This is not a new scenario. We had this same discussion in a thread a few years ago re parental obligation past 18. In NY state for example in certain circumstances the parents can be on the hook for a kid’s college education up to and past the age of 21.
Unlike George Bush’s America, or Bill Clinton’s, or…
It hasn’t been reasonable to assume that one could make an independent living at 18 for most of my lifetime, and I’m in my mid-40’s.
I don’t really have a comment on the story itself, other than this girl sounds like a cunt.
I just wanted to express my amusement at the “RELATED” links interspersed throughout the story:
The first links to the same story, from a day before.
The second: DAD SUES SHRINK OVER NOT TAKING SON TO MCDONALD’S
The third: BROTHER SUES BROTHER OVER ACCUSATION OF ATTEMPTED MURDER
And the fourth: TEXAS FAMILY OF PREGNANT, BRAIN-DEAD WOMAN WILL SUE
I think the OP is not really appreciating how long the parental apron strings remain attached even after a person is living and earning independently. Becoming independent is a process, it’s not an event.
I remember a bank manger asking me for my parents details a few years back when I applied for a loan. At the time I earned more than either.
The problem is not parents providing income in addition to the child getting financial aid. The problem is parents who could and would provide income but choose not to because their kid can get financial aid.
I’ve heard but not verified stories of children getting emancipated just to be able to not have to include their parents’ income. I’m also pretty sure the requirement doesn’t count if you get married.
Why is that a problem? If they choose not to that’s their choice and their right. They have no more obligation to provide income than you or I do.
Indeed, the default assumption in the college financial aid process is that the student is still dependent up to age 24 and that the parents are responsible for contributing to the student’s college expenses.
There are certain circumstances in which parental contribution is not assumed: the student is married, homeless, orphaned, in foster care, or a ward of the state.
Students can apply for a dependency status override but financial aid offices rarely inform students of this option.
Failing this dependency status override, students have had to seek out abusive or mentally ill parents to gain their cooperation in applying for financial aid even if the student is over age 18, self supporting, and not listed as a dependent for tax purposes.
So you expect the every college in the country should do a criminal investigation on every student who says that their parents are not supporting them? I guess that would be good for the economy by vastly expanding the forensic accounting market. But it doesn’t seem very feasible or practical. What will happen instead is that the pool of money available for financial aid will be depleted rapidly by those that don’t really need it.
It’s a problem because the student cannot necessarily exclude the parent’s income and/or assets in applying for financial aid.
Student A applies for financial aid and is unable to get a dependency status override. His parent refuses to contribute towards college or living expenses. Student A’s financial aid package is weighted more heavily to loans and he is unable to receive need based scholarships and grants based upon the assumption that the parent will contribute towards expenses. Student A completes his education while working to support himself full time. His studies suffer and he ends up very heavily in debt.
Student B applies for financial aid and gains a dependency status override. His need is assessed based upon only his own assets and income. His aid package is weighted more heavily towards need based scholarships and grants. Student B completes his education with less debt and was able to focus more time on his studies.
I don’t think this part is necessarily true. One of my best friends has two teenagers. One is a fairly average to slightly above average student, well behaved and mostly good kid. The other one is failing most classes, barely passing the others, screws up, cuts class and does stupid things. Kids were brought up with the same rules and same parents.
I don’t think the parents are necessarily responsible if the person they brought up does stupid things.
Of course not, that’s ridiculous. That would be as reprehensible as the police routinely searching houses just in case they have stolen property. You don’t do an investigation unless there’s good reason to suspect something is going on, like the student living in an apartment he shouldn’t be able to afford.
I think you’re misunderstanding my question. BigT is saying excluding income of parents who don’t provide income to their adult children is a problem because parents might choose not to provide income to their adult children. I’m saying your student A should be treated the same as your student B. BigT seems to think student B should be treated like student A.
The parent’s income does not belong to the adult student, nor is it owed, so it should have no more bearing on the students financial aid than any other relative or friend’s income. If a parent (or anyone else for that matter) does choose to contribute regularly to the student, then that should be considered, but only the amount actually contributed, not what someone else thinks the parents could afford.
Sure. And how do you expect to know that without an investigation? The registrar is just supposed to know? Relying on snitches? But then you would have to investigate to verify.
So, guilty until proven innocent? If they have no reason to suspect they have no reason to suspect.
Massachusetts too. Getting a divorce usually ups the age of required support to at least 22 or the age that the child finishes post-secondary education. Married parents can legally cut their kids off at 18 but not divorced ones. Each parent has to pay equal shares for whatever post-secondary school the child decides to attend plus associated support expenses.
You are making no logical sense.
There is absolutely no way they can suspect. They don’t have the ability to suspect. How can they even attempt to verify? The registrar is only taking in forms. If the default is assuming no parental support then 99 out of 100 applications will have “zero income, no parental support.” What happens then? Without an investigation the finite money for needs based programs will be spent by those not in need. In the real world how do you expect it to work?
Here it is 18 unless they go to college. And the college has to be mutually agreed upon. She is not going to Princeton without some serious scholarships. I have to help pay for college but I’m not expected to live in a cardboard box. With Princeton tuition I’d be lucky to be able to afford a cardboard box.
It doesn’t, and I knew two people in college who entered into a lavender marriage to take advantage of that.
Then they should be legally treated as a minor. Voting, drinking, etc.
College has never been a guaranteed right for any kid. Parents pay for college if they can afford it. If you have three kids then there probably isn’t enough money to send all 3 to college. Parents do the best they can, but there is only so much that a low income family can do. A lot of high school graduates enter the work force because there’s no money for college.
Thats another reason this lawsuit is so crazy. For some brat 18 year old to sue and demand that the parents pay for college? What makes her such a special little snowflake?
They have no ability to suspect because they have no reason to suspect. In all probability there is nothing to suspect. They have no more business attempting to “verify” the student’s parents aren’t supporting them than they have “verifying” the student doesn’t have barrels of cash from manufacturing blue meth buried somewhere in the desert.
When I started college you could sign a form saying your parents weren’t supporting you when applying for aid. It was the real world then, and it worked fine. Sure, there wasn’t enough money available for everyone, but at least everyone had a chance to get aid. Right now, in the real world, there are bright students who have nearly zero chance of getting aid because of this ridiculous rule.