I know that in some divorces one of the parents can be held responsible to pay for the child’s education.
I am looking for the judical reasoning behind this that makes it legal.
Obviously a child who is over 18 is not entitled to be supported by his parents, so what is the reasoning behind allowing this.
I am not looking for if this is wrong or right just how the law looks at it to arrive at this conclusion.
There’s no “judicial” reasoning involved at all. Child support is a creature of legislation. So go ask your local state representative.
Actually, I thought one of the triggers was the federal formula for figuring “ability to pay” on the student aid form (the FAFSA).
When funds are limited, the government (and schools) have an interest in separating out kids with legitimate need (no means for paying for education) versus those whose noncustodial parent has considerable assets.
Er, obviously it would have been important for me to add that even if 18 is the age of majority, for the purposes of financial aid calculations you’re not considered independent automatically at 18. You can go through some process to decalre yourself as such, but it’s for special cases.
I believe that for some professional schools, family resources are also taken into account–even though those applicants are significantly older than 18.
When a child becomes an adult at the age of 18 they no longer have custodial parents, do they? I don’t mean to turn this into a great debate but this kind of confuses me. Are young adults entitled to a college education paid for by their parents?
Marc
Entitled or not, the income/assests your parents have are counted against you as far as financial aide goes. Which really sucks for those of us whose parents don’t pay any portion of the cost.
IANAL and your jurisdiction may vary, but in Wisconsin child support is generally not expressed in terms of “paying for education” or broken down into categories of expenses (education, housing, etc.). Where we often see specific expenses mandated is in the area of health insurance, where one parent or the other (or both) is required to maintain health insurance coverage for the child through age 19 (19 is chosen because most/all health plans in Wisconsin cover dependent children through the end of the year they turn 19).
When a child becomes an adult at the age of 18 they no longer have custodial parents, do they? I don’t mean to turn this into a great debate but this kind of confuses me. Are young adults entitled to a college education paid for by their parents?
Marc **
[/QUOTE]
Well, I am borrowing the language of the federal government, here, in using “custodial parent.”
As far as I know, no child is “entitled” to a college education paid for by their parents. HOWEVER, any person under the age of 24 who wishes the federal government to chip in based on need has to follow the federal guidelines, which is generally that all family assets will be considered. This also includes step-parents. Even if the step-parent signed a prenup, say, declaring that they wouldn’t be in any way responsible for the child’s education.
Quote: “Prenuptial agreements are ignored by the federal need analysis process. After all, two individuals (parent and step-parent) cannot make an agreement between them that is binding on a third party (the federal government). The federal government considers the step-parent a source
of support regardless of any prenuptial agreements to the contrary. If a step-parent marries the parent, he or she is considered responsible for supporting the parent and children even if he or she is unwilling to do so.”
Pretty surprising, huh?
This isn’t set in stone–a student under 24 can, in fact, demonstrate independence. Or, they can just choose to pay for it themselves without going through usual aid channels. I don’t know that anyone has a legal “right” to parental help for college (for example, I doubt you could sue for this.) But federal financial aid policies clearly feel otherwise when it comes to loans and grants that they’ll kick in based on need. It is my understanding that institutions use the same general standards even if it is their own need-based funds they are offering.
Under current US law the answer is no. Unfortunately the law also holds the parents responsible for a financial contribution.
Sounds confusing? It works like this: suppose you’re eighteen, ready to start college, and your folks had a nasty divorce. You apply for federal financial aid.
Your parents don’t have to submit their tax returns, but unless they both do then you won’t qualify for a cent of assistance.
If they do submit their tax returns they don’t have to chip in, but unless they do you’ll have to come up with a lot of extra cash. That’s a tall order when the government has already considered all your assets and earning potential.
Did I mention that the cost of a university education has risen at twice the rate of inflation since 1980?
So you decide to establish yourself as financially independent. A generation ago that was easy enough: get a job for a year and support yourself. The law has changed. Now (if my memory serves) there are only three options: get married, serve a stint in the armed forces, or wait until your twenty-fifth birthday.
I don’t know whether divorce orders to pay for a child’s education ever get imposed without the consent of the parents, but it’s one of the issues that often gets written into amicable settlements.
I want to keep this as a general question. I do KNOW that in cases where the parents are divorced one or BOTH can be held responsible for paying for a child’s college education.
I also know that if the parents are married or widowed the child has NO option.
A child is an adult at 18 and his parent do not have to support him.
I remember from my school days there is a reason BEHIND this like a child from a BROKEN hom is more likely to wind up a charge or something along that lines, that would compel the judge to require the parent to give money to a child even though they are adult.
I’m not really looking for Financial aid, though I know from friends there are many ways of getting around it.
In other words if a child from a divorced parent can compel a parent to pay for his education post high school, why not one from a two parent or widowed household.
I know lots of divorced kids where this was in the settlement. But I also know of a lot of parents who say after 18 your own your own. You want college get a job.
I’m looking for the reasoning behind this…
Like woman can’t be drafted cause they can get pregnant. Whether or not that is correct that is the reason behind it. (I’m just using this as an example of what I’m looking for) Thanks