<p>Not quite true in NJ, Cpt. Here the law states that a divorced parent is obligated to contribute 50% of the tuition cost at NJ flagship college - i.e. Rutgers. Typically applied to the non-custodial parent (or even in the case of shared custody the more reluctant college tuition payer). In this case, it appears that each parent is being required to pay half, because they are divorced . My understanding is that college costs were not covered in their divorce agreement, since they divorced when the girl was very young. What is confusing is that the articles state they are required to pay $16,000 yet the tuition at Rutgers is $10,954 plus $2,859 in mandatory fees which comes to less than $14,000 not $16,000. </p>
<p>The NJ legislature is now looking into this and may change the law. While I think it is unfair to force the parents to pay just because they are divorced, I also think parents are obligated to pay something in accordance with their finances. As Jonri says, Fin Aid is based on parents income up to age 24. Not sure how a student would show they are completely independent for that purpose. I wonder if the parents continued to claim her as a dependent on their taxes. Wonder if that would make a difference. </p>
<p>As the third child in a family, I’m pretty glad parents can decide to have move kids and that the oldest isn’t entitle to all the college money.</p>
<p>This is all case law,and since the facts differ in every case, each judge can come to a different conclusion. One judge said it should be 50% of the tuition at Rutgers, but that doesn’t mean that is the law, just the standard. Another judge decided the child wasn’t entitled to go to Miami, that Rutgers was enough.</p>
<p>I wonder if the parents are completing the fafsa, and whether the judge would order that. I do not think a divorce decree is a contract because if it were, the child would have no standing to sue under it . It’s my opinion she has no standing anyway and shouldn’t get to sue as a beneficiary. The order could give benefits to any number of others like credit card banks or mortgage holders but they cannot sue the parties to enforce the terms of the divorce decree.</p>
<p>Divorce (and family law) courts typically have a mandate to look out for the best interests of children affected by divorce. That’s probably enough to give the child standing. Judges don’t like to see parents using children as weapons or otherwise jerking them around, and that’s probably what’s behind this decision.</p>
<p>As a NJ resident, I find it very hard to believe addressing some means of paying for higher education was not part of the parent’s divorce order. My own mother and father’s divorce was finalized in 1963 when I was mere months old, and their settlement, between a bookkeeper and a mechanic with a HS diplomas, stipulated child support was to continue until I graduated from college. That was waaaay back then, and was part of the deal made.</p>
<p>All signs point to this girl being treated like excess baggage from their failed marriage. The linked Philly.com article is purely the parent’s and their attorney’s positions. Divorce decrees are sealed in Family Court proceedings, but I’ll bet it stipulates something much different than what they are saying publicly. That document likely spells out the $16,000 in support the Judge in the recent court case ordered.</p>
So what? The implication of your statement here is that children have a de facto entitlement to a college education funded by their parents (married, divorced or single) at a standard of poshness commensurate w the parents’ income before the birth of subsequent children. </p>
<p>I wonder about the constitutionality of forcing divorced parents w/o a divorce agreement on the issue, to pay for college for their children. A college education is not mandated by the gov’t. </p>
<p>Thanks twoin, I didn’t realize it wasn’t set but depended on what an individual judge thought. I had heard from divorced friends that the standard was 50% of Rutgers tuition. This was all a friend received from her ex, even though the kid went to an OOS public. In that case, I really disagree with the findings. The parents may be jerks but nobody is entitled to a private college. There is nothing at Temple that could not be gotten at Rutgers or Stockton or Rowan (if the grandparents live too far away from New Brunswick). Not clear why any parents (divorced or married) should be required to pay for more than an in-state tuition.</p>
<p>It appears that, at least in New Jersey, if you have a child and get divorced, the court is going to focus on the best interests of the child in determining how your money will be divided–including potentially requiring you to pay for college. People who don’t like that should make better divorce settlements, or should stay married. Also, they should avoid appearing like jerks in front of the judge. My guess is that most of us would take the kid’s side if we were sitting in the judge’s seat and saw what he or she saw.</p>
<p>Nice job parents. Ruining the future of a kid just because she does not follow your arbitrary “rules”. It’s stuff like this that makes parents wonder why their children put them into retirement homes. </p>
<p>In every state the focus is the best interest of the child, but that’s open to wide interpretation. I’ve worked on a lot of divorces and seen many in court. The fact is that there is less money after a divorce as two households are more expensive to run than one. If there is plenty of money, great, everyone can go to college and summer camp and to the circus. In most cases, there isn’t plenty of money and decisions have to be made on what to cut. On CC alone there are plenty of kids looking for money from parents who just don’t have it and we advise them to look for a cheaper alternative.</p>
<p>I’m making a lot of sacrifices for my kids to go to school because I want to send them, but there is no question that it is my money and I’ll pull it if they don’t make sacrifices too. One didn’t get to come home for Thanksgiving (but she went with friends and had a fine time), they don’t have cars, they don’t get to go to any school they want and not listen to my rules or advice.</p>
<p>You are forgetting what the American system of government is. When a court mandates something, it’s mandated by the government. A state court order can be unconstitutional w/re the United States Constitution if it violates some specific prohibition (like the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) or if it interferes with federal supremacy in some area where that applies (like interstate commerce). A state court overstepping its judicial authority will not violate the U.S. Constitution, at least insofar as the courts are willing to enforce it. </p>
<p>It may violate the particular state’s constitution, of course. But in the Anglo-American legal system, lots of issues are traditionally left for courts to resolve on a case-by-case basis, but applying precedent. That’s what we call “common law,” and it is extremely important in terms of generating legal rules. The legislature and governor can revise common law with legislation, and that happens with increasing frequency, but there are still plenty of areas where the governing rules are judge-made, common law rules.</p>
<p>That said, I think New Jersey statutory divorce law does provide that divorced parents are required to support their children through college if they are full-time college students. That could arguably raise an equal protection issue if non-divorced parents’ support obligations do not include college, but it’s the type of low-grade, minimum-scrutiny equal protection issue that almost never wins in court.</p>
<p>In case anyone is interested, here is the relevant New Jersey statute, with highlighting by me:</p>
<p>
</code></pre>
<p>What this means is that courts have a great deal of latitude to extend support into college years in divorce cases, and must at least consider doing so (if requested). There is no hard-and-fast rule that divorced parents have to pay for their children’s college educations, but the court has to consider whether they can and should, based in part on the child’s abilities and needs.</p>
<p>If you look at the court rules, you will also see that one of the important standards is “What do intact families with similar resources do?” If intact families with similar backgrounds and resources pay college tuitions for kids with similar abilities, then the court will probably order it as part of a child support decree unless there is some strong reason not to. I think most other states are far more reluctant to extend child support obligations beyond legal majority.</p>
<p>Well, the preamble to that list makes clear that the length of time that support obligations apply is open, and you know that it’s not going to be shorter than 18/high school graduation, so the only conclusion is that it can be longer (doesn’t have to be, but can be). Once you know that, 21 and a college junior isn’t a big stretch, especially since her parents effectively delayed her education. If she were 25, that would probably make a big difference.</p>
<p>Note, also, that elsewhere this same statute makes clear that if a child has a permanent disability and is incapable of living independently, the parents can be on the hook forever.</p>
<p>I don’t know that the statute is half-baked. It’s a statute that trusts judges to figure out what’s best for the family, and what’s reasonable. That’s not a popular legislative approach these days, but I actually think it’s one that can work pretty well.</p>