Bill to increase age of majority

[MichaCA]

Its confusing to me, when one can drink, when one can go fight in treacherous wars, when one is emancipated legally from one's parents. If a parent is obligated to pay child support until 21, 22 years of age, what are the implications (if any) for the so called custodial parent who is not a custodial parent anymore after the age of 18?

At 18, maybe someone should be able to provide for themselves, if we lower the expectations of what that would look like. No college degree, no masters degree...no tech school...so they would be probably making minimum wage, and depending on the area's housing costs, then health insurance costs...living with 8 other 18 year olds in a house to afford the rent. Thats what my newphew did AFTER college. He DOES make more than minimum wage, but the only way he can afford...

 

[momofrose]

Since age of majority is handled state by state - I highly doubt this wouod go anywhere. IN NJ it's 18 and I sure hope it stays that way!!!

 

[Rushia]

I kinda agree with Izzy, today's society is full of kids who think that they are ENTITLED to everything. If age of majority is raised to 22, it's only going to be worse.

 

[wileybunch]

Geez, there's people that get married by this age and have families -- I can't imagine 22 being a statutory age of majority. Families of course can nest together or not as long as they want, but we have no need of the government to legislate that.

 

[Drake01]

When they started forcing parents into paying for college costs you could see this coming. Of course, these are only on the shoulders of the NCP. At that point I figured it was only a matter of time before you had states requiring "child support" until absurd ages (like 22) and in time we'll probably see laws that simply require it until "emancipation," which could very well mean life time child support.
As for it'd odds of success, can't really say for sure. There are only a couple of states using 21, so it's certainly not popular at this point to put in the guide lines. But then again, in most states family courts have the unchecked ability to force NCP's into indefinate periods of child support siting college expenses.

 

[MichaCA]

Per the last post, that is what I was curious about...so do you think the impetus for the bill, and law is specifically to provide for college education? In reading about this, I wondered how 'they' can charge a NCP (or the significantly higher earning parent in some cases) to pay child support after the age of 18, when the child is a legal adult. Because what is the previously custodial parents' role in this? IF it is for college expenses I understand it better, its presuming the CP is pulling their weight also with college expenses. But if its NOT for college, I just don't get it at all.

I am also curious if anyone is aware of states, specifically CA, in which outside of this statute, do courts ever order the one paying child support to continue? IF that is true, frankly I would like my ex to help out with daughters college expenses. (?) Thanks, Micha

 

[CourtClerk]

I am also curious if anyone is aware of states, specifically CA, in which outside of this statute, do courts ever order the one paying child support to continue? IF that is true, frankly I would like my ex to help out with daughters college expenses. (?) Thanks, Micha

CA speaks quite frankly on when support ends:

(a) The duty of support imposed by Section 3900 continues as
to an unmarried child who has attained the age of 18 years, is a
full-time high school student, and who is not self-supporting, until
the time the child completes the 12th grade or attains the age of 19
years, whichever occurs first.

And post secondary support:

3587. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court has the
authority to approve a stipulated agreement by the parents to pay
for the support of an adult child or for the continuation of child
support after a child attains the age of 18 years and to make a
support order to effectuate the agreement.

In other words, if the 2 parties agree on support for an adult child (who is not disabled), then the court can put that stipulation into a court order. HOWEVER, in the case where the two parties do NOT agree, the court canNOT force someone to pay support past statute.

 

[MichaCA]

Thank you CourtClerk! Worth a shot anyway.

 

[LdiJ]

We may be looking at something somewhat different than the whole idea of just "support" when a legislature contemplates actually raising the age of majority.

In my state, child support goes to the age of 21, or emancipation, whichever comes first. However, the age of majority is still 18.

I would guess that what this legislature is attempting is not a simple raising the age of support, but rather raising the age to which parents must be legally responsible for their children, and that is a whole 'nother ball of wax, with a whole different set of implications.

 

[Drake01]

Per the last post, that is what I was curious about...so do you think the impetus for the bill, and law is specifically to provide for college education? In reading about this, I wondered how 'they' can charge a NCP (or the significantly higher earning parent in some cases) to pay child support after the age of 18, when the child is a legal adult. Because what is the previously custodial parents' role in this? IF it is for college expenses I understand it better, its presuming the CP is pulling their weight also with college expenses. But if its NOT for college, I just don't get it at all.

I am also curious if anyone is aware of states, specifically CA, in which outside of this statute, do courts ever order the one paying child support to continue? IF that is true, frankly I would like my ex to help out with daughters college expenses. (?) Thanks, Micha

That's largely how it gets marketed to the public. I think the reality of the sitution is it provides family courts with 4 more years of being in control of people's lives, the child support agency with four more years to earn federal dollars and interest off the payments, lawyers get 4 more years of fees when parents duke it out over this "child" support, and everything else that makes keeping people in the family law system for another four years a boom for the industry.

Unless your state has legislation stating that parents have an obligation to provide free college to their adult children, if the other parent won't agree they typically cannot be forced to pay for college. If your daughter needs money for college there are plenty of public and private sources to get it.

 

[truebluemd]

here is a link to the proposed bill.


http://house.state.md.us/2009rs/bills/hb/hb1114f.pdf

 

[IrishLady47]

Thank you for the link. I do not read this bill as changing the age of majority which is still 18 in MD. It appears that the bill is to change a statute allowing the court to direct the parent paying CS to keep doing so if the child is enrolled post-secondary full-time and living with the custodial parent until a maximum age of 22.

Personally, I disagree with this. If parents in an intact marriage are not required to support a full-time student until age 22, why should a divorced parent be forced to do so? If the parents had an agreement that was incorporated into the court order concerning CS, fine. Then, the court order should be enforced. But, if one parent chooses to continue to support a child past high school, that choice should not be forced upon the other parent.