<p>Generally a child would not have a “guardian” unless the parent was unavailable, deceased, or incapacitated. The status of legal guardian would not confer any obligation relevant to FAFSA on that adult. For example, let’s assume a hypothetical of a 17 year old student whose parents are deceased (and were penniless when they passed away, leaving the student nothing). The student lives in a house with her two rich aunts, who are her legal guardians, but who have not legally adopted her. There will be a place on the FAFSA for the student to note that her parents are deceased. She will not have to provide any information whatsoever about the income and assets of the two rich aunts.</p>
<p>calmom: I apologize. Guess I got it confused with the Profile. I was on a break at work, away from all my Financial Aid paperwork.</p>
<p>No problem and nothing to apologize for. I just wanted to correct a minor misstatement for the benefit of others who may read this thread and be trying to make sense of the financial aid process. Obviously, even without considering house or mortgage, the same considerations would apply if you and your partner have other shared assets, such as a joint savings account or other investments. </p>
<p>I think this begins with a misleading headline and article in The Chronicle of Higher Education-- which is something of a distortion of the press release from the US Dept. of Education press release at [Education</a> Department Announces Changes to FAFSA Form to More Accurately and Fairly Assess Students’ Need for Aid | U.S. Department of Education](<a href=“U.S. Department of Education”>U.S. Department of Education)</p>
<p>It’s clear from the press release that the policy change is not targeted at gay marriage or DOMA, but primarily an effort to stop the disparity in treatment based on whether the student’s parents in an intact household are married or not. I think they have done the math on this and this change will probably reach a lot more kids with unmarried heterosexual parents. I think they also are changing the language on the form to be gender neutral because they recognize that many students live in households headed by gay parents – and I think they are probably anticipating a strong likelihood that the US Supreme Court will hold DOMA unconstitutional. (Keep in mind that the Obama administration – Arne Duncan’s boss – has urged the Supreme Court to do exactly that). I just don’t think that’s the primary aim of the rule change. </p>
<p>Here are some figures, from the US Census:</p>
<p>6.8 million unmarried-partner households in 2010. Of this number, 593,000 (0.087%) were same-sex households. </p>
<p>1.9 million unmarried-partner households with at least one shared child.</p>
<p>40% of opposite-sex, unmarried-partner households that included at least one biological child of either partner. </p>
<p>See: <a href=“http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb12-ff18.html[/url]”>http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb12-ff18.html</a></p>
<p>So basically, 92% of the unmarried partner households are heterosexual couples – while only about 237,000 households headed by gay couples with children, and we have to assume a smaller fraction of those are couples who are both parents of the same child. For the sake of easy math I’ll assume it’s 190,000 gay couple families, and that the 1.9 million “unmarried-partner” figure includes the gay couples. So that is 90% heterosexual couples, 10% gay (and I think I’m being very generous with the gay figure). </p>
<p>Again, I think the main focus of the rule change is to reach whatever percentage of college-age kids are coming from the 90%+ of the households with unmarried heterosexual partner parents. Yes, they also want to include the children of gay parents, but statistically there aren’t nearly as many.</p>
<p>I’m sorry that your state would not allow your partner to adopt your kids. I think that is terribly misguided and I certainly understand your frustration. I just don’t think that the primary purpose of the FAFSA policy change is take something from your household when the state does not allow you to marry or afford parental rights to your partner.</p>
<p>Since when has the government (States) been able to prevent the adoption of a minor when all the adult parties agree to it?</p>
<p>LW, you’re kidding, right? Adoption by gay couples is legal in very few states. I live in a state where it’s explicitly illegal and not recognized if done in another state.</p>
<p><em>reads thread</em></p>
<p>Screw everything, I’m moving to France if I ever get a partner and have kids.</p>
<p>^ Better make sure that partner and your children are not practicing Muslims first… (in other words, there are far better places to move than France for rights like that :p)</p>