<p>So, it is common for the payer’s state to take jurisdiction: [SupportGuidelines.com</a> | Choice of Law in Interstate Child Support Modification Cases](<a href=“http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/article.html]SupportGuidelines.com”>http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/article.html) but that would be easy for Dad to escape by simply moving. I thought the main question was getting the FA forms filled out. Sometime back, OP indicated that neither parent had much money for college expenses, and Dad will be paying child support for at least 3 kids.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t start counting the college money just yet. While the Illinois statute definitely applies to residents of Illinois, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”) specifically addresses how and when support orders issued in one state can be amended in another. </p>
<p>This is from the case Marshak v Weser where the Appellate Court of New Jersey overturned a lower court ruling requiring college expenses be paid by the father. While this case is from New Jersey, the opinion is based upon a uniform statute required by Congress. </p>
<p>The case has a similar fact situation to the OP (divorce and child support order entered in Pennsylvania where college expenses cannot be granted); the family members subsequently move to New Jersey (where college expenses can be required by the court). In overturning the lower court, the appellate court found that UIFSA prohibits the modification of the original court order.</p>
<p>Excerpts from the opinion: </p>
<p>“UIFSA is a model act adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws at the behest of Congress in 1992 and revised in 1996. Kurtis A. Kemper, Annotation, Construction and Application of Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 90 A.L.R.5th 1, 2 (2006). Congress thereafter mandated that all States enact UIFSA as a condition of receiving certain federal funding.</p>
<p>The purpose of the uniformity requirement was not only to establish a means of enforcing a support order when one or both parties have moved from the jurisdiction where the support order was issued, but also to establish ground rules for modifying such an order, and to do so in a way that avoids conflicting orders issued by courts of different states. Congress obviously anticipated that multi-state conflicts over child support jurisdiction would be avoided if each state were to enact the same rules.</p>
<p>Moreover, in 2001 the model UIFSA was amended to more specifically address the situation at issue here:</p>
<p>In a proceeding to modify a child-support order, the law of the State that is determined to have issued the initial controlling order governs the duration of the obligation of support. The obligor’s fulfillment of the duty of support established by that order precludes imposition of a further obligation of support by a tribunal of this State. [Unif. Interstate Family Support Act 611(d) (2001).]
The comment to the 2001 amendment clearly indicates that its purpose was to clarify the original UIFSA enactment: “From its original promulgation UIFSA determined that the duration of child-support obligation[s] should be fixed by the controlling order . . . If the language was insufficiently specific before . . . 2001, the amendments should make this decision absolutely clear.” Id. cmt. on 611(d). The comment also specifically indicates that the amendment was intended to address modifications to impose college tuition payments for adult offspring where the law of the issuing state would not provide for such support. Ibid.”</p>
<p>While the opinion may not stop the OP’s mother from trying, the best time for “forum shopping” is at the time of the original support decree.</p>
<p>So just to clarify, this is a complicated issue because there are at least three concepts in play:</p>
<ol>
<li> Personal Jurisdiction</li>
<li> Modification of an order of support</li>
<li> Duration of an order of support</li>
</ol>
<p>As noted by several other posters, since none of the parties reside in the original forum state, Illinois (as the residence of the father/respondent) is the appropriate forum state under UIFSA for a modification of a support order.</p>
<p>As the appropriate new forum state, Illinois is authorized under UIFSA to modify an out of state support order in accordance with its state law. So, if OP’s mom wants to increase her monthly support payments, an Illinois court is the appropriate forum and it would apply Illinois law in deciding the amount of support.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, there is a big difference between MODIFYING the amount of support and EXTENDING the duration of a support order. </p>
<p>So, if the Florida order says OP’s dad pays $X a month until OPs 18th birthday or graduation from high school - that’s it. (If the OP is only 17 and going to college, an Illinois court would likely be able to give you a semester of costs until you turn 18.) However, under UIFSA as noted above, the new forum state (Illinois) is prohibited from EXTENDING THE DURATION of support. In addition to Marshak, there are cases in other states with similar results. </p>
<p>It goes both ways - there is also a case from New Hampshire, where an order to pay college costs to age 21 from Mass. was enforced even though such payments are specifically prohibited under NH law. (New forum state can’t change the duration of the original order.)</p>
<p>A simple question: didn’t the OP state someplace back towards the beginning, that neither mom nor dad could afford all the tuition, etc? This leads me to believe that even with court orders, filling out info, etc, that dad may not be able to contribute much anyhow. So OP is in the same position as many of our kids…wanting to attend an expensive school, without the means to do so. If dad can only contribute $5K a year or less, even the government loans will not make a dent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Prohibited by whom - the New Jersey appellate court?</p>
<p>Illinois can do whatever the heck it wants - it can choose to follow the precedent set by other states, or not. But it certainly isn’t bound to do so.</p>
<p>^^^ Illinois HAS adopted and MUST conform its actions to the provisions of The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)! (This has been adopted in all 50 states since Congress said any state that doesn’t adopt it would lose federal funds - extortion works.)</p>
<p>The New Jersey case was quoted since it reads well and explains the topic briefly for the average reader and I didn’t have time to do an extended search for Illinois cases. However, the FEDERAL expectation, is summarized in the following from the Department of Health and Human Services Website.</p>
<p>“Choice of law. When a State properly assumes jurisdiction to modify, it must apply its own law regarding modification procedures and defenses.[66] It also applies its own support guidelines.[67] Pursuant to UIFSA, however, even if a tribunal has jurisdiction to modify a support order issued by another State, it cannot modify any aspect of the order that would be nonmodifiable in the State that issued the order established as controlling under Section 207 of the Act.[68] An example of a nonmodifiable term in most States is the duration of the support obligation.[69]”</p>
<p>[CHAPTER</a> 11: MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c11.html[/url]”>http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c11.html](<a href=“http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c11.html]CHAPTER”>http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c11.html)</a></p>
<p>So - since Florida law does not allow for college expenses to be assessed against a parent, Illinois is PROHIBITED by UIFSA from modifying the order to include them. While a circuit court judge can make any ruling he/she wants, the courts of appeal will follow such clearly indicated requirements - especially when the intention of Congress is obvious. </p>
<p>While our natural tendency is to be sympathetic to the student, the treatment for out of state orders under UIFSA is logical. Anything else would result in chaos given the differences in state policies concerning college expenses. Is it in the national interest to have people from the approximately 36 states that do not require college costs to be included in support decrees running across the border to modify the support orders? Congress thought not.</p>
<p>If you don’t like your state’s policy, lobby your state representatives. However, if anything in the current economic environment, the tide seem to be more towards repeal of such requirements than expansion to new states.</p>
<p>The topic of taking (divorced) parent to court to make them pay for college education was already discussed at nausea in another thread several months ago.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that even if eventually some money is awarded it can take years for it to happen. Moreover, given that OP stated that neither parent has enough money to pay significant sums of money anyway, the amount awarded will probably be miniscule. </p>
<p>What OP needs to do is to concentrate on persuading his father to fill out NCP. This might include sucking up to his dad and stop calling him and his wife names. If everything else fails, he also should see if he can get accepted somewhere where he can get significant merit aid.</p>
<p>I assume that the relationship between OP and his dad is really bad and it is understandable that OP’s father is resentful towards OP and does not want to do OP any favors. We don’t know the entire story. OP’s dad might very well be a deplorable person who kills puppies for fun. However, if OP does not try to fix relationship with his dad, he might end up with worse aid than if he fixed the relationship.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why does this remind me of my ex??? :D</p>
<p>FWIW, my now adult daughter has never forgiven her father for refusing to help her pay for college years ago, when he could well have afforded to do so.</p>
<p>I think the point we’re overlooking is that if the parents do not make sufficient money to pay for a “meet need” school, and the income is low enough that that the studen would have been given large institutional grants, the student will NOT be able to receive same unless the father submits the NCP form.</p>
<p>So while the op needs to plan for this possibility with schools that are a financial safety, they do need also need to find a way to convince the father to submit the form – just the NCP CSS – because without so doing there would be no chance to attend/receive a mostly-funded package. I realize it’s only the few ivies and a handful of privates that meet 100 percent of need, but it would be a shame if this student were
both capable of being accepted and eligible for generous funding to not
be able to attend over a piece of paper that would take dad about 10
minutes to fill out.</p>
<p>OP, you best shot at accessing nor of the 100% meets-need schools if you’re admitted is going to be to get that non-custodial form filled out, which means you need to convince your dad that the college board protects his privacy and that he too <em>may</em> benefit from doing it.</p>
<p>In my case, with my ex, who also initially refused to fill it out: I had little difficulty once he realized that he could in theory be required to contribute an enormous amount toward tuition and living expenses – but then again, my divorce stipulates that post-secondary education expenses are to be shared equally and that child support remains in place so long as my son is a student and is under the age of 23.</p>
<p>All of this will depend ultimately on which schools you’re accepted to and exactly how much money your parents both earn and the assets they possess – you also need to be aware that depending on the individual school and individual circumstances the outcomes could be very different, ranging from full funding according to their need formula to virtually nothing.</p>
<p>This is why it will be very important to keep a clear head and apply strategically to schools where yo might receive merit (eg not ivies, and places where you’re in the top of the applicant pool statistically), to affordable local options, to fafsa only schools, and then to the top ivies and private institutions with generous aid programs.</p>
<p>It’s easy to get sucked into the vortex of negativity around what folks “should” do, but it’s really important to keep a cool head and plan your success “despite” whatever parental support failures there might be. This is a great and defining time of your life and it’s ultimately on you to “cover” yourself so that you have a way to move forward and not get too distracted by the family disharmony.</p>
<p>And I am a bit familiar with the Uniform act which Chicago bear cites – he or she is dead on in his/her analysis, as your mom will ultimately hear from her lawyer. So please also realize that depending on how the fla agreement was written, you may not have legal grounds in Il to receive any educational expense support.</p>
<p>One further note – I will not ask you to elaborate on the broken arm if you do not want to publicly, but if there have been grounds of abuse that cause you fear in terms of dealing with your father and your lawyer cannot convince his lawyer and him to file the CSS NCP, preferably by oct., you can document these circumstances with third party verification to appeal to financial aid’s discretion whether or not the NCP is necessary/possible. There is a remote chance at some institutions they may take that into consideration – but it’s very remote, may make no difference, and really isn’t the place your focus should necessarily be. You can always ask fin aid fir guidance on this once you’re accepted.</p>
<p>Best wishes fir the best senior year and application process possible. We’ll be rooting for you!</p>
<p>It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but do not count on anything from him. Any ruling is completely within the discretion of the judge. You may not know how this turns out for a while. Even if he is ordered to fill out the form, getting him to actually do it and submit it in a timely fashion may be impossible.</p>
<p>And currently there is no way a non-custodial parent can file on CB without the custodial parent seeing the information (and vice versa). So that is a great incentive for him not to comply. It will be nearly impossible to force him to do so from so far away.</p>
<p>Life is full of challenges. Accepting this and moving on is your challenge. You are in a state with great in-state options. Focus on what you have in front of you, and what you can do, and put all your energy into that.</p>
<p>Divorce is not fair and judges don’t make it any fairer. This is hard and I am sorry you are going through it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So which is it - is the NCP data confidential, or not?</p>
<p>This is what the College Board says, and is my personal experience:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for that College Board list of colleges that require NCP info, very helpful.</p>
<p>I can’t believe the father would rather move child support jurisdiction to Illinois from Florida. Illinois applies flat percentages of the non-custodial parent’s income based on the number of children, whereas Florida applies proportions of what each parent earns. My ex-husband, who now lives in Florida, has been furious that he had to pay Illinois child support but his current wife in Florida receives much less because her income relative to her ex’s did not work in her favor.</p>
<p>Also, as a parent who has gone through the court system in Illinois to have college contributions awarded to my D, if Illinois can be used for jurisdiction, the fact that he pays child support for three younger children will be taken into consideration along with his low income. The statute is based on what the parent can afford, and the judge determines what the parent can afford.</p>