<p>The noncustodial parent is NOT just a piggy-bank. More reason to maintain good relations? Parental disaffection encouraged by the custodial parent, (He/She doesn’t love you), does its intentional first harm to the noncustodial parent, and then it’s long term harm to the child. Be honest, we’ve all seen it happen.</p>
<p>I am 100% Cuban-American, and I can guarantee you that plenty of Cuban kids go away to college. Your ex-husband is using one of the lamest excuses I ever heard of to get out of his responsibility as a parent. Don’t let him get away with it!</p>
<p><parental disaffection=“” encouraged=“” by=“” the=“” custodial=“” parent,=“” (he=“” she=“” doesn’t=“” love=“” you),=“” does=“” its=“” intentional=“” first=“” harm=“” to=“” noncustodial=“” and=“” then=“” it’s=“” long=“” term=“” child.=“”></parental></p>
<p>Highly uncalled for. I have never needed to say a negative word about their father; he has taken care of negative feelings all on his own with other issues and now these new issues pertaining to tuition. I’ve made excuses for him over the years and quite frankly, I’ve run out of them. It’s difficult to make excuses for the NCP when the kids can’t find a reasonable explanation for his behavior. Just tonight he called D and told her she needed to give up her full scholarship to Ohio State along with the honors program,and live at home and attend community college. He also told her there was no divorce decree, no child support agreement or language pertaining to college, I hoarded all the money he sent the kids while they lived in squalor, and that he was paying twice as much in child support as he was supposed to, money that I hoarded. While none of these is close to being true, it is especially disgusting for the NCP to call D and give her this inappropriate information.</p>
<p>Hanna, if that article linked above is right – and it gives every indication of being carefully written – vague language like the one in this decree is the local standard, in part because that’s what judges want to see, and in large part because under Illinois law the agreement would be subject to judicial modification in any event when the time came to enforce it. So I think you were being a little harsh in your judgment of the attorney who drafted it. She probably knew what she was doing. In essence, all they did – and maybe all they could do – was check a box that said “we elect an equitable obligation to continue support for college” instead of the one that said “we elect no support continuation for college”.</p>
<p>Family lawyers, by the way, do not practice like Harvard Law graduates at K&E. Their clients rarely want to pay them even at the paltry rate of $200 an hour – probably less than you were billed out at your first month of practice if you worked for a big Chicago firm – to negotiate the capillaries of an agreement that would be enforced, if at all 15+ years into the future, subject to judicial modification whatever it said.</p>
<p>^^agree susanr64–that accusation was uncalled for. </p>
<p>toblin–what do you base this on? you say “we’ve all seen this happen?” actually working in the field of clinical social work I can honestly say I have very rarely seen this. sadly, what many of us have seen is kids not being thought of as the separate human beings they are, in need of parental support by both parents. this mom is trying to negotiate with her child’s parent to figure out college expenses for her child’s benefit. to leap to parental disaffection encouraged by custodial parent seems off base to me, from what is written about the child’s own experience interacting with her father…</p>
<p>While I have seen parental alienation syndrome behavior, it commonly happens during child custody battles, not at this stage of the game. Sounds like the OP has a right to be bitter/angry/frustrated with her ex, sho has failed to live up to his end of the financial bargain, and has had limited if any contact with his kids in years. That is sad.</p>
<p>Also, if the OP was happy with her divorce attorney, there is no reason not to use him/her again. We don’t know the exact wording of the OPs divorce decree (she might have paraphrased here) and we don’t know if the exacte verbiage was part of the negotiated settlement. Lets not jump to crucify the divorce attorney without data to support it.</p>
<p>Agree-- go consult with an attorney (the original one, if you were happy with him/her) and discuss your options. You ultimately want to make a decision you are comfortable with, and weighing your options is an important part of this process. Good luck!</p>
<p>I think I must disagree with jym on a part of post 66. Post 66 tells us: "Lets not jump to crucify the divorce attorney… " I think that is inflammatory wording that is far too strong for what has been discussed here.
I was one of the first that pointed out the very ambiguous wording (according to the OP) that her attorney either wrote, or read and approved. That wording is now causing trouble on what is expected from the ex-hub. She probably was happy with her atty, until this problem came up. But this problem seems due to her atty. Providing for secondary school isn’t new as someone else pointed out. My wife had a decree in '88 that addressed it specifically. Not generously, but it was specifically addressed. I don’t think her atty clairvoyant, just thorough.
My comment was that I would not “feel comfortable” getting additional advice from the individual who’s lack of foresight caused the uncertainty. Gee, is that so harsh? One doesn’t have to be “clairvoyant” to know some children grow up and go to college. Based on what OP told us, her atty did address it, but now we see not thoroughly enough.
I don’t consider saying I don’t feel comfortable is in any way even close to crucifying an attorney. Her atty may have advanced to being the President of the Bar; but in this instance I feel he slipped up, and if he caused me this trouble I would not have confidence to continue hiring him to advise me. I also don’t believe any other poster was nearly so harsh as to justify referring to his troublesome wording as his being crucified.</p>
<p>My post was in response to the general tone here, not to any one post, younghoss. It seems that there was an implication that the previous divorce attorney screwed up by allowing such an ambiguous clause in the degree, and as others have mentioned, it might have been put in by the court or might have been part of the negotiated settlement between the 2 attorneys. We simply don’t know. If the OP has limited resources, it doesnt make sense to have to spend the extra $$ with a new attorney who is unfamiliar with the history of the divorce, especially if she was happy with her original attorney. That was my point.</p>
<p>Post #6 by NATURALLY is the right answer. Check with an Illinois Family Lawyer. She can look at the documents and will now the customs of the court in your area at this time. You may be able to get some $ out of him (the down side is that it may cost you money to get the court order and get it enforced.)</p>
<p>Can I remind people, once again, that the linked article about this issue in the OP’s state said specifically that most divorce decrees were vague about this because in that state anything beyond a general agreement to contribute to college costs equitably would be subject to judicial revision in any event. Sure, the parties could have been a lot more specific, but complying with the specific agreement would essentially have been optional by either parent if he or she had any economic issues that would lead a court to adjust the obligation. If that really is the law, then I can understand why divorce lawyers there don’t make their clients pay them to craft elaborate, specific agreements for college choices far in the future. Not worth it. The vague language gives the OP all the legal protection she was ever going to get – a clear indication that paying college costs was not off the table entirely (as might have been the case if the agreement said nothing at all).</p>
<p>^ I am the OP. Has anyone heard of a child not being allowed to go out of state to school because the father imposes his cultural restrictions on the child? He is now saying that this is the primary reason he won’t pay, because D chose to go out of state and not live at home, which is what he says is his preference (a preference that we did not hear until April 4 of this year). I do have three free consultations with attorneys next week. I did get clarification that the initial language in the divorce decree is supposed to be vague in the state of Illinois, not wanting to get into discussions on expenditures for college when future salaries of the parents and the academic potential of the child is not known, and that most agreements are modified prior to the child going away to college. That being said, the previous lawyer I used does not focus as much in the family law area as much as he did 12 years ago. The father is stating to me, however, that this vague language is giving him his out, since D is not meeting his new requirement of living at home.</p>
<p>Susan – I hope that the free meetings with the attorneys give you some clarification, and I hope that eventually you can share some general feedback.</p>
<p>Good luck! (And I certainly have a suspicion that if your child said, “fine, I’ll live at home” he’d come up with another excuse, but I’m just a cynic.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on what you posted from the divorce decree, that doesn’t make any sense. Nothing in it said the student had to go to the cheapest school. It said that both parents had to pay, as long as they were financially able.</p>
<p>Being underwater in mortgages on several homes sounds like something along the lines of unable to pay. Going to an out of state college doesn’t appear to fit this definition.</p>
<p>Unfortuately, lawyer English is different than engineering English so I don’t think my opinion holds any water.</p>
<p>My guess (and it’s only a guess, talk to an Illinois family lawyer!) is that Dad knows he has no valid argument under standard Illinois child support law to reduce his share of the obligations on economic grounds. (Keeping your wife’s failing business afloat will NOT count. That’s not a guess.) He has come up with this ingenious, a little bit offensive, last-minute cultural argument because (a) maybe it has some case law support, or at least hasn’t been decided yet, and (b) maybe it evokes some sympathy from a judge who would prefer local kids to attend the home-town college. It’s all pretty illogical given that he’s not the custodial parent, and that the out-of-state option is significantly cheaper. I suspect he’s grasping at straws.</p>
<p>Agree with JHS. Is he offering to house your son so that your son can live with family and attend school? No. He is just causing trouble (btw, I have no idea of your s applied to schools in S Fl. I was just using this as an example). If there is nothing in your divorce degree about some “cultural restricitons” as doubtful there is, this sounds like he’s just making up more excuses not to pay. But so what else is new, right? Did he try to keep you from leaving the state with your son when you divorced? Was there any issue raised when he left the state? Doesnt pass the smell test to me, but I am not an atty. Looking forward to hearing what advice you get form your consultations.</p>
<p>^Actually father moved out of Illinois in 1999, 6 months after the divorce. I made a major stink about him not being here for his kids, and his response was he was moving to intentionally make it harder on me. I believe he has been chomping at the bit to be absolved of his financial responsibilities for years. His new wife is probably pushing this as well. He is arrogant enough, doesn’t respect the law at all (didn’t have pay taxes or even go to work in his home country) to think he can get away with it. I think he also thought that Illinois law did not apply to him anymore since he moved out of state.</p>
<p>Actually father moved out of Illinois in 1999, 6 months after the divorce. I made a major stink about him not being here for his kids, and his response was he was moving to intentionally make it harder on me.</p>
<p>Ok…he’s an a$$. No loving father moves away from his kids to make it “harder” on the ex-wife. What a jerk. I can imagine his (sick) thought process…“I’ll move away so then she’ll never have a break from the kids. She’ll have to take care of them 24/7.” </p>
<p>Sorry for the harshness, but parents like that make me want to barf.</p>
<p>^ Yes, and I think the fact that D got a full tuition scholarship living under my roof is driving him crazy.</p>
<p>I tried to resist the urge to speculate, but I can’t.</p>
<p>The rather self absorbed Cuban ex husband could nevertheless claim in court that this child’s college preferences contradict family or cultural traditions. A possibly shallow arguement to be sure, but one that nevertheless might ring true with a judge who is bombarded with a plea of “this is my ethnic tradition” from the father. I opinine this way because I recall a Jewish ex husband who sued the former spouse (a non Jew, by the way), arguing that the mother was not raising the yound daughter in a appropriately conforming religious Jewish household. And from Latino friends I know that being the first daughter to have the opportunity to attend college can be stressful, as some Latino fathers believe that the idea of a young woman leaving home before marriage or even living on campus near home is improper. Yeah, sounds like dinosaur thinking to me too but that doesn’t mean it does not occur today.</p>
<p>First and most importantly, CONGRATS to your D for her great scholarship. I hope this doesn’t sour the end-of-sr. year celebrations, although I know from personal experience how this kind of <em>stuff</em> from the ex can weigh heavily.</p>
<p>Like some other posters, I think ex-H is grasping at straws to avoid paying. Hopefully wife #2’s houses being underwater isn’t relevant to the fact the decree said he would help pay. The number of fathers who seem to forget the “first” set of kids makes me cringe.</p>
<p>I don’t buy the hispanic tradition story either. Again, grasping at straws for potential non-payment. </p>
<p>Good luck with your consultations. Hopefully they will bring clarification for you and action on his part. Glad my state puts more definitive language into decrees. It’s extremely difficult though to anticipate how to define this when the divorce happens when the children are very young.</p>
<p>I hope every reader of this thread remembers this story and passes along advice to friends to consider this when they are designing divorce agreements. I’m forever grateful to a friend who did this for me.</p>