you speak of your own son as a slouch.”</p>
<p>I agree, but the truth it the truth and he readily admits it. We are hoping that is the start of a maturation process (sort of like the first step in a 12 step program is admitting you have a problem). </p>
<p>I also agree with you are the role of parents. My parents were like that and we are like that (if you only knew). But that isn’t something you can legislate.</p>
<p>“TV: My mistake. The age is 21/22 not 22/23. The reason for the two numbers is because some kids need 5 years to finish their undergrad degree, like many engineering majors, which contain 5 year programs.”</p>
<p>OK. so, is it 21 or 22? I gather you are saying it isn’t a set age, but until they are done with school. If so, how about a kid that works for a couple of years and matures enough to go to school. Should a parent be required at age 26 to pay for their college until they are done with their degree? You still need a cutoff somewhere.</p>
<p>TV: ^^ Yes, the courts can take into account if the degree will take 4 or 5 years and many times they will still cut the support after the 4 year. Again thats to be determined by the judge. With regard to your other scenario. After the age of 21 the courts cut off support. Like you have mentioned there just comes a time when the kids do have to take control of their own life and be responsible for it. So the courts do have a cutoff. Otherwise, we would all be discussing child support for a masters degree, PhD and/or med school. The whole idea is to make sure that kids are given a fair shake. That they are given the opportunity to make something of themselves, if they show the desire and have the ability. Like I mentioned already, when my sister went to court, she had to prove that this child was worthy of this type of education. She had to submt test scores, transcripts etc… It was by no means a given.</p>
<p>but other states, thankfully, dont want to dump college costs on taxpayers just becuase parents get divorced.</p>
<p>==============</p>
<p>Very true…which is why FAFSA should include BOTH bio parents. When you don’t, you are often dumping some costs onto tax-payers.</p>
<p>mom: I’m confused. Is that what happens? In the case of divorced, separated, and or never married situations they only look at the custodial parents finances? Only the custodial parents completes the fafsa?</p>
<p>Yes, with divorced or never married, FAFSA looks only to the custodial parents. Only if NCP contributes funds, will that be reflected. I think that is wrong, but the flip side is state law should have a mechanism for judges to mandate college fees.</p>
<p>Dungaree…</p>
<p>Yes…FAFSA doesn’t include the NCP info. That’s why you’ll see threads where people will suggest getting a “fake divorce” so that only the mom’s low income will count on FAFSA and the kid will then qualify for Pell and other gov’t aid.</p>
<p>In Calif it really is an issue because for the UC schools there is a Blue and Gold promise that gives “free tuition” (about $13k) to families that earn under $80k…so those who are living with mom who earns $75k per year, they get free tuition…even if dad is some affluent business person who is involved with his kids. </p>
<p>The intact family that earns $85k per year won’t qualify!</p>
<p>Mom2, in NY, there is the TAP program that kicks in up to (I think) about 5K with income in that range also. Not as generous, but still something</p>
<p>I don’t begrudge paying taxes to support kids from families who can’t pay, I resent paying for kids from families who won’t pay. </p>
<p>The difference is that NY courts can and will mandate NCPs to pay for college (or part), and those amounts (contributions from NCP) do reduce aid.</p>
<p>I wish more states would require NCPs to pay at least something…even if it’s half of the costs of a state school…especially if they have professional jobs and/or are college grads. </p>
<p>Calif is ridiculous because divorced families do “play games” with custody so that the lower income parent claims custody (in Calif…shared custody is common, so the lower income parent will claim on FAFSA by claiming that the kid is there “more”…and no one checks…that’s why it’s easy to abuse.)</p>
<p>I do think that if child support is paid and/or the NCP is involved with the child, then absolutely the NCP’s income should be considered. I can understand needing waivers for the NCPs that “hit the road” and never looked back…but when there are involved NCPs, excluding their income is just crazy.</p>