<p>It may even vary within the same family over time. My ex has always been willing to fill out the NCP paperwork, but he didn’t contribute a dime to D1’s college expenses. For D2 he has (so far) put in about 25% of her COA per year (sophomore now). I know this could end at any time, though, and have my own private plans in case it does.</p>
<p>I did not mean that would happen, just that it would be the worst case scenario if cooler heads don’t prevail.</p>
<p>FWIW, my 3 top choices (only one is hers) all only use my income, two safeties and a very high reach and I have no problem at all with the state school (she does). I don’t believe I ever said I was recommending that she pick a non-affordable school, but I am getting tired of being the way to keep reminding her that in the end, $$ will prevail while he continues to tell her that she has worked hard and we will all do whatever we can make sure she goes where she WANTS.</p>
<p><<<
I am getting tired of being the one to keep reminding her that in the end, $$ will prevail while he continues to tell her that she has worked hard and we will all do whatever we can make sure she goes where she WANTS.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Ahhh…so that’s what you mean by saying that you’ve been the one to be the “bad guy” and if she ends up wanting a pricey school and dad won’t pay his proportional share (since his household income will lessen aid), then he’ll be the “bad guy”. Sounds fair. Just make sure that you’re telling D now that your household income will likely yield an X family contribution that you’re willing to pay, but you can’t pay a portion of her dad’s. Do the schools that she’s applied to that use NCP info provide a breakdown for “family contribution”? or do they just give one big number </p>
<p>D is aware of how much I can afford to pay, its a number I gave her when we started the list, although it has been tweeked a bit and some will depend on the total cost itself. It approximates 15% of our take-home pay (and 30% higher than our estimated EFC) and doesn’t include any loans which I refuse to take for undergraduate school, but does include some budgetary sacrifices to make it happen. If he would match that percentage she’d have her choice of schools most likely. Instead, he’s opting for either a dollar for dollar match for him and I or split it in 3rds and have D use up all her summer work income and take out loans to attend the school of her choice. I, OTOH, want her to continue saving for grad school (as will I).</p>
<p>I’m not sure if there will be a breakdown in black and white but I’ve provided him a copy of my EFC. When the total number comes in it will be easy enough to determine. Suffice it to say, he called and said he as a bit devastated when he did his own numbers. I guess the EFC doesn’t really matter except to say that he isn’t going to pay that much, he has made that clear. </p>
<p>@NEPatsGirl </p>
<p>Your D has quite a bit in her savings…doesn’t that bump up your EFC quite a bit?</p>
<p>Also, I hope your ex understands that if your D uses her savings to make up the gap in Year 1, that money won’t be there to close any gaps in future years.</p>
<p>NE- bit of free advice which you of course can ignore- stop worrying about grad school.</p>
<p>If she wants a PhD, she will get funding. And if she doesn’t get funding, it is a nice way for a university to tell her that she’s not doctorate material. They will let her enroll but won’t bankroll her (a soft rejection.)</p>
<p>If she wants to go to law school, she will work like crazy to make sure she’s got the grades and the LSAT’s for either a nice merit award, or will find a law school with a generous public interest policy (loans get forgiven if she works in the public sector, public defenders office, etc)</p>
<p>If she wants business school, she will get a job after undergrad which offers tuition reimbursement. </p>
<p>Etc.</p>
<p>Focus on finding an option right now that won’t bankrupt you or destroy her relationship with her father (I know both things are hard to do under the circumstances). Once she’s 22 her perspective on money and career and her future will be so different from right now- don’t worry about that before she’s even enrolled in undergrad. Most grad students pay their own way and so will yours.</p>
<p>"When I got my notice in August that the support would be ending at age 18 I had to pull out those 17 year old paternity papers to find that it was a “silent” agreement; support past 18/college contribution had not been determined. Several phone calls to DOR and it was continued to age 21 and NCP was notified. He was under the impression that it would end at high school graduation and then he would contribute XXX to college, an arbitrary number he alone could decide on. When it became clear that his court- ordered support would continue, resentment unsued. He is now of the school that his commitment has been clearly laid out by the courts and he’s playing hardball with voluntary contributions.</p>
<p>I know what my EFC is, I can guess what his income and EFC will be (and once the packages start arriving it will be that much clearer) and if need be, we’ll have a come-to-Jesus, where he can be the “bad guy” if he so chooses."</p>
<p>@NEPatsGirl You are living in a fantasy world. </p>
<p>You had two basic choices: stay out of court and accept whatever voluntary contribution you and your shared D could convince him to give, or litigate and and take what the Court says you get. You went to Court, so YOU, not your ex, are the one playing hardball. He, in contrast, is complying with the order that you dragged into Court to get. If your shared D doesn’t like it, and if you don’t like it, that’s not his problem; your state Courts examined the question and came to an answer of exactly what he should contribute, and for how long, and that is that.</p>
<p>Getting sued for CS means you never have to, and never should, pay a penny more than the order requires. The Court Order is not flexible. Consider it to be set in stone.</p>
<p>“I’m not saying he has to pony up $50K a year so she can go to her choice of schools but unless he wants to be the one who prevents her from going to a reasonable school on her list and the catalyst for ensuring she ends up at the state school that she so vehemently does not want to attend, he should probably be looking at financial strategies to make it happen.”</p>
<p>That will not happen. Guaranteed. He will say, “Your mother sued me, the Judge determined I will support you X amount, and I will of course comply with the order. I didn’t get to choose the amount. Use the money wisely.” He will not be in the least perturbed by your trying to paint him as the bad guy.</p>
<p>“D and I rerouted the college priority list to add schools where NCP is not included, so there is now a nice mix with a wide net.”</p>
<p>Not D, you, and him?</p>
<p>“While we are working towards making a viable list, he gets remarried and increases his income by another $60K without any thought to how this affects the bottom line and is now even more surprised at the estimated figures.”</p>
<p>So he shouldn’t remarry? Or shouldn’t take the higher paying job? That’s not reasonable.</p>
<p>“I, otoh, have held off taking an offered position with much higher income for the moment.”</p>
<p>Your lost need-based aid would completely offset the higher income? That seems unlikely, but I don’t know your actual numbers, so I won’t say you’re wrong. But I do suggest you double check that.</p>
<p>“Add the fact that new wife isn’t really on board with paying too much OOP for college and we have a mess.”</p>
<p>Why should his wife pay anything for a child that is not hers and that she did not raise?</p>
<p>“One that I am NOT willing to go to court to fight about at this late stage.”</p>
<p>Too late, according to your other post you already DID go to court to fight about this: “Several phone calls to DOR and it was continued to age 21 and NCP was notified. He was under the impression that it would end at high school graduation and then he would contribute XXX to college, an arbitrary number he alone could decide on. When it became clear that his court- ordered support would continue, resentment unsued.”</p>
<p>“I am getting tired of being the way to keep reminding her that in the end, $$ will prevail while he continues to tell her that she has worked hard and we will all do whatever we can make sure she goes where she WANTS.”</p>
<p>Your position: $$ will prevail.
His position: We will all do whatever we can.</p>
<p>Presuming your statement does not mean she must go to the least expensive school, but instead means that where she goes is realistically limited by the available money… it sounds like you two have the exact same position, but stated in different words.</p>
<p>OP: divorced and separated parents should, and in most states do, have the exact same obligation to send their children to college that married parents with intact families have: no legal obligation whatsoever. I have never seen a persuasive argument why the law (in the minority of states) should treat married parents differently from divorced parents in such matters. If John’s parents are divorced and Jane’s parents are married, the courts should get no say whatsoever, in either case, in their parents supporting them after they turn 18.</p>
<p>Dividing into two households is expensive. You need two of everything where once you needed only one: home, car, insurance, utilities, appliances, &c. ad infinitum.</p>
<p>And divorced/separated parents are likely to have available money in inverse proportion to the amount of litigation there has been.</p>
<p>The best way to get the NCP to contribute whatever they can to college costs is to keep them a fully involved and active equal parent. You need to start that long before HS. You cannot reduce or cut off contact year after year and then expect them to willingly pony up $$. You cannot estrange parent from child (or even allow them to drift apart) and then flip a switch and make them feel parental.</p>
<p>@NEPatsGirl </p>
<p>Your child’s bio dad has to pay child support til D is 21. How much is that a month? Will he consider THAT amount to be his “college contribution”??? Or will he match what you contribute PLUS pay the child support.</p>
<p>If your ex pays the CS and matches your contribution, they how much would he really be contributing each year?</p>
<p>@fccdad I don’t think @NEPatsGirl was ever married or in a romantic relationship with the father of her child. So, there never was a 'splitting of assets" and now there are two households…I think there always were two households.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well now I’m offended! My ex is mentally ill, 2 years behind in court ordered child support for our youngest, and hasn’t paid a dime toward our educational expenses for our daughter (junior in college) for nearly 3 years. I am right now petitioning for NCP waivers on the Profile, successfully so far. </p>
<p>@Snowdog, your case seems extreme. Nothing could be done.
But I dont think @NEPatsGirl is going about it right.</p>
<p>No generalizations can be made. </p>
<p>But there are always at least 2 sides to every story. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>@FCCDAD </p>
<p>I can understand your position, but when you think about it, the divorce courts do that for many things, not just college costs.</p>
<p>No married parent is ordered to spend $XXX a month towards their child’s upbringing. And certainly no married parent is ordered to spend an amount that is proportional to their income…but that’s what happens to a divorced parent.</p>
<p>Case in point…I know of a woman who while she was married was virtually the sole supporter of their child. The H contributed virtually nothing to the child’s direct costs… He was extremely cheap…selfish…wouldn’t even put the child on his company insurance because of the extra cost to him…so wife had to pay a much higher rate to cover their D thru her job.</p>
<p>BUT…once she divorced this selfish jerk, lo and behold, the courts ordered the H to have to pay CHILD SUPPORT and ordered to provide health insurance…something he had managed to largely avoid WHILE married. Hmmm. This may be an extreme example (and I also know of another rather similar case), but when you consider that there are MANY cases where a high income NCP may not be willing to spend extravagantly on his children WHILE MARRIED, will find himself suddenly ordered to spend a few grand a month on his children…maybe as much as 30% of his income. Yet, we both know that no court is ordering married parents to spend XX% on their kids…right?</p>
<p>Courts can order that divorced parents need to provide orthodontist treatments, but they’re not ordering married parents, right? Courts can order divorced parents to provide all kinds of things. I know a non-Catholic divorced parent who was ordered to take his kids to Mass on Sundays (his weekends). No married parent would be ordered to do that. lol (the court had determined that the couple had agreed to raise the children in the mom’s faith, and therefore the NCP was ordered to continue when the kids were with him for Visitation.) The dad didn’t complain that he had to do this, he considered it part of his parental duties, but I’m just using this as an example of one of the MANY things courts can order divorced parents to do that married parents aren’t. </p>
<p>The big difference, of course, is that in my example John and Jane are legal adults. Parents are legally obligated to support and care for their minor children, married or not; but parents typically do not have any obligation to support or care for their adult offspring.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>True, but I think these college-support rulings are often indicated when it can be demonstrated that the NCP would have paid if the marriage had not ended…particularly if there had been contributions to college savings accts. </p>
<p>As much as people may think that parents shouldn’t have to help pay for college, the whole college/college-aid situation would completely break down if parents’ income wasn’t considered.</p>
<p>All we have to do is look at grad schools to see what would happen if parent income wasn’t evaluated for aid. Aid for grad schools is almost always merit-related…there isn’t much/any need-based aid for grad school since most have EFCs that are quite low.</p>
<p>People would have paid for college if the marriage had not ended - so what? Maybe they would have bought a new car if mom had not lost her job. But she did lose her job, so the court should not be able to force them to buy the car anyway. The marriage did end, so it doesn’t really matter what they might have done if it hadn’t. It did.</p>
<p>I’m not saying schools should not be able to consider parents’ income when determining need. I’m simply saying that courts should not be able to legally force unmarried parents to financially support adult offspring when they can’t do the exact same thing to married parents.</p>