<p>Well, we are now on page 12 of this thread, which consists largely of opinions and/or conclusions based on what has been posted by CarolineH. I suppose we could wait until all of the parties sign on to CC so we can get everyone’s position, but that could take a while. </p>
<p>Lots of people are assuming that the parties just have to sit down and work out these issues around the kitchen table. I am assuming that if that were possible, that it would have been done long ago and there would have been no reason for CarolineH to post. Therefore, I am assuming that the parties have reached an impasse. It appears that mom wants son to go to Dickenson, son wants to go to Dickenson and step-dad if willing to pay the costs (presumably to be partially reimbursed from dad). Step-mom (OP) and dad do not want to or cannot pay 1/2 of Dickenson tuition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does not appear that son has to “gamble” about anything. If the parents cannot come to an agreement outside of court, then the judge will decide. Either way, it seems a sure bet that son is going to Dickenson (unless he realizes what this is doing to his father and persuades his step-dad to pay for more than 1/2).</p>
<p>*I understand OP’s concern about SS2 and years when the two boys overlap, since even by FAFSA or applying a CSS institutional method of calculating EFC, $50k would be beyond her family’s reach. But that is not the current situation; why not pay what is reasonable for SS1 and then seek some modification in anticipation of SS2’s enrollment in college. *</p>
<p>This is a significant part of the problem I believe.</p>
<p>The OP and her H don’t want a precedent set where child #1 goes to pricey private (with them paying half) and then of course, child #2 will get to as well - with overlapping years with NO AID.</p>
<p>As for the OP’s FAFSA EFC…I could be wrong, but I think she gave a range of what it might be. I don’t remember her giving a firm EFC of $22k.</p>
<p>And, besides, their feeling may have been…the EFC of $22k (or whatever) would be split between the 2 families (so their share would have been $11k). One problem is that the OP and her H didn’t understand is that most schools don’t only charge you a FAFSA EFC.</p>
<p>The family shouldn’t be criticized for not affording their total EFC (which may or may not be $22k). Many families can’t afford their EFCs.</p>
<p>The son should stay out of the financial issues his parents are having. It’s not his problem. The father signed the divorce decree and the courts will decide what he owes.</p>
<p>But thumper, why do you assume that son will not be able to pay the bill. It sounds as if step-dad can write a check from his petty cash account.</p>
<p>If there are NO issues with getting this bill paid, then why is this thread even HERE. There is clear disagreement on who will pay what amounts. My point is clear…someone in the family has to agree to pay the college costs. The college does NOT care who this is…and they also don’t give two hoots about any divorce settlements, The college expects the bill to be paid. If the family is planning to pay this bill…then this thread can END. If not, the kiddo needs to drop the ED acceptance and apply to more affordable schools.</p>
<p>I agree that in not his problem, but it would be nice if he took an interest in how his choice of college is affecting his dad, step-mom and step-siblings. Financially, he appears to be covered whatever the outcome. And, why is it that when there is no divorce, that the parents need to discuss college finances with their children, but here they don’t.</p>
<p>I agree with you that a significant part of the problem is that they cannot afford 2 college contributions (for <em>whatever</em> the judge decides is fair). But I completely disagree with you that “The family shouldn’t be criticized for not affording their total EFC (which may or may not be $22k). Many families can’t afford their EFCs.” Most families don’t have a contractual agreement years in advance saying they will pay half of <em>something.</em> So, while I understand if the dad says he can pay half of an instate and not half of a private, barring some sort of emergency, I do not think child #2 should then have even less paid for her. That’s just not the way divorce works. If the judge decides that half of an instate COA is equitable, then they will need to figure out how to pay full instate COA for the 2-year overlap. And it does sound like that will be a problem-- but that’s not the fault of the kids. It just sounds like their bad planning.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The son did not marry the step family. The father married them.</p></li>
<li><p>There is no reason to discuss finances with his father because his father signed a divorce agreement and has already made his agreement.</p></li>
<li><p>There is a judge invovled in the financial relationship once parents divorce and it is a very different situation. Once you have adversarial parents, it is extremely unhealthy for a child to have any involvement in these conversations.</p></li>
<li><p>Let me put it to you another way: It is not the sons responsibility to take care of the fact that his father did not negotiate the “right” deal for himself in the divorce. He may well be able to get it changed, though if the Fafsa says he can afford a certain amount, I really doubt the courts will change it. If the father wanted to negotiate something else, he should have taken care of it a few years ago. His lack of foresight is simply not his son’s problem.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It will be up to the judge now. As it was when the parents first divorced.</p>
<p>Then the SS is gambling that the judge will say that the biodad has to pay half of Dickenson’s COA, or that the stepdad will write a check for the entire amount. We don’t know how likely either of these outcomes are since we don’t know the wording of the divorce settlement, or if the stepdad is willing to pay for the full amount.</p>
THe father may well be within his obligations under the divorce agreement to pay half after the son accepts his financial aid award, rather than the sticker price. We don’t know.</p>
<p>As far as the son “staying out,” I think that depends on whether he was ever in. If the father communicated to him that he did not have consent to apply ED and he did it anyway (which is how it appears), then he is most certainly in and needs to be responsible for his dishonesty and disrespect.</p>
<p>I’ve just read the entire thread and this is a train-wreak (not the posters…just the situation!). I’ll admit I come with my own ‘step’ baggage. The most successful blended family situation I have ever seen is my SIL and her ex. The new spouses have STAYED THE HECK OUT OF IT!! Everything. They have been loving adults in their step children’s lives, but they have never-ever spoken ill of the other parent(group), nor made any judgements about financial decisions made… and there have been some doozies. Constant change of visitation, support, actual custody because a child wanted it (yes, everyone took a deep breath and worked this out…and when this happened the opposite parent group paid support). It has not been easy, but my niece (23) and nephew (17) are two of the most well adjusted young people with a large support system. This was not an amiable split…at all. The entire thing amazes me, and at times I have questioned the lengths to which my SIL has gone to keep the peace with her ex. The kids were always first…the step parents never entered into these equations.</p>
<p>The OP doesn’t have an easy situation, I’m not saying that, but she needs to step back and let the parents and the son handle this. Provided her H is a capable person (and even if he isn’t), she needs to save her relationship with her ss and her h, and let them work this out with the mother. She can’t win if she becomes involved and frankly the outcome won’t be any different. Isn’t it better to let them come to an agreement, the OP stay out of it, and not be ‘the bad guy’…because she will be.</p>
<p>I can’t help but think that some of this problem stems from WHY the divorce occurred. It seems like the bio mom is out for revenge over something that happened during the marriage.</p>
<p>“It seems like the bio mom is out for revenge over something that happened during the marriage.”</p>
<p>Or maybe the college finances are part of a bigger negotiation. For example, I know of one divorced couple where the man says that the divorce wiped him clean because he “gave” the house, free and clear, to the wife. In reality, the woman inherited the house from her parents and it was never marital property. So when I see a big expense that someone agrees to take on in a divorce, I wonder if it’s offset by something else: joint debt that one person took on, elementary/ high school tuition, no child support, perhaps one spouse helped put the other through school or agreed not to sue for something (like a family business, retirement or pension money, stocks, bonds) or perhaps it was non-monetary: one spouse agreed to return grandma’s ring given as an engagement present, one spouse allowed the other to homeschool/ raise the kids a certain religion/ agreed to a certain custody arrangement. It is very hard to know what happened and, frankly, the new spouses probably don’t know the truth. All we know is that, at some point, these two people agreed to this, probably with the advice of attorneys, and it was signed by a judge.</p>
<p>Or maybe it’s that neither divorcing parent ever expected to be so wealthy as to make paying full freight at a $50,000-per-year college remotely possible - which is the case for about 95 percent of Americans. Both parents probably assumed the cost of college to be split would be the cost that average middle-class families generally expect to shoulder: in-state flagship tuition.</p>
<p>The fact that one parent has remarried into a family of extreme wealth does not mean the other parent has remotely similar financial resources.</p>
<p>Recognizing that there are some other issues here (other step-kids, OP’s kids and remarriage of both parties) it may be easier to ignore those. Assume that neither parent remarried and there is only the son. Same “agreement” to split college costs. Post-divorce ex-wife wins the lottery and kid will qualify for no need-based financial aid. Ex-wife tells son that he can go to whatever college he can get into and he applies to Dickenson ED without spouses signature and against his wishes. Dickenson will cost $52,000. Ex-husband’s FAFSA EFC is $15,000 and State Flagship would cost $18,000.</p>
<p>True polarscribe, although I doubt most attorneys wouldn’t think of the possibility that college costs are high. Of course, for all we know, he had no legal advice.</p>
<p>* It is very hard to know what happened and, frankly, the new spouses probably don’t know the truth.*</p>
<p>Ain’t that the truth! </p>
<p>There are millions of “second spouses” out there that find out the hard way that their “supposedly oh-so-innocent spouse” wasn’t quite the angel that was portrayed to them (nor was the “ex” quite the “crazy evil person” that was described). </p>
<p>I have a friend who now realizes why her husband’s first wife left him. Once married, he lets his personal grooming habits literally disappear. Yuck! Gross!</p>
<p>I still think that this “money power struggle” has something to do with revenge from the ex-wife over how the marriage ended. The OP made that “menopausal” crack to another poster which suggests (to me) that she is far younger than those of us with college-aged kids. Many ex-wives feel quite insulted when their ex’s hook up with much younger women (even if the young women didn’t break up the marriage.) If that is the case, then the wife may have seen this money situation as a way to strike back…and “even up” the score.</p>
<p>Actually, Mom2, if we are simply going to speculate, I’d say the second wives’ issues stem from the fact that she doesn’t have a job and is going to have to get one, now. JMO</p>
<p>*Assume that neither parent remarried and there is only the son. Same “agreement” to split college costs. Post-divorce ex-wife wins the lottery and kid will qualify for no need-based financial aid. Ex-wife tells son that he can go to whatever college he can get into and he applies to Dickenson ED without spouses signature and against his wishes. Dickenson will cost $52,000. Ex-husband’s FAFSA EFC is $15,000 and State Flagship would cost $18,000.</p>
<p>You’re the judge, what do you do? *</p>
<p>If I were the judge, I would say that the most the father has to pay is half the state flagship or he has to pay his FAFSA estimated EFC based on earnings/assets - whichever amount is lower.</p>
<p>After all, if the dad had been unemployed for the last 2 years (like many people in this economy), how could he be held to any 50% rule.</p>
<p>Even if he had saved for his kids’ college costs, if he had had periods of unemployment, he would have had to spend that savings.</p>
<p>so…that would be my ruling.</p>
<p>The OP’s situation is a good example of why CSS Profile schools shouldn’t just give one “family contribution” amount when NCP info is used…it should divide “family contribution” according to the income/assets of each family in a divorced situation. If one family makes twice as much, then their portion of the family contribution needs to be much higher.</p>