# Can courts dictate how much money parents spend on their kids? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340 "2010-12-16T06:57:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/41 "2010-12-21T16:22:19Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > This is the theory, and if the courts had any interest in enforcing this, I could see the logic behind it. However, all they care about is that Daddy pay Mommy his child support payments. Whether that money is passed on to the child in the form of an “upper class lifestyle” the court could care less. > > It is perfectly legitimate for the father to pay an enormous amount of child support, yet the mother provide the child with the bare minimums to keep from running afoul of the law. > > This is where I have a problem with the logic, and feel that this whole idea is just a charade to provide back door alimony for ex-spouses. If courts and child advocate groups really cared about the child keeping his or her standard of living, wouldn’t they set up some sort of trust or come up with another enforcement mechanism to make sure that this money gets to the child instead of the ex-wife? It’s exceedingly complicated and inefficient, especially given the limited judicial resources there are, to track down child support payments and ensure that they’re used for the child’s benefit as opposed to strictly the custodial spouse (and I say strictly because there’s the “rising tide lifts all boats” part of having child support money be used by the parent if it’s not directly spent on the child) It’s not some back door dishonesty. It’s just really taxing to control it. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/42 "2010-12-21T16:26:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. I’ll admit that my understand of Bills of Attainder (which is what I was thinking of) is, shall we say… less than optimal. 🙂 > > It would seem to me that forcing one adult to provide material support to another specific adult must violate some aspect of the constitution. What difference does it make if the latter adult is related to the former? What does it mean to be an adult if you can lay claim to another person’s assets? > > Due process? You’re missing the fact that it’s the adults themselves running to court looking for a court to settle a dispute (namely, the divorce). In for a penny, in for a pound. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/43 "2010-12-21T16:27:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Due process? That’s probably where I would challenge it, were I to challenge it. I honestly haven’t thought about it much, though. The main reason I would pick that is to annoy the bejeezus out of textualists, though. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/44 "2010-12-21T16:29:22Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > You’re missing the fact that it’s the adults themselves running to court looking for a court to settle a dispute (namely, the divorce). In for a penny, in for a pound. That doesn’t work, though, as a person can file for divorce on their own, bringing the other person into the court system without their consent. It isn’t an arbitration, it’s a court proceeding in which one is entitled to due process and equal protection. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/45 "2010-12-21T16:32:50Z")
> [@villa](#): > > That’s probably where I would challenge it, were I to challenge it. I honestly haven’t thought about it much, though. > > The main reason I would pick that is to annoy the bejeezus out of textualists, though. 🙂 I’m not getting your joke. Do textualists insist that “due process” can mean “anything the state wants to do”? I don’t think capriciousness counts under a textualist ruling, and this strikes me as exceedingly capricious. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/46 "2010-12-21T16:33:15Z")
> [@villa](#): > > That doesn’t work, though, as a person can file for divorce on their own, bringing the other person into the court system without their consent. It isn’t an arbitration, it’s a court proceeding in which one is entitled to due process and equal protection. What due process is being violated? They’re being given notice and opportunity to be heard as to why they shouldn’t be made to pay for their kids’ college. And where is the (dis)equal protection? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/47 "2010-12-21T16:35:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not getting your joke. Do textualists insist that “due process” can mean “anything the state wants to do”? I don’t think capriciousness counts under a textualist ruling, and this strikes me as exceedingly capricious. As an answer to **Rumor\_Watkins** as well, it would be the concept of substantive due process, which makes textualists wet their panties, which would be used for such a challenge. I don’t think it would necessarily work, though. There isn’t an EP problem here, **RW** , but I was saying that it is a court proceeding not an arbitration, so it requires EP & DP. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/48 "2010-12-21T16:40:48Z")
> [@villa](#): > > As an answer to **Rumor\_Watkins** as well, it would be the concept of substantive due process, which makes textualists wet their panties, which would be used for such a challenge. > > I don’t think it would necessarily work, though. > > There isn’t an EP problem here, **RW** , but I was saying that it is a court proceeding not an arbitration, so it requires EP & DP. Apparently it was EP grounds that the PA supreme court used to strike down the post-minority support rules Curtis v. Kline, 666 A. 2d 265 ¶ ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/49 "2010-12-21T16:43:24Z")
Interesting - let me rephrase a little. I don’t see an EP problem here, and wouldn’t challenge it under that. I don’t necessarily see a DP problem here either, but if **John Mace** wanted to retain me, I’d probably challenge it under that, at least until his money ran out. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/50 "2010-12-21T16:46:58Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Interesting - let me rephrase a little. I don’t see an EP problem here, and wouldn’t challenge it under that. I don’t necessarily see a DP problem here either, but if **John Mace** wanted to retain me, I’d probably challenge it under that, at least until his money ran out. Don’t get your hopes up, pal. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/51 "2010-12-21T19:29:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It would seem to me that forcing one adult to provide material support to another specific adult must violate some aspect of the constitution. What difference does it make if the latter adult is related to the former? What does it mean to be an adult if you can lay claim to another person’s assets? But if that’s the standard, alimony and support would also be unconstitutional, correct? Since the courts order one adult to pay support to another adult, based on the former spousal relationship. And what about tort law, where one party has injured another adult party and is required to pay major sums in compensation, to support the injured party? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/52 "2010-12-22T01:23:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. I’ll admit that my understand of Bills of Attainder (which is what I was thinking of) is, shall we say… less than optimal. 🙂 > > It would seem to me that forcing one adult to provide material support to another specific adult must violate some aspect of the constitution. What difference does it make if the latter adult is related to the former? What does it mean to be an adult if you can lay claim to another person’s assets? > > Due process? As **Northern Piper** has pointed out, there are many, many instances where an adult can lay claim to another person’s assets – tortious liability, contractual debts, damages for breach of contract, etc, etc. Most of these are founded on relationships far less intimate and far more transient than either marriage or parenthood. It’s a no-brainer that in marrying someone you accept obligations which are more than likely to involve your assets and income. And, as we know, these obligations do not necessarily disappear when the marriage terminates. Pretty much the same is true of begetting a child. And there is nothing written in the heavens which says that your obligations to your child terminate the day he or she attains age 18, or age 21, or any other age. While such a rule would be attractively simple, real life is not so straightforward. Your obligations to your child depend on your circumstances, and your child’s, and the circumstances of other relevant persons. By and large, the courts only get involved in identifying and enforcing these obligations when relationships break down. That’s because experience tells us that this is when they _need_ to get involved. As long as relationships are functional, people can generally work out and respect their own obligations better than a judge can. (And – guess what? – this is true of contractual obligations too.) You don’t want to have obligations to your children? Easy-peasy; don’t beget any. But once you take that step, then you have obligations towards your children, and you don’t always get to determine what they are unilaterally. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/53 "2010-12-22T03:35:53Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Pretty much the same is true of begetting a child. And there is nothing written in the heavens which says that your obligations to your child terminate the day he or she attains age 18, or age 21, or any other age. Are you saying that if your 35 year-old son needs money for, e.g. surgery, he can take you to court to pay for it? Or, can the state force you to pay for his medical expenses? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/54 "2010-12-22T03:40:57Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > As **Northern Piper** has pointed out, there are many, many instances where an adult can lay claim to another person’s assets – tortious liability, contractual debts, damages for breach of contract, etc, etc. Most of these are founded on relationships far less intimate and far more transient than either marriage or parenthood. > > It’s a no-brainer that in marrying someone you accept obligations which are more than likely to involve your assets and income. And, as we know, these obligations do not necessarily disappear when the marriage terminates. > > Pretty much the same is true of begetting a child. And there is nothing written in the heavens which says that your obligations to your child terminate the day he or she attains age 18, or age 21, or any other age. While such a rule would be attractively simple, real life is not so straightforward. Your obligations to your child depend on your circumstances, and your child’s, and the circumstances of other relevant persons. > > By and large, the courts only get involved in identifying and enforcing these obligations when relationships break down. That’s because experience tells us that this is when they _need_ to get involved. As long as relationships are functional, people can generally work out and respect their own obligations better than a judge can. (And – guess what? – this is true of contractual obligations too.) > > You don’t want to have obligations to your children? Easy-peasy; don’t beget any. But once you take that step, then you have obligations towards your children, and you don’t always get to determine what they are unilaterally. But there is an age limit. No state says you have to support your adult child indefinitely. Every state draws the line somewhere. I’m just surprised it’s not 18 or 21. ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/55 "2010-12-22T04:03:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But there is an age limit. No state says you have to support your adult child indefinitely. Every state draws the line somewhere. I’m just surprised it’s not 18 or 21. Most states do draw the line at 18 or 21. [Here](http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16441) is a comprehensive chart outlining the differences in states laws. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/56 "2010-12-22T04:08:50Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Are you saying that if your 35 year-old son needs money for, e.g. surgery, he can take you to court to pay for it? Or, can the state force you to pay for his medical expenses? Not necessarily, no. I’m saying that there’s no bright line at age 18 or 21 after which you have no material responsibilities to your children, and certainly nothing in the US Constitution which would have that effect. But it doesn’t follow that you are indefinitely responsible without limit of amount or duration for all your children’s needs. The extent of your (legal) responsibilities, and the mechanisms for enforcing them, are matters for the legislature, in which the legislature would do well to reflect community standards. As matters stand, most states take a largely hands-off approach, with formal legal intervention only when family relationships publicly break down, and imposing financial obligations to children only when, broadly speaking, it is reasonable for children still to regard themselves as financially dependent - e.g. they’re still in full-time study, at an age when it is common and reasonable still to be in full-time study, they are disabled, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/57 "2010-12-22T05:45:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But there is an age limit. No state says you have to support your adult child indefinitely. Every state draws the line somewhere. I’m just surprised it’s not 18 or 21. > [@Amasia](#): > > Most states do draw the line at 18 or 21. [Here](http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16441) is a comprehensive chart outlining the differences in states laws. It’s not that cut and dried. Many states also recognize that parents have an obligation to provide support to adult children with disabilties, both mental and physical. See this [companion chart](http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4261). ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/58 "2010-12-22T06:43:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Northern Piper > > Why not? what constitutional provision do you think it infringes? > > The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.” A Bill of Attainder is a law passed declaring that a particular person is guilty of a particular offence. It originated in England, when the King would simply have Parliament enact an Attainder, bypassing all that messy courts business. Typically the offence stated in the Bill was treason, leading to the execution of the person named in it. An ex post facto law is a criminal law which retroactively creates a criminal offence, criminalising activity which was lawful when it occurred. Neither of those situations is occurring in the case of a statute setting out a parent’s obligation to provide support for a young adult child in education. The parent is not being found guilty of any offence, and if the law was already on the books prior to the application for support being brought to the court, then there is no retrospective effect. ---
**Author:** ![Obsidian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/51bf81/32.png) [@Obsidian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Obsidian)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340/59 "2010-12-23T09:39:28Z")
I imagine part of the college requirements are related to federal financial aid policies. Until you reach a certain age (I think it’s 24), you need to provide your parents tax returns when applying for financial aid. You’ll then be told your “expected family contribution.” If your parents tell you to piss up a rope (as is their legal right), well, no college for you before 24. I’ve seen this bite people pretty bad. My old roommate did a work study in the financial aid office and used to tell me horror stories. The truth is, the most common scenario was divorced fathers not contributing what the gov’t said was their share-- or outright refusing even the tax returns (in which case you can get no financial aid of any kind, at all). It was pretty rare for someone’s married parents to refuse. I’m not surprised it worked itself into divorce law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-courts-dictate-how-much-money-parents-spend-on-their-kids/564340.md?page=2)