<p>Its complicated, involving a matrix of Child support, extras, and that fact that while I make a good living, X makes mega bucks.</p>
<p>I understand, its usually complicated…</p>
<p>Lindz</p>
<p>So you are offended that I dont pay for college, even if X makes megabucks, but no comment on this general 50/50 mantra where mom doesnt make much?</p>
<p>If that is how you feel, then I ask - are you generally in favor of need based finaid?</p>
<p>I understand you are trying to get your point repeatedly made. and you seem to press people so they will completely agree with your viewpoint. We often have different viewpoints, and need to respect others reasons for those differences. </p>
<p>I prefer to not engage in an argument, however I will say I firmly believe in need based aid, as it gives all kids (whether having married or divorced parents) who need assistance more opportunities at more colleges. </p>
<p>As far as what parents should pay for, that is really up to each family–so many variables with different kids, different parenting styles,etc. </p>
<p>Our personal choice for our kids, is to put our kids thru college. We tended to have similar parenting beliefs so this wasn’t a problem. In the decree it states, mother and father will contribute according to our ability. </p>
<p>That is exactly what I am doing for my kids, I have saved over the years to be able to do this and have encouraged my kids to excel so they could “earn” scholarships-which they did. I pay more, because I earn a little more, even though their dad could earn way more. so nothing is ever black and white.</p>
<p>oh, and no I am not offended that you don’t contribute to your child’s college expenses–good for you. if your ex earns mega bucks, then why not. I was simply confused about you repeating the 50/50 issue, since YOU weren’t being forced to split costs 50/50. I certainly feel for any parent who struggles financially, emotionally etc due to divorce.</p>
<p>divorce is tough. for all. women, men and sadly our kids. I don’t like to stereotype a dad on a cc thread as a bad guy because he has a different set of beliefs about college expenses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The idea is that with normal parents the child of a divorce is best served where there is the active involvement of both parents post-divorce, right? Well, that is the stated goal of the Family Code in my state. That includes both parents encouraging a strong and close relationship between the child and the EX. I believe it is an interesting discussion to see how that state attempts to achieve that goal.</p>
<p>The presumption is that in any divorce with children the parents will be appointed joint managing conservators. One parent will be the custodial parent which usually means that person gets to pick the child’s place of residence although the court usually limits the county of this residence to the one where the child resided at the time of the divorce or sometimes the immediately adjacent counties. That stops the custodial parent from using the threat to move against the non-custodial parent and the child.</p>
<p>Then there are the access and possession issues (visitation in some jurisdictions). To facilitate and encourage active involvement by both parents, the amount of child support can be increased if the non-custodial parent does not exercise the very substantial possession given under the guidelines. While the non-custodial parent does not get a full 50% of the time with the child under the guidelines it is very close. Since the expenses of the custodial parent increases when the non-custodial parent doesn’t take the child, the custodial parent can petition the court to raise the child custody if the non-custodial parent does take full access. In other words, it “pays” to exercise all access and possession.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if the custodial parent fails to follow the letter of the guidelines concerning the non-custodial parent’s rights of possession, the custodial parent can be and uniformly is held in contempt. If the custodial parent is shown to be maligning the non-custodial parent to the child, the court can increase the amount of access and possession that the non-custodial parent gets and lower the child support paid to the custodial parent. If the custodial parent continues in this conduct relating to access and/or poisoning the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent, the court can end joint managing conservatorship and award the formerly non-custodial parent the status of sole managing conservator which substantially limits the other parent’s say in many aspects of the child’s life.</p>
<p>Another feature helps to limit the practice of maligning the other parent to the child. Many family law practitioners I know advise their client that a child naturally loves both parents and where a parent maligns the other parent, that action places the child in stress. To please the maligning parent, the child must pull away from the other parent whom the child also loves. These attorneys advise never to malign the other parent because, under Texas law, the child (at a relatively young age) gets to make a statement of preference as to which parent it lives with and the court usually will follow this preference. The experience is that the child usually will pick the non-maligning parent since that parent doesn’t put the child in stress for loving both parents.</p>
<p>And, the use of guidelines for child support based on an estblished percentage of income puts a real break on maligning a non-possessory parent to the child on the basis that the non-possessory parent doesn’t love the child because the non-possessory parent “lives large” and “we barely get by.” That seems to rile the judges. I actually had a family law practitioner relate to me that one Domestic Relations judge (female) views statements like that to be a near admission that the best interests of the child would be for the formerly non-possessory parent to become the possessory parent.</p>
<p>New trick - </p>
<p>Dad, who is on the hook for all college expenses, limits colleges that he will pay for to those within commuting distance of his home. (after being denied full custody three times in ten years by the courts, and placed under court supervision). You have to admire his tenacity (though not much else.)</p>
<p>07Dad–I really just wish you wouldn’t use the word “possession” in regard to children. Ick!</p>
<p>Legal code terminology isn’t very poetic, is it?</p>
<p>Kayf, there are situations when Mom and Dad make comparable amounts and have comparable financial situations and obligations, but one parent just doesn’t want to pay the same amount. Mom might feel that the kid can stay at home and commute to a state school, and Dad might be willing to spring for a private college away. So even with all things being equal, there could be an difference in opinion on how to split the college expenses. This occurs at times for families unaffected by divorce.</p>
<p>If the divorce agreement happened to address the student’s college situation and choices precisely enough so that there is no doubt on how the expense should be split, it’s pretty clear what should be done and the courts can easily uphold that. More often, the answers are not so clear, and the person’s feelings about what he should pay for what is also taken into consideration. If Dad does not want to pay the money for a private college even if he has megabucks, and it is not likely the courts can force him to do so, then Mom is stuck with whatever Dad will pay in addition to what she is willing and able to pay regardless of her financial situation.That’s usually what happens. </p>
<p>Many times the financials, responsibilities, philosphies are complicated enough that one parent will just say he will pay half the full or ultimate cost. If that is likely to be the best offer, you just have to take it unless you have the law behind you. </p>
<p>I think all of us are in agreement that the OP’s husband needs to talk to his lawyer, to get a baseline on what his legal obligations are. After that it is his business how he decides the the bill should be split or what he feels he should pay. There are some who would be delighted to pay the whole thing and able to do so. There are some who refuse to pay a dime over what the law dictates. There are some who refuse to even pay that. Half and half is a simple way to split the bill if the financial situations are about even without having to go into the nitty gritty of who has a bit more than whom.</p>