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.
All states require divorced parents to abide by the terms of their divorce settlement.
New Jersey requires parents to include financial responsibility of higher education in divorce settlements. Not all states do that. That's why New Jersey treats divorced parents differently than married parents. New Jersey law obligates divorced parents to provide their children a higher education if they have the ability to pay. Married parents don't have the same obligation. The Canning case may change that.
New Jersey requires parents to include financial responsibility of higher education in divorce settlements. Not all states do that. That's why New Jersey treats divorced parents differently than married parents. New Jersey law obligates divorced parents to provide their children a higher education if they have the ability to pay. Married parents don't have the same obligation. The Canning case may change that.
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.
And where is the government going to get this money from?
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.
But oh no, pay for higher education for students? No, no, no, we can't afford that. Noooo,
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.
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.
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.
It does add a wrinkle that wouldn't exist in other states.
So you believe the government should have the authority to determine to what extent parents should support their adult children? Will the courts get to decide which college as well? Public vs private? Will the courts have a say on major course of study? Living arrangements?
Theoretically, if a child is accepted into a school the government determines is "affordable" based on some set of criteria, the parents can be obligated to pay?
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.
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.
So you believe the government should have the authority to determine to what extent parents should support their adult children? Will the courts get to decide which college as well? Public vs private? Will the courts have a say on major course of study? Living arrangements?
Theoretically, if a child is accepted into a school the government determines is "affordable" based on some set of criteria, the parents can be obligated to pay?
Wow.
I never said that. I said the opposite of the case of the man with the daughter at Cornell. The courts did him a disservice by not following the law in that ruling because he had a right to have input in what school she would attend. They are estranged (by her doing) and she picked a more expensive school then he would have chosen. The courts should have ruled in his favor, but instead ruled he he had to pay for it. Meanwhile, parents whose children estrange themselves shouldn't have to pay. In that regard, the Canning's shouldn't have to pay for Rachel's education if she moved out willingly. That would mean she estranged herself from her parents. They're not involved in the college selection either. However, they should have to pay if they were the ones who kicked her out and caused the estrangement. That's why the crux of the matter is who ended this relationship---Rachel or her parents. The facts don't even matter because a judge can rule based on which way the wind blows. No, I'm not saying this is right. I'm saying it's a mess and that the law should be properly considered and fairly applied if there are going to be laws about it.
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.
No, no, no, we can't afford that. Noooo, 
