It makes you pay for the education of your adult offspring? I can’t see that passing a constitutional challenge.
It strikes me as odd too, but it is there.
And, of course, it would involve a requirement that the custodial parent spend $X or X% of the household income, since the money from the check goes into the general funds of the household.
In the other thread I was arguing pretty strongly that non-custodial parents as a general rule should be required by the state to hold some level of responsibility for their children. However, the questions posed by this OP are part of why I find the current method of child support problematic.
Having the state determine what level of income a child “should” be brought up in is a task frought with hypocricy. I’m not sure what the solution is, but I have major moral and philosophical issues with the way things work now.
It is in the Massachusetts divorce decree as well. What do you mean by adult offspring? For the purposes of divorce, your children aren’t considered full-fledged adults at 18. It goes at least into their early 20’s in some states.
Hmmm. When you say “early 20s”, you mean 21, right? It can’t be more than that.
But still, do some states consider people “minors” up to the age of 21? You can’t kick your 20 year old kid out of the house? And you have to pay for his college if you get divorced?
That’‘s outrageous. That gives a ridiculous advantage to the children of divorce, since no married couple is required by law to pay for their kids’ college education.
Yes. But not directly. Go look up any instance of child neglect. There’s the order that they spend a certain amount (not a sum certain, but rather passing some qualitative threshhold) on the child or loose him/her/them.
States have general police powers to make you do anything they wish. That it’s being done in the care of a minor child is just icing on the constitutional cake.
Offset, of course, by the fact that two separate family units now paying two separate set of family expenses is invariably going to degrade the child’s standard of living.
Typically, you are only ordered to pay college expenses if you’re capable of doing so. They’re not going to get some minimum-wage working parents to pay for it.
Relevant to the thread. Veteran made redundant by AT&T jailed in Georgia for failing to keep up with child support payments. He has 39c in his bank account.
Why not? what constitutional provision do you think it infringes?
The constitutional right to toss your children out the door when they hit 18.
Ah, yes, Amendment 26.1, which followed quickly on the heels of the 26th Amendment re voting age; also known as the “Empty Nest Amendment.”
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.”
How does that apply?
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?
To better answer the OP, the court derives its power from the legislature to enforce divorce decrees. I know that seems like a smarmy answer, but typically divorces can be very acrimonious and you could end up with a “You pay, no you pay” situation unless the court stepped in for the best interests of the child.
Does it always make sense? No. In my state, divorcing parents must take a parenting education class before their divorce is final. Everyone I talk to believes that this makes perfect sense. Maybe it does.
However, why do two morons with 65 IQs who have a child, never get married, and then split up, not have to take a parenting class? I mean, a 13 year old girl can have a baby without instruction, but a 45 year old man with a 16 year old son needs to take a class in order to get a divorce. How can the courts do this? Our elected representatives told them they can.
Although I believe the general idea that women are off spending child support on whatever they want and ignoring the child(ren) is based on rare exceptions, a specific court-ordered/agreed to expense like college would almost always something that the non-custodial parent could pay directly and ensure is not falling into hands of the other parent. Something like college simply does not provide backdoor alimony the way you are talking about.
Outrageous or not, it’s very common in divorce decrees, and generally applies until the child finishes college, even if the “child” is older than 21.
To prevent the child from turning into a lifelong student, the decree might specify that the child has to be continuously enrolled, maintain a minimum number of credits, and/or specify an upper age limit to finish the decree (such as 24 or 25).
I don’t think that applies - isn’t it criminal only? Calder v. Bull allows retroactive taxes, for example.
Around here we even took care of the issue of married/divorced disparity. As per a state SC ruling, as long as the offspring is continuously enrolled and sustaining satisfactory progress to completion in college or techical school, it is a parental obligation to support (within their means; student should avail of financial aid if offered) past the 21st birthday to graduation/certification, no matter marital status of the parents. The case was justified under the Commonwealth Constitution’s provision of a Right to Education and quite a few of us were left scratching our heads over it, to be honest.
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?