This is somewhat off topic here, but I want to suggest that maybe the underlying problem here is that kids (or their parents) are expected to pay for college tuition in the first place. In much/most of the rest of the world, public higher education is paid for mostly or almost entirely by the state, and tuition expectations from students or their parents is very low.
Maybe someday America will get its act together, fallow suit, and have a fully state-funded public university system.
It can’t really work that way in the United States because colleges are legally independent of the Federal Government. Paying for all the tuition would just mean the colleges would start pumping up tuition since they’d be feeding at the trough. In fact this already happens as college tuition grows far faster than inflation due to the colleges taking advantage of an unlimited ability to pay for it (since most people can get Federal loans or grants covering most of the cost of attendance.)
RIght, you’d have to combine it with some kind of government coercion of colleges to limit their budgets/tuition. The government could do this if they wanted (i.e. they could use the threat of taking away tax exemptions, grants, research dollars, etc. to strong arm colleges), so I think the problem is the lack of political will. Both political parties are largely dominated by successful elites who didn’t have any problem paying for college, so they don’t see the problem.
I don’t think that’s the only difference in the education systems, though. I’ve gotten the impression from people from countries with state-funded higher education that getting into the proper secondary school is more important in those countries than it is in the US because the curriculum in vocational secondary schools is non-academic , focused almost entirely on a specific occupation and leaves the graduates unprepared for any further non-vocational education. Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that one way or another is better, only that it might not be feasible to change only one part.
This is partly true. It’s also true that college education in much of Europe or Latin America is perceived in a more utilitarian way, as a means of training an educated workforce and accomplishing good research. That means, among other things, they often don’t have the fancy dorms, expensive sports teams and extracurriculars, and freedom to spend one’s time with fun elective classes that American colleges have. (I prefer the European system, for what it’s worth).
If a college education is “reasonable” support for a 20 year old, why is food and shelter not likewise “reasonable” support?
The “extras” you speak of are a result of the strange market forces at work in the US. There are a large number of middle tier universities competing for a smaller number of “full tuition” students who subsidize everyone else by paying the full fee. These students are not always academic superstars and may not neccessarily make their decision based on academic offerings. Universities have found that for the price of a clumbing wall or a dorm redecoration, they can attract enough full-tuition students to more than make up for the costs- which helps them serve those who cannot pay full tuition.
It’s a back asswards way to do things, for sure. But these amenities are popping up because of how financially strapped colleges are, and not people are just spending money to spend money. If that pressure to attract slightly dull but well-off students wasn’t there, universities would likely revert their focus to their core tasks rather than trying to create resort-like facilities.
It certainly could be, in the right circumstances. But these are fact-sensitive issues that require consideration of a variety of factors.
There’s nothing magical about reaching 18 years of age. In NJ law, at least, whether a child is emancipated at age 18 is rebuttable. The fact that the law is nimble enough to consider that there are certain occasions to apply exceptions to default rules is a good thing.
This is a gross idealization of the state system. In the wealthy countries these systems are functional, but across almost all of africa this model is a complete failure. The state intervention is not the magic wand.
As is often pointed out, once a settlement agreement reached or consent decree issued, the merits of the case that you had earlier become irrelevant. What then becomes the issue is the enforcement of terms of the agreement or Court order. If entered freely, then it should be enforced unless there are public policy reasons to otherwise. Its no less unreasonable then a settlement that I will accept two thirds of my debt, in exchange for dropping of the case and my lawyers fee.
Where its a mandate by statute or case law, I think its reasonable. Long standing custom in the US is that most of the costs of college is usually borne by parents. Food and shelter for adult kids, not so much.
As it is, the laws in US states are interesting
I dunno about that AK48 maybe if you’re talking about middle class and upper middle class (and rich) parents. No one I grew up with who went to college had it paid for by their parents. They all had to pay for it themselves, through student loans, scholarships, military service etc. It was a minority of my HS graduating class that went to college, but a goodly amount still did. The reason their parents didn’t pay is they couldn’t afford to, typically. There’s a $1 trillion student loan outstanding largely because many parents are in this boat. I’d say it’s actually the rare parent that has saved enough to pay for their kid’s college and/or has enough money laying around they can just write checks with no fuss every semester.
Well, that’s certainly a creative approach. I’d be very interested in the outcome if you ever get a chance to litigate it.
Dad Speaks Out After 21-Year-Old Sues Him to Pay College Tuition
What if her parents just moved? Would New Jersey still have jurisdiction over them if they were not residents of New Jersey?
Did the son in the Newburg case want more than 2/3 of the $100K? Otherwise I don’t see why he couldn’t collect under the same principle as he did his share of the original estate.
IANAL, obviously.
Regards,
Shodan
Scroll down to Oregon, left side citation, Crocker (2001), key it in, it discusses EP, but the court disagreed with this argument.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/termination-of-support-college-support.aspx
my understanding is that forced paying of tuition for kids only happens after divorces, and in that situation it is claimed that the payment of tuition had already been “expected” to happen when the child was going to get to college age.
Consequently, I honestly may tell my kids I’ll only pay for college if their mom doesn’t divorce me, to avoid this situation. Can’t be sure it’d work, though.
Jee, yeah think? Huh, it’s almost as if the lawyer-judge cartel has deliberately changed the laws in their favor. Huh. Hmmmm… HMMMMMMM, THAT’S A DILLY OF A PICKLE… DERR HERP DERR
Lawyers can change laws, now?
What’s “reasonable” is that a 20-year-old attending college full-time cannot also (usually) have a career to provide even the basics like food and shelter, let alone tuition costs. A healthy, capable 20-year-old with no full-time obligations - can. Therefore the former generally must rely on parental support and historically has. Any judge will reasonably see this. There is a social norm to pay for your child’s education, but none that suggests a parent should support a leech.
“I don’t exactly have a career, but I do have a large collection of name tags and hair-nets.” - Wayne, Wayne’s World.
I agree, the imbalance is there- but then, divorce and child support laws by their nature can be irrational and punitive. A co-worker complained her husband had to support a 20-year-old “through college”, and maybe it was sour grapes against the ex, but she was pretty sure the girl was not actually attending college, just leaching off a remote dad. She said that the husband’s lawyer advised them it would cost too much too contest, it was cheaper to wait til she was 22 and the obligation was over. (Community college fees those days were quite low). Another fellow I knew was obliged to pay child support at a certain level, based on his income - but that obligation did not drop when he was on strike for several months. Child support in these cases seemed to be more motivated as a punitive measure than a logical obligation to “pay your fair share”.
Unfortunately, when a couple divorces, the judge gets to play Solomon, and must hack up the baby. Both parents are required to pay the equitable share, but typically only one gets to run the child’s life and make decisions like piano lessons or college. (Or worse, the kid plays them against each other, each one allows something to spite the other). You would think getting out of an unhappy marriage would be a joyous occasion, but rarely does it play out that way. 
Then there’s parental alienation, so a parent may find themselves paying for a kid who hates their guts. (Oh, wait, don’t need divorce for that). But history has shown that when men are expected to pay on the honor system, honor often goes out the window. Thus, the obligation is in writing.
With a still-married couple, I guess any argument between them over, say, child’s college support, is settled in the household with no need for outside arbitration - if the dispute becomes too nasty, then it does continue on to divorce court.
If the US wanted to limit the rise of tuition, all they have to do is cut off the supply. For example… Cap official student loans at say, $5,000 a year. The rest would be plain old loans, dischargable at bankruptcy. Pass a law removing the obligation of parents to pay for children’s loans made in this manner, even if co-signed by the parents. And so on…
When I graduated high school, my parents skipped town. My dad went on a year’s sabbatical to Finland. All they left me was $100. But in those days, by working minimum wage summers and part time through the year, I could make the $685 tuition for the year, plus enough to pay for residence. To me, that was the ideal system - it cost, but no so much that a person could not do it on their own.