I’m going to go out on a limb here and look at this from a single custodial parent’s point of view. If a kid goes to college and then can’t find a job and has to move back home, shouldn’t both parents be involved in finding a way to make that work?
I’m not thinking about lazy 20 somethings who don’t even look for work and slum in the basement calling up the stairs for a sandwich. What about a good kid who worked hard in school and simply can’t make ends meet out in the post college world? This is a reality for a lot of graduates, and they are moving back in with parents in droves.
So if back home with parents is a single parent, why shouldn’t the other parent help out with expenses until things improve and the kid can make it out on his own?
I agree with the poster upthread who said this ain’t the 50s anymore. No one can go out into the world as an 18 year old and make a life for themselves, that’s our new reality. Even after college it’s incredibly difficult to pull off.
So the question becomes: if this is the new reality for families, why should only one parent cover the post 18 expenses? The kid is the responsibility of both parents, and one shouldn’t be left holding the poor economy bag all alone based on an outdated value system that says 18 is an “adult”.
From what I’ve read the only reason government has been able to justify child support is because sans parents supporting children, government must support children.
Also, because it is seen as a responsibility in the legal traditions of this country to support your minor children. The reason a custodial parent should not receive child support for a live-at-home twenty year old are thus many fold in my mind:
It goes against the entire legal tradition of parental support and the very source of the reasons we have for child support
There is no such thing as custody of a 20 year old. No one has custody of you at age 20, unless you are mentally incompetent and are under permanent guardianship as an adult. So I reject the concept of there being a custodial parent of a 20 year old.
The parent supporting the 20 year old has no societal obligations to do so. Their decision to support their 20 year old is one they do out of the goodness of their heart, and unlike decisions concerning the offspring when it was a minor it can no longer be argued that the other parent has any historical responsibility towards the child at that point.
Well, I guess this makes sense for parents who only support their children because they are legally required to do so. I was thinking more about what it means to be a parent in a larger sense.
If the kid finishes college and moves back in with mom, is dad off the hook? Sure, legally, but I would hope there’s more to parental decision making than that. I would hope that both parents would work as a team to figure out how to manage the unexpected expense of a college kid moving back home.
How abot the recent phenomenon of college loan slavery?
Kid goes to law school (in hopes of 6-figure starting salary with big law firm). Instead, kid is screwed:
-owes $300,000 in non-cancellable debt
-no jobs in field, winds up working at WalMart for minimum wages
-cannot afford rent-hence lives in basement apartment
This recession/depression is forecast to go on for another 5-7 years (Bernancke says that pre-recession employement levels may NEVER return).
So now we have a lawyer who hasn’t worked in law for years, attempting to compete with new grads.
So, should the parents abandon this child?
Recently, a Boston College law gradate made heaslines by asking tyhe school to return his tition-he could not get a job.
Something to ponder:(
No, the noncustodial dad is off the hook, Mom let the kid move back in, it is up to her and her partner [if any] to argue the finances out between them.
If the originally noncustodial [pre 18] dad lets the kid move in with him, he would not be expecting the mom to kick in because the terms of the divorce and child support have played out and are finished other than perhaps some trust fund issues.
No. Bad idea. They are adults and should take of themselves. Letting people pretend they are teens till they are in the mid thirties aren’t going to do any, any good. Least of all the adult children. We have enough big babies as it is. They have this problem in Italy where men don’t leave home till they’re in their 40s, because mom takes so good care of them. I think it is awful, but at least it is voluntary on the parents’ behalf.
Yap yap yap. The problem with SD is that most threads fill up with stupid bullshit and snide remarks by idiots that have nothing to contribute to the topic.
People who go to law school should know what they’re getting into. I’m going to a fourth-tier school at night, and working full time during the day, because I know what the odds of finding employment are when I get out. $25,000 in student debt I can eat.
And I have a job lined up for when I graduate.
Just because the law doesn’t require parents to keep supporting their kids, it doesn’t mean they won’t.
So, you got a stroke after reading the word “argument” and your head slammed down on the keyboard and somehow opened a “reply” box, and at the same time deleted the rest of my post. Then you came to and typed your response, the whole time completely unaware of the rest of my post. That is what happened, right?
You can also get certified as a basic paralegal and work in a law firm while you go to school and have experience in law to start with once you pass the bar.
You do not need a degree from Yale to pass the bar. You need a degree from Yale to impress people.
Would you rather have an impressive degree, and no way to pay the loan back, or be a lawyer and not in debt.
there’s your answer. Dad is free to so if he wishes and it makes sense. Free to not do so if it doesn’t wish, for whatever reason. So, he’s not obligated as he would be if Child Support was raised to 30. Probably happens all the time, just as you describe.
Bull dust on blaming society. My son is 19 and after a year off working full time is going back to Uni. Now he will be supporting himself [like I did] working at a pub at nights, eating 2 minute noodles, sharing a dodgy flat etc until he graduates. It is not society that brings up your kids, it’s you!!!
Just to make sure I understand what your asking. You are living with your parents and you also want them to pay you?
You want your cake and be able to eat it too, don’t you?
When we think about child support as commonly understood in the US, are support payments made by the non-custodial parent for the child not living with them. You’ve proposed a whole new thing which isn’t really child support, since you are already being supported by your parents, by living in their house. But you also want them to pay you in addition to living with them.
What if the parents stay married? Would you require them, as a matter of law, to continue to support their 20-something kids? If not, then why should a divorced couple not have the same option? Maybe Mom doesn’t want to give the little bastard another dime, but Dad lets him move in. Should Dad’s decision automatically require Mom to start paying child support?
No to hijack, but I would support a more graduated transition to adulthood. To me, it seems silly that at age 17 years 364 days, you can be charged with a felony if you don’t feel your child or do any number of other things. The next day you can boot his ass out in the cold and it is perfectly legal.
I would propose adulthood starting in a limited way at age 16 and each year being giving increasing rights and responsibilities until you are a “full” adult at age 21. Maybe include a test starting at 17 in which criteria is used that increases your rights if you are a responsible young person and decreasing rights if you are convicted of a crime, for example. I dispute the idea that for everyone there is one magic number that one day before that you are at the mercy of your parents’ benevolence and the next day you have all of the rights of an adult.
I guess the basic crux of the situation is whether or not parents should be obligated to support their adult children.
I think ethically–if the adult children are in dire straits (not self-imposed) and especially if they have kids of their own–parents would be jerkish if they kept the door closed. Although even this is not always the case. If I’m in my late 60s and I’m living on a shoe-string budget, and my son and his wife come knocking on the door of my two-bedroom apartment with their three kids in tow because their too-expensive house was foreclosed on, I don’t think it would be uncalled for to be like, “Hey. Ya’ll can spend a couple of nights here, but we need to figure something out FAST!! This ain’t Motel 8!” And I think it would be only fair for the other parent to share the burden somehow if the situation is long-lasting.
But by making it a legal requirement for one parent to chip in, you’re basically making it a requirement for the other parent to play hostess to the mostess, correct? And I don’t think this is fair. Once an adult, your parents shouldn’t be legally obligated to do anything for you.