<p>It has got to stop before it gets worse. A New Jersey judge has re-affirmed his decision to allow a student to sue and recover the costs of college from her parents! As far as I am concerned this is a Pandora’s Box.</p>
<p>In the best of all world’s, parents would guide children in the child’s college aspirations and provide as much financial support as they possibly can. But it is a decision that should be completely at the parents’ direction; not a judge’s. The State of New Jersey seems to be particularly nosey in this area of family dynamics when a divorce is involved. Some kids need to be ‘pushed’ into adulthood. They shouldn’t be coddled by the courts when it’s time to act like an adult and be responsible for your own life.</p>
<p>I think there is more to this than the story details. The grandparents support the grandchild and have made remarks that something is up with the parents.</p>
<p>While I see it as my personal responsibility to pay for my children’s college educations, I definitely don’t think it should be mandated by the courts. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons why parents might opt out of paying for college.</p>
<p>The parents are divorced – my impression is that the divorce settlement required the parents to contribute to college, and the child is now suing to enforce the terms of the divorce degree. (at least that’s what the linked article says: " “If the court orders at the time of the divorce – or at the time the kid is ready for college – that parents have to contribute, a kid can ask the court to enforce that.”)</p>
<p>I note that the mother was requiring the D to work full-time, “do chores,” AND take 3 summer classes. She :</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At many schools, summer session is shorter and summer classes are more intensive that the regular school year–they meet more hours each week. (A couple of years ago, I took a CC class during the summer. It was 2.5 hours a night, 4 nights a week. ) Even if that wasn’t true in this case, I think working full time and taking 3 classes would be hard for most people. </p>
<p>If I’m reading the article correctly, I think the demands on the girl were unreasonable. Assume a full-time job is 40 hours. Assume each class met for at least 3 hours a week, so she would have to be in class at least 9 hours a week. Assume she had to study at least 10 hours a week for each class (30 hours.) Throw in at least 5 hours a week commuting from home to school and job, and you’ve got 84 hours before she does chores. </p>
<p>I don’t think that’s reasonable.</p>
<p>Maybe that’s not what mom meant…it’s hard to tell from the article. However, I know that the CC I attended recommends against taking more than 2 summer courses if you aren’t working, because they are so intense. </p>
<p>I admit I’m biased…I’m an unremarried first spouse. If you can’t afford to provide for the children of your first marriage, you shouldn’t have more kids. The fact that you have other, younger kids to educate is NOT a reason not to provide for the children of your first marriage. Additionally, I know too many remarried parents who love the children they had by a later, successful marriage more than those from their first failed marriages. Sometimes, that’s understandable because the children of the first marriage are angry about the divorce and getting “dumped” by their parents. </p>
<p>At a semester system school, summer sessions are about half as long as regular semesters, so if a normal full time semester course load is 4 courses, a normal full time summer course load is 2 courses. So a full time job plus 3 summer session courses is an extremely heavy workload.</p>
<p>It is not surprising that a divorce situation can get ugly with the various parties continuing to fight with lawsuits (which probably end up costing more in lawyer fees than the cost of sending a kid to college).</p>
<p>“my impression is that the divorce settlement required the parents to contribute to college”</p>
<p>My sister’s ex was required to pay college tuition for both their kids. My sister was not required to contribute anything. During an early hearing (case went on for five years) the Judge asked him if he was going to pay for their college tuition and he said yes. So, that was that. No backing out for him - though he tried. There were several instances where he didn’t pay it and my sister had to get her lawyer to call his lawyer. </p>
<p>NJ has some nuances that other states may not have. I believe the first case that imposed the tuition for college requirement on a divorced dad was in an instance where he never had agreed to pay in the first place. The decree (as I remember it was silent on that point). What the court went on to say was that since the circumstances of that family was the type where college was to be expected he would have to pay. If he had not divorced, they could not have imposed this on him, as I recall. This was probably at least 20 years ago. The NJ courts have imposed a requirement on the estate of a dead divorced dad to fork over tuition money. That decree may have had a requirement that the spouses contribute to their ability or some other such language. The guy had been dead for a dozen years or so when the lawsuit happened. </p>
<p>I had read about the case noted in the first post a while ago, and while 900 dollars for community college sounds not unreasonable, the obligation to pay out of state when no financial aid as applied for does seem wrong. Couldn’t the parents file fafsa for temple u on their own? What a mess.</p>