<p>You have one of those situations that does not fit in the “four corners” of the FAFSA form. I agree with the advice to try the dislocated worker route and see if your state, or perhaps your Marital Settlement Agreement gives you any wiggle room. But your best bet is to prevail on the discretion of the financial aid office. Most financial aid offices will use “professional judgment” to consider extenuating or mitigating circumstances. </p>
<p>Consider an in-person visit to show how serious you and your child are about making this school your top choice - the message you’ll deliver is “If you guys can make the numbers work for me, we’re coming.”</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<ul>
<li>Andy Lockwood</li>
</ul>
<p>Why, after years of struggling to feed, clothe, house, and raise their children single-handedly, often while qualifying for federal means-tested benefit programs, should the custodial parent have to worry about being denied the chance to receive federal aid due to a non-supportive NCP’s income? These are the very people that the Pell program was designed to help!</p>
<p>I don’t think that is what Pell was designed for. I think Pell was designed for low-income families (including 2 parents). An NCP refusing to help is no different from married parents refusing to help.</p>
<p>Roman, you do not necessarily marry the whole family in marriage. Why do you think there are prenups? Anyone who is marrying with a lot of baggage and assets is advised to get a prenup. Every single one of my friends who have remarried have had prenups so that there is no misunderstanding and automatic laws don’t step into the picture to spoil however you want to plan your finances. It is financial planning. </p>
<p>However, financial aid does not care what the prenups say, or what the divorce agreements say, or any documents, for that matter. A private school can take into account anything they please in determining need. 401 K–usually exempt, but you had better believe if it is big nest egg, that will be taken into consideration, and some schools are even using it formulaically. Your other children’s assets, not exempt either. These are things that you need to know.</p>
<p>True, no one is forces to pay for college. And we are not talking about being forced. Just discussing what the rules in place are. They are not all fair. If you are lucky, you may fall into a neat loophole that was not recognized. I have friends, to their great glee, who have. It’s easier, however, to fall into a pitfall that might have been avoided by more careful planning. </p>
<p>Most of the time, it doesn’t make that much difference, at least in FAFSA based monies. Colleges with their own fin aid apps can ask for whatever info they want and take whatever consideration they want. I have seen some generous exemptions and some unreasonable constraints, in my opinion. That’s why it is wise to cast a wide net if you need that money.</p>
<p>Much of this is unfair, when you realize that an 18 year old who is an adult in terms of contractual commitments is still treated as a dependent of his parents whether he is or not, in terms of college funds. A kid who has parents who refuse to fill out the forms or has the money and won’t pay, is left with little recourse in terms of getting money for school. The kid who has the parents who have made education a high priority, has set aside the funds, is willing to pay the cost, participate in the application process, has the money is so much more ahead of the game. </p>
<p>There are a large number of kids who get no aid, no chance for aid because their parents refuse to fill out forms, fill them out incorrectly, do not get them completed in time. Fair? There’s no fair in that.</p>
<p>Roman, you do not necessarily marry the whole family in marriage. Why do you think there are prenups?</p>
<p>Prenups are usually set up to determine asset splits in case of divorce or in case of death (to insure that the original family’s assets (not necessarily all) will fairly get distributed to the original children. That may seem to contradict my argument, but there are good reasons for this.</p>
<p>Say my H dies, I am now the sole owner of everything we have. Then, I remarry. I need to insure that a portion of my assets goes to my kids when I die (not all, but a fair share). If If didn’t do that then if I were to die after I remarried, my second husband could (if he wanted to) direct everything to his own children when he dies (completely cutting out my children of any money/assets that their parents accumulated). This does happen, sometimes unintentionally if the last parent living dies without a will. At that point, only his heirs would get everything.</p>
<p>I think FAFSA and maybe CSS say that they don’t give a rats patootie about any prenups that have to do with not paying for college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are prenups for a whole host of reasons. mom2 covered it pretty well. </p>
<p>I still think you marry the whole family. It’s a package deal- all or nothing. You don’t marry the man and ignore the kids. A person with kid comes with strings attached. If you marry someone with kids, you take on the responsibility of having kids that are now technically yours too, just not by birth. That’s my position on it.</p>
<p>Further…</p>
<p>No one has to get remarried. A person who doesn’t want to “share his income” with his new wife and her kids, doesn’t have to marry someone with dependent kids under 24. And, someone with such kids doesn’t have to marry someone who would refuse to help with college.</p>
<p>The problem is that FAFSA and PROFILE want those assets that you want to pass onto your kids from your first marriage to go towards your new spouse’s kids’ college expenses. </p>
<p>I agree that no one has to get remarried or even married. However, a lot of folks don’t realize that despite prenups and other agreements, getting married can affect financial aid. The same occurs with divorce. Just because you agree to limit your responsibility for college as per divorce agreement, does not mean that the colleges are going to honor that agreement. It means absolutely nothing to them. And I agree that it should work that way. It’s more that people should know this. </p>
<p>I know someone who ended up married to someone with a whole lot of property that had been in the family for years. The man has grown children, and the land will go to them upon his death, and a prenup to that effect was put into place. The income is modest, but for FAFSA schools, that property is considered an asset that can be sold or used as collateral for loans. Yes, that can affect any step kids’ financial aid prospects. Especially if the property is not a primary residence. And yet, clearly, something like that should not be expected to be used for college costs for steps upon a second marriage. </p>
<p>Timing can be an issue with this. My friend’s daughter is marrying a man with a child from a previous marriage. He is in elementary school. She will have known the child for 10 years or so by the time he applies to college, and by then there will be some relationship, I would think. And she knows that in marrying this man, she is taking responsibility for raising the child. </p>
<p>It’s less clear when marrying someone with a late teen. There is a good chance that there will be little contact with an older child. If the student is already in college, the marriage will immediately be hit with becoming part of the financial aid formulas, often for a child that is already out of the household. That’s why it is important for the family to know that , like it or not, if the student is eligible for financial aid, the marriage could result in his losing that aid, the money expected to come from the new spouse. Something that may not occur to any of the parties since that child is not featuring largely in the relationship.</p>
<p>The sad thing here is that the non-custodial bio parents get off scott free… SAD!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>M2CK, are you saying that single parents with children do not constitute low income families? If there is a NCP, s/he is legally no longer part of that family! Pell is designed to aid low income families, but quite correctly they do not include the NCP as part of the family unit! Custodial parents often have little recourse to collect even child support…if the feds want to go after the NCP for recovery of Pell benefits, as the states do for recovery of medical benefits, that’s fine. But to put the burden on the low income custodial parent or worse, the student, would be wrong. That is certainly not what the Pell program was designed for.</p>
<p>The two married parents who have income/assets but refuse to help are in a vastly different position. Again, that is their choice but most federal grants are funded to help low income families.</p>
<p>*M2CK, are you saying that single parents with children do not constitute low income families? If there is a NCP, s/he is legally no longer part of that family! Pell is designed to aid low income families, but quite correctly they do not include the NCP as part of the family unit! *</p>
<p>What I meant was that when Pell was introduced in 1965, it was intended for low income families, which at the time were mostly 2 parent families, because there weren’t many single parent families then. Your post implied that it was designed for “after years of struggling to feed, clothe, house, and raise their children single-handedly, often while qualifying for federal means-tested benefit programs, should the custodial parent have to worry about being denied the chance to receive federal aid due to a non-supportive NCP’s income? These are the very people that the Pell program was designed to help!” </p>
<p>That said, the way Pell is used it is corrupted when the NCP is upper middle class or affluent. A student can get full Pell, while also having an NCP with a good income who has been continually involved with a child’s life… That’s a bit crazy. There was a thread here a while back of such a child. She lives equally with both parents, but was using her low income parent to qualify for full Pell, while the other affluent parent was willing to pay her college costs. </p>
<p>I think that when an NCP has been in a child’s life and has been financially supportive, his income should be treated like married parents’ income.</p>
<p>But to put the burden on the low income custodial parent or worse, the student,</p>
<p>The burden is no different from the child of married parents who refuse to pay. And, a low income custodial parent is not under any obligation, either.</p>
<p>When the NCP is financially supportive his support is definitely considered in the EFC calculation. The people that Pell was designed to help are low income families…I don’t think it was ever specified that a family had two working parents and there have a significant number been single parent households for a very long time. A low income custodial parent simply doesn’t have the choice of whether to support their child’s educational goals. Many work multiple jobs and neglect their own needs to be able to do to so and put food on the table. As DoE studies have repeatedly demonstrated, it’s not likely that the child of such parent(s) has had the same life, education, or opportunities as the child of higher income, married parents (who apparently can’t bring themselves to sacrifice their lifestyle to support their child’s education). It’s unfortunate that some people tend to judge the majority of Pell recipients by the few who qualify on technicalities…no federal program is without flaws, or cheaters, but that is almost always statistically insignificant. Meanwhile, it is in society’s best interest to attempt to educate and train low income students, both to access that labor pool and to break the cycle of poverty.</p>
<p>mom2collegekids, </p>
<p>According to this <a href=“http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf[/url]”>http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf</a> in 1970, 3.5 million US households were headed by single parents of which 3 million were headed by women and .5 million by men (See page 7). Furthermore, about 12 percent of all kids lived in a single-mom household in 1970 and 1 percent in a single-dad household (Page 8). Those aren’t kids who <em>ever</em> lived in a single-parent household before age 18yo, that’s a snapshot number. Given that single-parent households are disproportionately represented among the poor and among ethnic and racial groups more likely to be poor, I think we could conservatively estimate that about 25% of all poor U.S. kids were living in single-parent households in 1968. </p>
<p>So while I agree that there are more kids living in single-parent households now than when Pell Grants began, I think the number has always been significant and didn’t escape detection. The truth is that the vast number of people we would hurt if we required NCP information on Pell Grants is students because most Pell Grant recipients do not have a rich dad somewhere willing to subsidize their college.</p>
<p>Yes, that can be a loophole that FAFSA offers. If the custodial parent is in a financial situation that makes the student Pell eligible, it does not matter what how well off the NCP is for FAFSA/PELL based funds. Now, the custodial parent has to include child support and other payments received from the NCP on the FAFSA. But, yes, a single parent left pretty much high and dry by the spouse and in poor financial shape, can get college money for his/her kids via FAFSA methodology from PELL and sources that use FAFSA , despite having an ex spousse NCP with ample financial resources.</p>
<p>Maybe I am being obtuse, but why would someone, middle aged and with children, feel any great urgency to marry someone with the financial aid snafu that results? Could you not be engaged until children graduate from college? Am I missing something here? I am all for the young newlywed scenario, young families, 20 somethings marrying for the first time, blah blah, but the whole “I won’t pay for your kids’ college” would be such a thorn in the second, middle-aged marriage that maybe it would be better for all just to be boyfriend and girlfriend! Just my 2 cents. I personally think marriage is a legal institution designed to ensure joint responsibility for financial obligations and little else.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Oh, I agree. That was an early point that I made. People don’t HAVE to remarry. People who don’t want to have their assets mixed in, can stay single or only marry those with kids over 24. People who have young children can avoid marrying those who don’t want their income/assets included. It’s a choice. NO one is forced to remarry.</p>
<p>*But, yes, a single parent left pretty much high and dry by the spouse and in poor financial shape, can get college money for his/her kids via FAFSA methodology from PELL and sources that use FAFSA , despite having an ex spouse NCP with ample financial resources. *</p>
<p>True…but my point is that a child who has married parents that won’t pay is in just as bad of shape. We see that all the time on CC. Many kids have married parents that have said, we won’t pay anything. Those kids are in a bad shape, too.</p>
<p>*When the NCP is financially supportive his support is definitely considered in the EFC calculation. *</p>
<p>No, it’s not. Child support often ends at 18. And, a NCP who has been financially supportive up to age 18 is not included in EFC after the first year because child support has ended. He can be affluent, involved, and not be expected to contribute one thin dime after 18 in many states.</p>
<p>In that case, he is no longer financially supportive, right? Unless there are other children, in which case child support is still reported, as is alimony. The situation you describe, a student becoming Pell eligible solely because the child support ends, is probably fairly unusual. It’s much more likely that the student is Pell eligible because the NCP either won’t or can’t pay his support, if he’s even in the picture at all. In any case, until the government sees fit to set better standards to determine support and actually enforce them, Pell qualification rules are better left to those who understand what actually happens to low income students in America today.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>He may or may not be financially supportive, but that’s no different than when married parents refuse to contribute. If he has been supportive in the past, then he should be treated like a married parent.</p>
<p>mom2collegekids,</p>
<p>I think you’ve obviously never been divorced. The point is that children and exspouses have very little control over the actions of NCPs. A married couple normally has some control over common $ and some ability to make joint decisions. That is broken in a divorced family. So insisting that a parent who is not contributing be seen the same as a parent who is in the household, parenting his/her child is reducing parenting to almost a biological definition. In most cases, a ncp who doesn’t contribute to his child’s college either 1-can’t (in which case gathering info from him doesn’t matter) or 2-doesn’t care (in which case nothing you do will make a difference). </p>
<p>Some of the other points brought up by other posters are true: that there are often remarriages, new spouses, additional children, prenups and second houseshold expenses to take into account. But, for the majority of divorced kids whose ncp parent refuses to help, the issue is that when some people ‘move on,’ they don’t look back-- and there are plenty of kids in single-parent households who have non-custodial parents who don’t do what they should for them (parents who didn’t visit when they should have, didn’t show up for school events or even graduations, didn’t remember birthdays or didn’t send Christmas gifts). Trying to get a parent like that to provide for COLLEGE is better tackled by God, not mere mortals. If a ncp <em>wants</em> to contribute to his child’s education, he can-- with or without a piece of paper-- and those contributions would be listed in the FAFSA.</p>