Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, but in that particular case, the child was still in high school. My neighbor found himself on the hook to support his son through his college years at a private college in NJ. The judge refused to drop the support requirement as long as the kid attended school. It wasn't until he had been attending for 6 years, managing to avoid whatever class he needed to claim his degree, the the court finally let my neighbor off the hook and told the kid to grow up.
Parents being required to "support" college aged students happens regularly in my state but there is always a qualification about maintaining a certain GPA and with the hard limit of the year they turn 23. Additionally, "support" is limited to the expected family contribution via the FASFA calculations and is split between the parents according to the support decree. Health insurance coverage is also typically stipulated but I have never heard of anything else being covered. I suspect what happened to your is not the norm.
And to be honest, I have no issue with it especially since regardless of the parents willingness to pay, their income counts against the students ability to get loans, scholarships and grants. I had a student last year who got into an IL, and had an expected family contribution of slightly over 10K to be split evenly between the parents. Additionally he had saved 2K of his own money for his freshman year and his father, unhappy with this cost, called me, his teacher on my home phone, to try to get me to convince him to go to the local community college. When I refused he hung up on me. I am shocked the young man turned out as wonderful as he did.
Does it really matter? The money must be sent, regardless of the name it's addressed to. I don't know what the panty bunching is about. If there isn't a court order of support for the child, then the money issue is moot.
First of all, if the divorce was in another state, the laws of that state take precedence.
Secondly, the mother does not have to send the kid to college and the payments will stop then.
Parents being required to "support" college aged students happens regularly in my state but there is always a qualification about maintaining a certain GPA and with the hard limit of the year they turn 23. Additionally, "support" is limited to the expected family contribution via the FASFA calculations and is split between the parents according to the support decree. Health insurance coverage is also typically stipulated but I have never heard of anything else being covered. I suspect what happened to your is not the norm.
And to be honest, I have no issue with it especially since regardless of the parents willingness to pay, their income counts against the students ability to get loans, scholarships and grants. I had a student last year who got into an IL, and had an expected family contribution of slightly over 10K to be split evenly between the parents. Additionally he had saved 2K of his own money for his freshman year and his father, unhappy with this cost, called me, his teacher on my home phone, to try to get me to convince him to go to the local community college. When I refused he hung up on me. I am shocked the young man turned out as wonderful as he did.
You are talking about student aid. This occurs when parents want financial assistance with college.
In no state is a parent required to send their adult children to college.
If the custodial parent decides on a school for the child, he or she can continue to receive child support from the spouse in some states (if the divorce was done in that state).
So what it looks like is your daughter started lashing out at you after your divorce. Did you ever get family therapy when this monstrous change came over her?
Here's the thing though - you're not saying you did anything wrong or owning up to any mistakes. That makes me suspicious as to what kind of household your daughter was being raised in.
Your daughter sounds like she's either mentally ill, has a personality disorder or is incredibly frustrated and freaked out about her future. I just don't buy the whole "I'm a poor well-meaning parent victimized by a monster child and the state laws!" Stuff like your daughter's behavior doesn't come out of nowhere, and while you've talked about how awful she is to you, you have said nothing about what you've done to address it in the 5 years since her big personality change. What have you done in terms of counseling, therapy, discipline or bonding with your kid?
But the "how" you got to this point is really what you need to be thinking about. Because unless your daughter is mentally disturbed in some way, your relationship with her did not become so poisonous and toxic solely through her efforts.
I'm not buying the story either. Children do not just turn out bad, they usually have a lot of help in that process. All of these pages of people telling the OP to basically kick her kid to the curb are horrible. Get some therapy and attempt to re-build a relationship with your daughter, because that is the right thing to do.
Looks like the OP, and many others, are making stuff up (or have trouble with reading comprehension- for those that do, please look up the legal meanings of domicile and child support payments before commenting on this).
And, yes, the age of majority is 18 in Massachusetts.
Last edited by Just A Guy; 01-20-2016 at 04:12 PM..
Looks like the OP, and many others, are making stuff up (or have trouble with reading comprehension- for those that do, please look up the legal meanings of domicile and child support payments before commenting on this).
I think you might be the one with comprehension issues. From your link:
Massachusetts Sec. 208:28 allows a court to render a judgment for children between 18-21 domiciled in the home of a parent, and principally dependent upon said parent for maintenance. A judge can, under certain circumstances, make orders of support for children enrolled in educational programs who have attained the age of 21 but who have not attained the age of 23. Courts will consider the need and capacity of the child for education, including higher education. Doe v. Roe, 585 N.E.2d 340 (Mass.App.Ct. 1992).
New Jersey Sec. 2A:34-23 states that parents have a duty to support their minor children. However, the court had jurisdiction to entertain a motion to modify the original judgment of divorce to award a payment of support and expenses of a child attending college even though the child had reached the age of majority. The court found that there is no fixed age when a child becomes emancipated. Wanner v. Litvak, 433 A.2d 445 (A.D. 1981).
I think you might be the one with comprehension issues. From your link:
Massachusetts Sec. 208:28 allows a court to render a judgment for children between 18-21 domiciled in the home of a parent, and principally dependent upon said parent for maintenance. A judge can, under certain circumstances, make orders of support for children enrolled in educational programs who have attained the age of 21 but who have not attained the age of 23. Courts will consider the need and capacity of the child for education, including higher education. Doe v. Roe, 585 N.E.2d 340 (Mass.App.Ct. 1992).
New Jersey Sec. 2A:34-23 states that parents have a duty to support their minor children. However, the court had jurisdiction to entertain a motion to modify the original judgment of divorce to award a payment of support and expenses of a child attending college even though the child had reached the age of majority. The court found that there is no fixed age when a child becomes emancipated. Wanner v. Litvak, 433 A.2d 445 (A.D. 1981).
Parents have been required to continue support payments for college students. In black and white.
None of this has anything to do with the OP, since her daughter appears headed for the military anyway.
You don't know what you are talking about. Like I said above, please read up on what child support means.
Also, please read the article that you posted. "A better indication of emancipation than age is self-sufficiency. As long as a child depends upon the parents—primarily, but not exclusively, financially—the payor has a support obligation. If the court finds that the child has moved beyond the “sphere of influence” of her or his parents, the child is emancipated."
All a parent has to do is kick the kid out and quit supporting her financially.
You don't know what you are talking about. Like I said above, please read up on what child support means.
Also, please read the article that you posted. "A better indication of emancipation than age is self-sufficiency. As long as a child depends upon the parents—primarily, but not exclusively, financially—the payor has a support obligation. If the court finds that the child has moved beyond the “sphere of influence” of her or his parents, the child is emancipated."
All a parent has to do is kick the kid out and quit supporting her financially.
In case you don't get it, 2% of students are generally considered emancipated, without means of parental support.
Are you using that article to support your argument that the mom would legally be required to continue to financially support her daughter if her daughter, as an adult of majority, made the independent decision to go to college?
If you are, you would be wrong again.
Do you understand that this article is about financial aid from the government and loans from other sources and has nothing to do with a parent being required to support a kid after he or she reaches the age of majority?
Do you understand that all the mother has to do is to kick her out of the house and she is emancipated?
Do you realize that the 2% number is because 98% of parents voluntarily decide to contribute to their college age kids further education goals?
You are both leaving out a key component here. The divorce decree. Many divorce decrees now have stipulations relating to college support. That is where it is primarily dealt with in my state, first in the divorce court as part of the decree and then in the family court for modification.
I think the issue comes with the verbiage of "child support". In my state it is not called that, but referred to as college expenses. It ONLY goes to court IF and only if the parents cannot agree. So if one parent is willing to pay college costs and the other is not, then they can go to court and have the court decide how, who and for how long the child will be supported in college. Unless the OPs ex is willing to pay for half the college costs, and takes her to court, she likely will not have to pay anything. The basis for this is that if the family were intact they would work out an agreement, so the court evens this out.
The notion that the child can take their parents to court and sue for support is unfounded. In a married parent situation, there is no basis for a child to sue for college support so the idea that the money goes to the child is also unfounded.
"If divorced parents can’t agree, the decision on whether or not a parent should pay for college costs will rest with a court. In New Jersey, there’s a strong trend towards requiring parents, if they are financially capable, to pay for college expenses."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
