If courts in some states can order non-custodial parents to pay college tuition to their children, how come the custodial parents cannot be forced to pay tuition?
If the custodial parent(s) can, in fact, be forced to pay tuition when a child is receiving child support, how come parents cannot be forced to pay tuition when they are not divorced?
When parents have gotten divorced, courts are already involved so it’s not as much of a stretch for courts to force one parent to pay tuition.
Rightly or wrongly, courts/legislatures/etc. have perceived a problem with divorced dads not helping to pay for their kid’s college tuition. (I remember a friend of mine in high school whose parents were divorced getting really upset because she sent her dad her financial aid forms, and he filled in “0” as the amount he was willing to contribute.)
Of course, this may strike you as unfair. As a non-divorced dad, I could refuse to pay for my kids’ tuition and nobody could do a thing. Why should that change if I get divorced? But that’s a question for Great Debates . . .
I am pretty intimately familiar with how it worked in 1987 in Illinois, which was when my dad had me subpoenaed to testify against my mom on this very issue. Basically, in Illinois the theory is that the law should protect kids of divorced parents to ensure that they have the same opportunities that they would have had if the parents had stayed married. If parents have a brain in their head when they get divorced, they hire a lawyer who ensures that the kids’ education is provided for in some reasonable way, with an enforceable decision-making process. Unfortunately, what happens all too often is that one parents (in this case, my mom) can’t afford a decent lawyer, so hires one she can afford, who then writes a crappy contract which basically says “both parents shall contribute according to their ability,” while completely leaving out any mention of who gets to decide what each parent’s ability to pay is, and based on what criteria.
Result: Dad thinks that although he makes roughly 4 times what Mom does (and her income was about enough to cover tuition, room, and board at any of the schools I was accepted to, unfortunately leaving nothing for herself for rent or food), splitting down the middle is a fair resoution.
Yes, it may at first blush seem unfair that non-divorced dads (or moms, for that matter) can theoretically get off scot-free. However, when you get divorced, and you have kids, the court has to approve your divorce decree, which means you have just involved the state in the parenting process, for better or for worse. And I think it’s in the public interest for someone to be watching out for the kids, who all too frequently get caught in the post-divorce crossfire. With college costs these days, if you don’t help your kid financially to the extent that the school thinks you’re able, you’re screwing him big time; it’s unrealistic to expect a kid to be able to put himself through any school fancier than a local community college while living at home; financial aid officers don’t generally give a damn if Dad isn’t willing to help out, which is why I didn’t go to Georgetown or U. of C. (They thought he should kick in around $10 k a year; to be polite, let’s just say that Dad disagreed.) And I can’t say that I blame them; they’d just be penalizing some equally deserving student whose parents happen to be able to treat each other and their offspring in a more civilized manner. Plus, parents lie; a college friend of mine said he’d told the financial aid office he had no conact with his dad since he was 2, and they gave him grants based on that premise, while in reality his dad was helping him to the tune of several thousand dollars a year.
Anyway, enough for now; it’s past 3 am, and I’m tired, and this is a subject about which I am extremely bitter.
One parting thought for the moment, though: courts can’t normally force non-divorced parents to spend any specific amount on their kids for food, clothing, or shelter, either, and yet child support paid to custodial parents is supposed to cover all this and is mandated in very speciifc amounts. Why should college tuition be any different?
This baffles me. College tuition SHOULD be different, because you’re an adult at 18, and the other payments stop (is this incorrect?) Lots of people make it through college without their parents’ help.
The other payments don’t necessarily stop. Much is dependent on what was agreed in the original divorce decree. For example, my dad was also obligated to keep me and my sister on his health insurance as long as we were full-time students, or until age 23.
And sure, lots of people make it through college without their parents’ help. That’s usually because a) the parents can’t spare the cash, or b) the kid has some kind of academic or discipline problems. Dad, however, was earning 6 figures, and I made straight A’s in honors and AP classes, and his parents put him through an Ivy League school on much lower earnings, even after he was on academic probation and had to go to another school for a semester to bring his GPA back up. I don’t know of many cases where still-married parents are easily able to afford to help out their kids, who are top students and generally well-behaved kids, and don’t. Those situations tend to be ones with divorced parents, so why should the kids get screwed because the parents can’t act like adults?