<p>L-
see <a href="http://www.rbs2.com/son_edu.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.rbs2.com/son_edu.pdf</a></p>
<p>You might not want to take that case on a contingent fee basis.</p>
<p>piglette: That is what I call my son - we are a pig family.</p>
<p>"Oh, and I have a question: What's "YMMV"?)"</p>
<p>Your Mileage May Vary</p>
<p>Thanks, simba!</p>
<p>to the OP ... I would not take on huge loans for a school. Some strategies to consider to make school affortable (enough). BTW - some of these might require taking a gap year to make them work for you.</p>
<p>1) ROTC or Service Academy
2) Merit Aid (if you provide your stats you will get lots of recommendations)
3) Community College
4) Attend your State U (if it is OK)
5) Move to a new state for a year and then attend that State U (if your current State U is not OK)</p>
<p>This is a tough situation ... good luck!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your reasoning is flawed right from the point of your assumption #1 : "(1) a college undertakes to meet the financial needs of its students..."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm, you need to read the whole sentence I wrote. I said "in a situation where . . . a college undertakes to meet the financial needs of its students" (emphasis added)</p>
<p>
[quote]
A college undertakes to meet the INSTITUTIONALLY-DEFINED needs of its students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It depends on the college. You would need to study the literature and promotional materials of the college in question.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First is the belief that the colleges have a duty to fund any particular individual's education at that college, since there can be no breach without a duty. And the colleges' financial aid policies are insufficient to create a contract - admissions and financial aid packages are offers only until accepted, which creates the contract.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see why. If a college announces a particular financial aid policy, and a student applies to the college (and pays an application fee) in reliance on that policy, it would not be outrageous for a court to hold that the college must abide by that policy. And by the way, I'm not saying I believe colleges have a legal duty to fund any particular student's education. Please re-read what I wrote.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as I recall (and it's been a while since I researched it), 18 as the age of majority is statutory. Used to be 21, remember? And other than as part of an agreement (i.e.a divorce settlement), I believe that the courts have no authority to impose any obligations on the parents of an adult regarding that adult's upkeep, education or any other obligations. No adult can be legally charged with responsibility for another adult unless that obligation is accepted voluntarily.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please give me cites that support what you are saying. I'm not saying you are wrong, but without cites, it's kind of hard to know.</p>
<p>Let me clarify about the financial aid policy not creating a contract. Perhaps it does, as you posit, but the best the student could do would be to get the application fee back. Further, virtually every financial aid policy states that they do expect the parents to both furnish information and to help support the student. That would be part of the contract too, and the colleges in this situation haven't violated the contracts. (I'd also argue that the information posted on a college's website is simply too vague to form a binding contract - what's "need"?) </p>
<p>I'll give you a cite to the statutory age of majority - M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 85P:
[quote]
Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, any person domiciled in the commonwealth who has reached the age of eighteen shall for all purposes, and any other person who has reached the age of eighteen shall with respect to any transaction governed by the law of the commonwealth, be deemed of full legal capacity unless legally incapacitated for some reason other than insufficient age.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not have sufficient time (nor, in fact, sufficient interest) to do the legal research necessary to prove the rest; it's based more on experience than current research. But I do daresay that if such a requirement had ever been imposed on a parent (other than via divorce decree), since I graduated from law school in the year of the dinosaur, that it would be pretty well known by now. I do know of a number of cases over the years (and no, I don't have their citations) in which the kid lost in trying to force a parent to fund their education.</p>
<p>By the way, I did a few web searches and came acrosse a reference to a case -- Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J.529 (1982) -- which apparently held that under certain circumstances, parents can be held liable to pay for college for their children. This was in the context of a divorce.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps it does, as you posit, but the best the student could do would be to get the application fee back.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see why the remedy would necessarily be limited to rescission. For example, if a car dealership agrees to sell me a particular Porsche worth $100,000 for only $90,000; and the dealership doesn't deliver, I can legally ask for my money back, but I can also ask the court to make them give me my Porsche (specific performance); or ask the court to award me $10k in damages (expectation damages).</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I do daresay that if such a requirement had ever been imposed on a parent (other than via divorce decree), since I graduated from law school in the year of the dinosaur, that it would be pretty well known by now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm, that's not what you were saying before. You were implying that there is some law (or legal principle?) that says that a parent can never be required to support a child who has reached his or her majority.</p>
<p>Please cite the statute you were referring to.</p>
<p>The college never "agreed" to deliver all the financial aid that a student, absent parental participation, believes she "needs." There is no agreed-upon definition of "need". So there would be no specific performance ordered, as there was no "agreement." </p>
<p>It's more like this: the Porsche dealer agrees to sell you the car "at a substantial discount." You now offer the dealer $50,000 and the dealer refuses to deliver. Since there was no agreement on what "substantial discount" meant, there is no contract and no specific performance would be ordered. In the college's case, there is no definition of "need" and in fact the colleges specifically state that parental participation is required. The only time in which the contract is created is when the student accepts the offer.</p>
<p>I retract the paraphrasing of the statement you claim I made. As I said, I do not intend to do the legal research required. Rather, you claim that the parent could be ordered, outside of a non-custodial divorce situation, to pay for the education. What citations do you have?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The college never "agreed" to deliver all the financial aid that a student, absent parental participation, believes she "needs." There is no agreed-upon definition of "need". So there would be no specific performance ordered, as there was no "agreement."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It depends on what the college in question actually said. You will note that my post started with the phrase "in a situation where . . . a college undertakes to meet the financial needs of its students." Certainly the college could argue that the word "need" can not be defined sufficiently adequately to be enforced. But if a contract (or a statute) contains a word that is not defined, it's not unheard of for courts to supply a reasonable definition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rather, you claim that the parent could be ordered, outside of a non-custodial divorce situation, to pay for the education. What citations do you have?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why do I need citations? I'm not saying that the lawsuit would definitely succeed, I'm simply saying that it's colorable. (Indeed, you will note I said such a lawsuit would probably fail.)</p>
<p>And by the way, do you now agree that a parent who is party to a divorce proceeding can (at least in New Jersey) be ordered to pay for the college of his or her child?</p>
<p>And if so, doesn't that undercut your earlier pronouncement that "No adult can be legally charged with responsibility for another adult unless that obligation is accepted voluntarily."? (Or is that what you are retracting?)</p>
<p>If you'll read all of my posts, you'll see that I had previously qualified the statement as being absent a divorce proceeding. I have never denied that non-custodial parents can be ordered to do all sorts of things that custodial or married parents cannot.</p>
<p>And that's what makes our legal system - two lawyers arguing opposite sides of a case. Almost any issue can be argued; the question is which side is likelier to prevail. I'm not a gambler, but I'd be willing to bet that, at least for the facts that the OP has put forward, your posited case is a slam-dunk loser. And likely to be expensive as well, unless the plaintiff can find someone to take the case pro bono.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you'll read all of my posts, you'll see that I had previously qualified the statement as being absent a divorce proceeding. I have never denied that non-custodial parents can be ordered to do all sorts of things that custodial or married parents cannot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Originally, you said "other than as part of an agreement (i.e.a divorce settlement)" That's not what you are saying now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd be willing to bet that, at least for the facts that the OP has put forward, your posited case is a slam-dunk loser
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's one thing to say that a case will probably fail. It's another to say it must fail because of some law floating around out there.</p>
<p>I agree. I probably spoke too strongly on an internet forum. I've practiced long enough that I should know better than to say "never" or "always".</p>
<p>lskinner, the legal citations are set forth very clearly in the links posted by dt123 in post #41. Your posts subsequent to those, quite frankly, seem rather silly -- you would not be challenging people like Chedva if you had read what was already posted.</p>
<p>Obviously, whatever your legal background, you do not practice family law or juvenile law. Support obligations are generally specified in detailed fashion by statute. As the articles/links cited by dt123 show, only 10 states recognize any sort of ability to award or enforce child-support for higher education expenses, after age 18, and then only in the case of divorce -- in the other 40 states, there is no such legal obligation. </p>
<p>In any case, the problem raised by merdavis is not that the natural father won't contribute -- it's that the mother has remarried and the stepfather won't contribute, even though the college is assessing "need" based on the stepfather's higher income. I can think of no plausible legal argument that would obligate a step-parent to pay higher education expenses of his spouse's adult offspring.</p>
<p>calmom, </p>
<p>First, not all private colleges request information on the non-custodial parent. I know this for a fact, as I am employed in the Financial Aid Office of a 4 Year Private LAC. In discussions with many of my colleagues (both from my Institution as well as other Instititutions) about issues I have seen on this board, the whole PROFILE topic is thought of to be ridiculous....and many of the colleagues I speak with frequently all work in FA Offices at 4 Year Private LAC's. </p>
<p>We have also had many discussions over the whole dependency issue....and to be quite honest, most of us wish that Congress would change the current regulations so more students could be declared Independent. Processing dependent FA applications is actually more time consuming than independent applications. </p>
<p>In fact, since I would primarily with an adult program (designed for working adults), the whole dependency issue has created more problems than it is worth. I have many students who are truly independent in every aspect of the word, except by DOE's definition. In fact, I have an enormous amount of dependent students who make more than their parents do. These students are being penalized by the Federal Government and FAA's do not like it. However, at the current time, there is nothing we can do about it....except to not use PROFILE. And, as I have said, many of the Private LAC's I have contact with do not.</p>
<p>Maybe students and parents in difficult situations need to apply at schools who avoid the use of PROFILE.</p>
<p>Even FAFSA considers the income of a legal stepparent, though, Nikki, doesn't it? So the OP's situation isn't helped by a FAFSA only school.</p>
<p>(And there are plenty of kids whose parents are still married to each other, but don't want to fund their education either.)</p>
<p>NikkiL -- does your college promise to meet 100% of need (however need is determined) of your students?</p>
<p>It's easy to say that you'd prefer a simplified process if you are not required to find grant funding to fully subsidize all students. It's very different when there are $X to disburse and you are working with an internally-set policy that requires you to fully subsidize all enrolled students -- I'm pretty sure there isn't a 100% need school out there that doesn't also look to sources of assets and income above & beyond the FAFSA, whether or not they use CSS Profile.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lskinner, the legal citations are set forth very clearly in the links posted by dt123 in post #41. Your posts subsequent to those, quite frankly, seem rather silly -- you would not be challenging people like Chedva if you had read what was already posted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Quite frankly, I believe it is you who have not read what was already posted. </p>
<p>
[quote]
only 10 states recognize any sort of ability to award or enforce child-support for higher education expenses, after age 18, and then only in the case of divorce -- in the other 40 states, there is no such legal obligation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You seem to think I am claiming that non-divorced parents have a legal obligation to pay for their childrens' college. I am not making such a claim. If I were, I would not have said the following:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I realize that the suit would probably fail, but like I said, it might get some needed attention for what is becoming a big problem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please re-read my posts. Thanks in advance!!!</p>
<p>calmom,</p>
<p>Our Institution doesn't state that we will meet 100% of a student's need...because quite frankly, that isn't always possible as there are some students who just cannot qualify for enough funding. However, we do quite frequently provide 100% of cost. However, I do know that all of our financial aid counselors only look at the information revealed in the FAFSA for financial information. If FAFSA doesn't consider the income or asset, neither do we.</p>