Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then they need to change the rules for the divorced families. Once you are 18, you are on your own, your parents should be done with mandatory support. I am sure the reason New Jersey did this was because non-custodial parents would refuse to contribute money to the funding of the kid's college education but the kid couldn't get financial aid because they considered the non-custodial parent's income for eligibility. You can't change that part because then there would be claims that parents refused to help support them whether they did or not to get someone else to pay. I'm not sure what the answer is but parents shouldn't have to spend their retirement funds to send a child to college if they don't want to.
I'm not sure if states do this differently or not. When I researched this a few years ago, I discovered they only consider the income of the parent who had more than 50% custody the year the child turned 18. They go by the income of whichever parent claims the child as a dependent on their tax returns the year the child turns 18. If the parent whose income is lower had more than 50% custody, the parent with the higher income isn't used. If the parents had equal custody, they go by the parent whose income is greater.
I fully support changing the law to not penalize divorce parents. Divorced and married parents should have the same obligations. Again, this is an issue that should be one way or another, not different for each group. Many people stay in bad marriages until the children turn 18 to avoid child support. In New Jersey, it would be wise to remain married until they graduate from college. That's pretty twisted. Even married, I'll bet parents could end up in court if they disagree with each other over the college issue. New Jersey is proving how messed up it is when the government is involved in these decisions without having clear laws that are fair to everyone.
Even though NJ requires financial support issues in divorces to include college tuition, surely they write in caps to this, such as tuition not to exceed $40,000 or some such number. No?
I still think it's strange. I've always been under the impression that at 18, parental legal responsibilities end. The kid can do whatever she/he wants at 18 and you're out of it.
Then I found out that at 16, you can't legally require them to live in your home. The courts/police won't back you up on this. Though, oddly enough, you are still legally and financially responsible for them. If they wreck a car, it's on you.
A friend placed her son in a residential treatment center in Utah because it is one of the few states that will return 16 and 17 y/o runaways. But even there, at 18 he could have headed out on his own without a by your leave.
It is required to be considered. They are not always made to pay. I don't understand why you think parents should be required by law to pay for college. It is fine that you think that paying is the right thing to do. I think it is the right thing to do too. I do not see why it should be required by law.
Exactly--I have a couple friends in NJ and their ex's are supposed to help pay for college according to the terms of their divorce decree, but they don't....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopes
I'm saying any existing laws should be fair and apply to everyone. New Jersey's laws are unique on this issue. Divorced parents shouldn't be required by law to do more for their children than married parents.
"It's required to be considered." If the parents have the means and the child has the potential the courts will not approve a settlement that doesn't provide college financing to the children. They're not always made to pay if they don't have a college education themselves, they don't have the means, the child doesn't have the potential, etc. If married parents were treated as equally as divorced parents, the Cunnings would be required to pay because the father has a masters degree, the family has the means, and Rachel has the potential.
It's possible the Cunnings case might change the inequity between divorced and married parents in New Jersey.
They aren't being treated differently--they ALLOW it for parents that WANT to include it but they don't have to include it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopes
I'm not sure if states do this differently or not. When I researched this a few years ago, I discovered they only consider the income of the parent who had more than 50% custody the year the child turned 18. They go by the income of whichever parent claims the child as a dependent on their tax returns the year the child turns 18. If the parent whose income is lower had more than 50% custody, the parent with the higher income isn't used. If the parents had equal custody, they go by the parent whose income is greater.
I fully support changing the law to not penalize divorce parents. Divorced and married parents should have the same obligations. Again, this is an issue that should be one way or another, not different for each group. Many people stay in bad marriages until the children turn 18 to avoid child support. In New Jersey, it would be wise to remain married until they graduate from college. That's pretty twisted. Even married, I'll bet parents could end up in court if they disagree with each other over the college issue. New Jersey is proving how messed up it is when the government is involved in these decisions without having clear laws that are fair to everyone.
This is a FAFSA thing. If a student is at a CSS school, they most certainly do require both parent's income unless you can prove that the other parent provided no support.
Even though NJ requires financial support issues in divorces to include college tuition, surely they write in caps to this, such as tuition not to exceed $40,000 or some such number. No?
Not in the case of the divorce agreement of the Cornell student's parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
Then I found out that at 16, you can't legally require them to live in your home. The courts/police won't back you up on this. Though, oddly enough, you are still legally and financially responsible for them. If they wreck a car, it's on you.
Get this. In Pennsylvania, children have a right to refuse medical and mental health treatment at the age of 14. The worse part is providers actually inform minors of this right! The only exception is if they are a danger to themselves or society and drug addiction. If a child refuses drug treatment, parents have to go to court and the court appoints a lawyer to represent the interests of the child. Granted, I've heard the courts almost always rule in favor of the parents and force the child into treatment, but it's still crazy parents need to go to court to get treatment for a 14 year old.
They aren't being treated differently--they ALLOW it for parents that WANT to include it but they don't have to include it.
That sounds more reasonable. People can include all sorts of financial arrangements on divorce agreements--when a home or business is sold at some time in the future, the proceeds are to be split 50-50. Or one spouse will receive a portion of spouse's pension when it kicks in. Or one spouse gets insurance paid until Medicare.
It would make sense that college tuition be considered as part of the financial settlement going forward.
They aren't being treated differently--they ALLOW it for parents that WANT to include it but they don't have to include it.
That's not true. If they have the financial means, they are required to include college in the divorce agreement if the child has the potential. This even extends to graduate and professional education. New Jersey's laws are wild in this regard.
Walmart gets $86 million in corporate welfare. The oil companies get $4 billions in tax breaks. Google pays only 2.4% taxes and gets to land their corporate jets free of charge on a federal airfield.
86 million would pay tuition for about 860 for four years. Not even a drop in the bucket. That four billion and 2.4% are money those companies don't pay so they have incentive to stay in the US. That isn't money our gov't gives them.
So we tax the hell out of them and they leave the country. Then what?
You are one of those angry people that just throw stupid ideas out there that don't think them through or have any real solutions.
That's not true. If they have the financial means, they are required to include college in the divorce agreement if the child has the potential. This even extends to graduate and professional education. New Jersey's laws are wild in this regard.
My husband and ex wife had college tuition laid out in their divorce papers in South Carolina. It even included child support for all three of my stepchildren until they were finished with college.
I would imagine it plays on more of a case by case situation.
86 million would pay tuition for about 860 for four years. Not even a drop in the bucket. That four billion and 2.4% are money those companies don't pay so they have incentive to stay in the US. That isn't money our gov't gives them.
So we tax the hell out of them and they leave the country. Then what?
You are one of those angry people that just throw stupid ideas out there that don't think them through or have any real solutions.
She's not saying the corporations shouldn't get these tax breaks. She's saying the government should invest more heavily in making education affordable. I agree. There are other countries were higher education is more affordable and even free in some places. Our system doesn't have to be the way it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueherons
My husband and ex wife had college tuition laid out in their divorce papers in South Carolina. It even included child support for all three of my stepchildren until they were finished with college.
I would imagine it plays on more of a case by case situation.
Of course anyone can add it to their divorce agreement in any state. My girlfriend's parents did it in Pennsylvania in their divorce agreement in the 1970s. They were ahead of their time in that regard. The difference is New Jersey requires it. I don't know if South Carolina requires it. We're talking about New Jersey law in this thread. New Jersey is unique because it's required and it can include graduate and professional school. That's quite a hefty responsibility to impose upon parents who have the ability to pay. It is a case by case basis because having the ability to pay and the children have potential is determined case by case.
I don't think she or her "benefactors" had any idea it was going to go viral. But look at this article: N.J. dad must pay $112,500 of estranged daughter
Basically a history professor has to pay $112,000 for half of his estranged daughter law school tuition at Cornell, kind of the same facts as in this case. The article even mentions the Canning case.
The facts in the two cases are totally different. In the one case, the daughter had an "expectation" that she would have college paid for. In the second case from NJ, a divorce decree obligated the father to pay 1/2 of his daughter's law school expenses. He agreed to it. Do you understand the difference? The one relationship is an "expectation" the other is the result of a binding legal agreement.
I guess some people believe that anytime they don't like the provisions of a divorce decree, they ought to be able to ignore them. I don't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
