# Please explain the law that would force parents of a 21 year old to pay college tuition. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 15, 2014, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730 "2014-11-15T22:00:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/21 "2014-11-16T01:34:21Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Wouldn’t Northern Piper have a good constitutional argument? Yes, the payee in this case is my offspring, but why does that matter? If they are over 18, they are legal adults and my obligation has ended. Because, in New Jersey, at least, your obligation hasn’t ended. Per New Jersey law and case law, there are circumstances where an adult still owes support to a child over 18. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/22 "2014-11-16T01:42:18Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I’ve been looking for a test case to challenge these laws and/or decisions as being unconstitutional. How can the government simply take money from one adult and give it to another? Imagine a situation where a court ordered, say, **Northern Piper** , without any contract or tort damages, to simply pay me $5,000. > > Wouldn’t Northern Piper have a good constitutional argument? Yes, the payee in this case is my offspring, but why does that matter? If they are over 18, they are legal adults and my obligation has ended. How are divorce decrees in any way unconstitutional? They are, in essence, a contract both parties agree to. As long as there is nothing illegal about the contract the contract stands. The child’s age of majority doesn’t matter. If the divorce settlement says you give the kid $100/month till she’s 65 then that’s what you have to do. ---
**Author:** ![Edward\_The\_Head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ce73a5/32.png) [@Edward\_The\_Head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edward_The_Head)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/23 "2014-11-16T01:54:00Z")
The state of Maryland is starting, or has for the last four years at least, to require the parents to pay for health insurance until the child is 26 or they get their own insurance. The catch is that the parent who has the insurance is the one who will be required to pay for the insurance so one parent’s responsibility is done at 18. When I went through my divorce college was not brought up. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/24 "2014-11-16T02:19:52Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I’ve been looking for a test case to challenge these laws and/or decisions as being unconstitutional. How can the government simply take money from one adult and give it to another? Imagine a situation where a court ordered, say, **Northern Piper** , without any contract or tort damages, to simply pay me $5,000. > > Wouldn’t Northern Piper have a good constitutional argument? Yes, the payee in this case is my offspring, but why does that matter? If they are over 18, they are legal adults and my obligation has ended. I’m not sure why you see that as outrageous. Your obligations have ended because the law says so, that’s all. There’s no inherently obvious reason why it must absolutely be this way. You give birth to a child, you have obligations towards him that in some juridictions stop when he reaches majority, and in others extend beyond. It makes perfect sense that you could have to provide for his education, within your means. Even though I’m not aware of any place where it’s the case, it would make perfect sense that you would have to take care of him for the lenght of his natural life if he was unable to (severely handicaped, for instance). Deciding where exactly your obligations stop is arbitrary. Reaching 18 doesn’t make him a complete stranger, like in your example. He’s still the person you gave birth to, and society can pretty much think your obligations shouldn’t stop there. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/25 "2014-11-16T03:09:03Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > But since the daughter isn’t a party to the contract, couldn’t the parents just amend it now and not pay anything? She’s an intended beneficiary. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/26 "2014-11-16T03:31:11Z")
> [@Edward\_The\_Head](#): > > When I went through my divorce college was not brought up. And my lawyer advised me to avoid the topic altogether. Do I intend to pay for my kid’s college? Sure. Do I want some contract out there that REQUIRES me to do so? No way in hell. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/27 "2014-11-16T03:43:06Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I’ve been looking for a test case to challenge these laws and/or decisions as being unconstitutional. Please cite the part of the Constitution you think is somehow violated here. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/28 "2014-11-16T12:41:42Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Because, in New Jersey, at least, your obligation hasn’t ended. Per New Jersey law and case law, there are circumstances where an adult still owes support to a child over 18. But the law treats people differently solely because they chose to divorce. In NJ, do married couples owe their 18 year old child a college education? If no, then why should it be a requirement for a divorced couple?\* \*Absent a contractual arrangement. I agree that if upon divorce the couple agreed to provide such an education then it should be enforceable. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/29 "2014-11-16T12:46:04Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Please cite the part of the Constitution you think is somehow violated here. Off the cuff: 1. Equal Protection–the choice to marry is a fundamental liberty interest. The law treats people differently because of this choice. 2. Due Process-- a) takes money from the non-custodial parent and transfers it to another adult without a contract or a tort being committed. b) care, custody, and control of children is a fundamental liberty interest. Troxel v. Granville. The government is making the choice of _how_ my funds provide for the care of my now adult children ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/30 "2014-11-16T13:09:45Z")
Not sure why everyone keeps mentioning divorce settlements, there is no indication that is what allows this situation in this case. Instead, this is simply a fact of New Jersey law, based largely on _Newburgh v Arrigo_ which has already been cited in this thread. Repeat, not the result of a divorce settlement. It does not matter if the parent’s divorce settlement makes a provision for tuition or not, it is a matter of New Jersey law that you’re entitled to tuition from divorced parents. This is actually common throughout the country, but New Jersey’s situation is unique. Throughout much of the country, the laws governing child support basically say that if you have divorced parents and one of those divorced parents is paying for an 18-21 year old kid’s college education that the other parent is required to help pay. Typically you could find yourself continuing child support payments until the child is 21. For people who are over 21 but taking longer to finish college it gets murkier. This case is only news worth for one reason: while divorced, the two parents are in lock-step agreement on the matter, they do not want to pay college tuition to a child that refuses to talk to them or even acknowledge their existence. In virtually all other cases where lawsuits like this has happened, it’s been with one parent suing the other to force the other parent to help pay college tuition. In most other States in the country this situation could not occur. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/31 "2014-11-16T13:34:33Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > But the law treats people differently solely because they chose to divorce. In NJ, do married couples owe their 18 year old child a college education? If no, then why should it be a requirement for a divorced couple? Married parents are not required to provide anything above the bare minimum. You don’t have to buy your child toys, cloth your child in more than an old sack, or do much of anything to ensure growth and success, such as providing an education. But normal, good parents do much more, including paying for college. We have a long history of requiring normal from divorced couples rather than minimum, both for offspring and for a spouse who was dependent on the other’s income. You may argue that all forms of mandated post-divorce support are wrong, but this particular manifestation is not all that special. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/32 "2014-11-16T13:35:00Z")
I know that when I applied for student loans if you were under 22, unmarried and not a veteran then they concluded that you’re parent provided support. The fact that I was living on my own and didn’t get any money from my parents didn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/33 "2014-11-16T13:43:12Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Married parents are not required to provide anything above the bare minimum. You don’t have to buy your child toys, cloth your child in more than an old sack, or do much of anything to ensure growth and success, such as providing an education. But normal, good parents do much more, including paying for college. We have a long history of requiring normal from divorced couples rather than minimum, both for offspring and for a spouse who was dependent on the other’s income. You may argue that all forms of mandated post-divorce support are wrong, but this particular manifestation is not all that special. I do think that mandating those other forms are wrong, but we’ve slugged that out in other threads. This law is different in that it mandates support for adult children of divorced/never married couples. It’s arguable that other forms of child support are simply a realization of what regular parents would do for the child but might not because Dad is bitter at Mom and doesn’t want to pay. With college education this goes out the window: Dad can write a check to the college if he wants without the need to go through Mom. The bitterness isn’t there; no need for fact finding by the Family Court; the willingness of Dad to pay for college is evidenced by whether or not the college got the check. And I agree that laws can change. Tomorrow the legislature could say that the age of majority is 30 and that all parents must provide college and health insurance to their “children” under that age. But to say that only divorced or never married parents must provide that support and that happily married couples can boot the kids out on their asses and watch them starve on the streets at age 18 extracts a financial burden on one or both parents solely because of their marital choice. That strikes me as unconstitutional. I don’t know if it has ever been argued before in court. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/34 "2014-11-16T13:51:45Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > This case is only news worth for one reason: while divorced, the two parents are in lock-step agreement on the matter, they do not want to pay college tuition to a child that refuses to talk to them or even acknowledge their existence. In virtually all other cases where lawsuits like this has happened, it’s been with one parent suing the other to force the other parent to help pay college tuition. > > In most other States in the country this situation could not occur. But for the divorce, no court would have jurisdiction to hear the case. The NJ court has taken a cause of action stating “I want to no longer be married to him, please help me do that” into a full scale hijacking of the parties rights to raise their children, and now their adult children, as they see fit. I agree that if the parents are financially able, and the child has shown progress in his or her education, that it is a good and positive thing to provide tuition for your children. But since have we mandated what is good social custom or what someone just oughta do? If we go down this line, family courts will be mandating bedtime story reading and fathers playing catch with sons. People have the right to be downright shitty human beings so long as they are not subjecting their children to abuse or neglect. This shouldn’t change simply because two people never married or don’t want to remain married. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/35 "2014-11-16T14:15:36Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > But for the divorce, no court would have jurisdiction to hear the case. The NJ court has taken a cause of action stating “I want to no longer be married to him, please help me do that” into a full scale hijacking of the parties rights to raise their children, and now their adult children, as they see fit. Wrong. At best, it’s unclear if a court would have jurisdiction in the absence of a divorce. I previously posted this link. > [@](#): > > [NJ teen Rachel Canning agrees to dismiss lawsuit against her parents - nj.com](http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/03/case_ends_as_nj_teen_agrees_to_dismiss_lawsuit_against_her_parents.html) Rachel Canning was suing her still-married parents for private high school tuition as well as college tuition. She voluntarily dismissed the case , so there was no final decision but it wasn’t dismissed for lack of jurisdiction , even an the point where the judge denied an emergency order. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/36 "2014-11-16T14:15:55Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > You give birth to a child, you have obligations towards him that in some juridictions stop when he reaches majority, and in others extend beyond. It makes perfect sense that you could have to provide for his education, within your means. Even though I’m not aware of any place where it’s the case, it would make perfect sense that you would have to take care of him for the lenght of his natural life if he was unable to (severely handicaped, for instance). Deciding where exactly your obligations stop is arbitrary. Reaching 18 doesn’t make him a complete stranger, like in your example. He’s still the person you gave birth to, and society can pretty much think your obligations shouldn’t stop there. This is actually a very good statement of [NJ law](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7859429993948270286&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr). From Newburgh v. Arrigo, 443 A. 2d 1031 (NJ 1982): > [@](#): > > Generally parents are not under a duty to support children after the age of majority. Nonetheless, in appropriate circumstances, the privilege of parenthood carries with it the duty to assure a necessary education for children. Frequently, the issue of that duty arises in the context of a divorce or separation proceeding where a child, after attaining majority, seeks contribution from a non-custodial parent for the cost of a college education. In those cases, courts have treated “necessary education” as a flexible concept that can vary in different circumstances. > … > In the past, a college education was reserved for the elite, but the vital impulse of egalitarianism has inspired the creation of a wide variety of educational institutions that provide post-secondary education for practically everyone. State, county and community colleges, as well as some private colleges and vocational schools provide educational opportunities at reasonable costs. Some parents cannot pay, some can pay in part, and still others can pay the entire cost of higher education for their children. In general, financially capable parents should contribute to the higher education of children who are qualified students. In appropriate circumstances, parental responsibility includes the duty to assure children of a college and even of a postgraduate education such as law school. > > In evaluating the claim for contribution toward the cost of higher education, courts should consider all relevant factors, including (1) whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed toward the costs of the requested higher education; (2) the effect of the background, values and goals of the parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education; (3) the amount of the contribution sought by the child for the cost of higher education; (4) the ability of the parent to pay that cost; (5) the relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course of study sought by the child; (6) the financial resources of both parents; (7) the commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education; (8) the financial resources of the child, including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust; (9) the ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation; (10) the availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans; (11) the child’s relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance; and (12) the relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to the overall long-range goals of the child. Note that the court cites divorce as a frequent impetus for proceedings of this kind, but it is not described as a necessary precondition. In other words, in appropriate circumstances, the same requirements could be applied to non-divorced parents (eliminating any equal protection argument). ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/37 "2014-11-16T14:52:23Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Wrong. At best, it’s unclear if a court would have jurisdiction in the absence of a divorce. I previously posted this link. Rachel Canning was suing her still-married parents for private high school tuition as well as college tuition. She voluntarily dismissed the case , so there was no final decision but it wasn’t dismissed for lack of jurisdiction , even an the point where the judge denied an emergency order. I think he’s more right than wrong, but it’s not settled law in New Jersey. The Canning case was going against the daughter early, whereas this case never did–because in this case it was clear that Newburgh applied since the parents were divorced. New Jersey in general seems to be a bit of an outlier on this issue. I think most, maybe even all, States require the “non-custodial” parent to continue paying child support until the child is 21 if that child is enrolled in college. [Aside: Like **jtgain** I even disagree with this, the concept of a custodial/non-custodial parent should cease when the child reaches majority, and each parent should be free to decide on their own what financial relationship they have with their adult offspring.] But New Jersey is an odd ball in that its Supreme Court has established a State constitutional right essentially for tuition support from divorced parents, and that can apply in many cases where it would not in other states. For example in cases where it’s not a matter of child support since both parents are declining to pay tuition, in most States the child would have no actionable grounds. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/38 "2014-11-16T15:18:55Z")
I understand the court’s reasoning, but it has no logical end. Assume financial ability and a child who is conducive to a college education. This court would seem to hold that such support, after the age of majority, is appropriate. No arguments there. The court would go one step further and mandate it. That, I disagree with. But let’s continue down that road. Suppose an 18 year old “child” doesn’t go to college, but has no goals in life and wants to eat Doritos and hang out in his parents’ basement. Whatever else you might say about the kid and the corrective behaviors he needs to make about his outlook on life, he does need food, shelter, and medical care, right? Are we going to mandate that the parents provide that? Surely a college education is no more a necessity than food or shelter. So why shouldn’t those same parents be required to provide food and shelter? The same arguments apply at age 19, 20, 21, 22, 23…etc. What if the kid gets his act together at age 32 and decides he wants to go to college. Should the parents still be required to pay? After all, part of getting his act together and getting a good job requires college at age 32 just the same as it did at age 18. Further, college is just the starting point. He must then get an entry level job in his profession, get experience, and move up the ladder. Should the parents be required to support him during this process if the entry level job doesn’t allow him to pay his bills? Paying rent is just as important as the college education. At what point is he on his own and the parents off the hook? The “necessity” argument as applied to a college education would have no logical end. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/39 "2014-11-16T16:25:11Z")
Well this lower level court in New Jersey has to follow NJ SC precedent either way, though. ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730/40 "2014-11-16T16:42:01Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I understand the court’s reasoning, but it has no logical end. Assume financial ability and a child who is conducive to a college education. This court would seem to hold that such support, after the age of majority, is appropriate. No arguments there. > > The court would go one step further and mandate it. That, I disagree with. > > But let’s continue down that road. Suppose an 18 year old “child” doesn’t go to college, but has no goals in life and wants to eat Doritos and hang out in his parents’ basement. Whatever else you might say about the kid and the corrective behaviors he needs to make about his outlook on life, he does need food, shelter, and medical care, right? Are we going to mandate that the parents provide that? Surely a college education is no more a necessity than food or shelter. So why shouldn’t those same parents be required to provide food and shelter? > > The same arguments apply at age 19, 20, 21, 22, 23…etc. What if the kid gets his act together at age 32 and decides he wants to go to college. Should the parents still be required to pay? After all, part of getting his act together and getting a good job requires college at age 32 just the same as it did at age 18. > > Further, college is just the starting point. He must then get an entry level job in his profession, get experience, and move up the ladder. Should the parents be required to support him during this process if the entry level job doesn’t allow him to pay his bills? Paying rent is just as important as the college education. > > At what point is he on his own and the parents off the hook? The “necessity” argument as applied to a college education would have no logical end. It would have no logical end only in a hypothetical world where appellate judges were automotons who have no understanding of the word “reasonable.” Luckily, in the real world, these decisions are made by human beings capable of applying common sense when setting out exceptions to the default rule, which (even in the _Newberg_ case) povides that parents are not under a duty to support children after the age of majority. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-law-that-would-force-parents-of-a-21-year-old-to-pay-college-tuition/704730.md?page=3)