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.
Also, even if someone crazily believed that you were required to fund college, to say that you are required to fund any college the child chooses and cover the entire cost is insane. If that's what the New Jersey law says, then ...
It does not. It's not hard and fast because this is all precedent based on vague statutes, but one typical standard is the "Rutgers Rule" which says the parents have to pay only as much as they would have paid for Rutgers
This student went to Temple; Temple and Rutgers are comparable in cost.
Best I can tell from reading between the lines is the parents wanted to maintain more control over their daughter than was appropriate for a college-aged teenager and tried to use not paying for college to as leverage to achieve that goal. Their story of her being too rebellious in a bad way doesn't really hold together; what sort of out-of-control teen "rebels" to go to community college and then Temple University?
I don't really think the requirement that NJ has for divorced parents to pay for college is right. But in this case, I think perhaps it resulted in justice after all.
Having taught at both universities, unless she's going into an artistic field, she'd be getting a better deal at Rutgers IMO. Also, I thought she was some kind of standout honors student, I'd think she might have aimed a bit higher.
Yes, most people in NJ support the law and courts decision and don't riot if we disagree.
Speak for yourself. The only reason I'm not violent about trying to get some reform is I wouldn't get away with it. You better believe I'd have fun hurting a number of lawyers and judges.
The idea behind government is that everyone following the law is supposed to be better than the semi-anarchy that would occur in the absence of this, but our current governments really push that. At least in the interim the anarchy that's left before a new government is organized, maybe there'd be a lot of problems, but at least it wouldn't be so pathetic with stupid policy where every crybaby can sue for no reason and get money.
isn't the daughter considered an adult at age 18? i don't understand why the state is forcing the parents to support her still, especially considering that college isn't a need.
Are the parents married? If there is a clause in a divorce decree stating the parents must pay for college, then I think there might be more to this story.
It IS a completely bizarre law, but I haven't read the original statute, so I can't really comment on it in depth. My thinking is that it was a misguided attempt to protect children whose parents made them certain promises.
For example, my parents sent me down a path towards college. I was always told that I would go to college - there was no questioning that goal. Academics were heavily emphasized in my household, and my world revolved around school. My parents would even occasionally co-opt monetary gifts from relatives for my college fund (which, incidentally, they spent well before I went to college). I was told they would pay for any college within reason, and I was encouraged to aim for the Ivy League.
However, when the time came for me to go to college, I got a full ride to Rutgers, and my parents encouraged me to go there. I got into an Ivy League school, however, and I opted to go there. I got some scholarships; my parents took out some loans and paid for a good chunk of it themselves; and I worked all through school and took out a sizeable chunk of loans myself. I haven't regretted it for one moment - as ridiculous as it sounds, that Ivy League scrap of paper gave me a serious edge in the workplace when I was starting out. And because I had an undiagnosed learning disorder, the smaller classes that came with an Ivy League education as opposed to a large state school were an invaluable contributor to my academic success in college.
Would I have sued my parents if they had said they wouldn't pay for college? Highly unlikely. But if they had suddenly told me that there were significant conditions - beyond maintaining a certain GPA and other reasonable expectations - on them paying for my college education after a lifetime of promises, that would have left me in a bad position, although not an untenable one since I had that scholarship. But they would have broken basically 18 years' worth of verbal promises and left me entirely unprepared for that situation. At what point do repeated verbal promises to a child you are raising become a contract?
I think the law is intended to protect young adults from dysfunctional or manipulative parents, but that's not really something that can be legislated. I certainly do think it is a stupid law, and I'm curious as to why there wasn't more notice taken when the law actually passed - apparently it's been on the books for some time, but there's only been a hue and cry when a case like this one comes up.
I also can't see how it would hold up to judicial scrutiny, but whatever.
Best I can tell from reading between the lines is the parents wanted to maintain more control over their daughter than was appropriate for a college-aged teenager and tried to use not paying for college to as leverage to achieve that goal. Their story of her being too rebellious in a bad way doesn't really hold together; what sort of out-of-control teen "rebels" to go to community college and then Temple University?
I don't really think the requirement that NJ has for divorced parents to pay for college is right. But in this case, I think perhaps it resulted in justice after all.
That's actually very convoluted thinking. On the one hand, you criticize the parents for "maintaining control" over their college-aged daughter. And from the story, that consists of her having to do chores and have a curfew due to her having been kicked out of her Disney internship for under-aged drinking. Most people would reasonably say they were being good parents, but somehow to you they were being unfair. Oh, and by the way, this college-aged teenager was living under their roof.
But regardless, you then immediately turn around and say that "justice" is that the same parents have to pay full college tuition for their daughter. So, on the one hand she's an adult to you when it comes to responsibilities, but then she's a child when it comes to benefits.
You must be ultra-liberal to think that way.
- cuckooman
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleroger
isn't the daughter considered an adult at age 18? i don't understand why the state is forcing the parents to support her still, especially considering that college isn't a need.
In the comments section of the updated story I linked, a number of people said that New Jersey considers someone a "child" up to age 24. I wasn't sure if they were being sarcastic, but since a few people said it, I assumed it was serious. I'm still not sure how New Jersey maintains that you are legally bound to pay for a child's college education, even if the state says they are a child. As I said, if the people of New Jersey agree with that crazy thinking, then that's probably why people make fun of the state so much.
That's actually very convoluted thinking. On the one hand, you criticize the parents for "maintaining control" over their college-aged daughter. And from the story, that consists of her having to do chores and have a curfew due to her having been kicked out of her Disney internship for under-aged drinking. Most people would reasonably say they were being good parents, but somehow to you they were being unfair. Oh, and by the way, this college-aged teenager was living under their roof.
But regardless, you then immediately turn around and say that "justice" is that the same parents have to pay full college tuition for their daughter. So, on the one hand she's an adult to you when it comes to responsibilities, but then she's a child when it comes to benefits.
You must be ultra-liberal to think that way.
- cuckooman
In the comments section of the updated story I linked, a number of people said that New Jersey considers someone a "child" up to age 24. I wasn't sure if they were being sarcastic, but since a few people said it, I assumed it was serious. I'm still not sure how New Jersey maintains that you are legally bound to pay for a child's college education, even if the state says they are a child. As I said, if the people of New Jersey agree with that crazy thinking, then that's probably why people make fun of the state so much.
- cuckooman
Ah, I get your agenda. It really has nothing to do with this case. Got it!
Are the parents married? If there is a clause in a divorce decree stating the parents must pay for college, then I think there might be more to this story.
It IS a completely bizarre law, but I haven't read the original statute, so I can't really comment on it in depth. My thinking is that it was a misguided attempt to protect children whose parents made them certain promises.
For example, my parents sent me down a path towards college. I was always told that I would go to college - there was no questioning that goal. Academics were heavily emphasized in my household, and my world revolved around school. My parents would even occasionally co-opt monetary gifts from relatives for my college fund (which, incidentally, they spent well before I went to college). I was told they would pay for any college within reason, and I was encouraged to aim for the Ivy League.
However, when the time came for me to go to college, I got a full ride to Rutgers, and my parents encouraged me to go there. I got into an Ivy League school, however, and I opted to go there. I got some scholarships; my parents took out some loans and paid for a good chunk of it themselves; and I worked all through school and took out a sizeable chunk of loans myself. I haven't regretted it for one moment - as ridiculous as it sounds, that Ivy League scrap of paper gave me a serious edge in the workplace when I was starting out. And because I had an undiagnosed learning disorder, the smaller classes that came with an Ivy League education as opposed to a large state school were an invaluable contributor to my academic success in college.
Would I have sued my parents if they had said they wouldn't pay for college? Highly unlikely. But if they had suddenly told me that there were significant conditions - beyond maintaining a certain GPA and other reasonable expectations - on them paying for my college education after a lifetime of promises, that would have left me in a bad position, although not an untenable one since I had that scholarship. But they would have broken basically 18 years' worth of verbal promises and left me entirely unprepared for that situation. At what point do repeated verbal promises to a child you are raising become a contract?
I think the law is intended to protect young adults from dysfunctional or manipulative parents, but that's not really something that can be legislated. I certainly do think it is a stupid law, and I'm curious as to why there wasn't more notice taken when the law actually passed - apparently it's been on the books for some time, but there's only been a hue and cry when a case like this one comes up.
I also can't see how it would hold up to judicial scrutiny, but whatever.
No offense, but you might have been better off stopping your post at that point to read the article.
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.
