College Tuition Support Constitutional?

[LegalStranger]

http://www.thebatt.com/media/paper657/news/2003/09/29/Opinion/College.Costs.Should.Be.Discussed.During.Divorce-506750.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.thebatt.com

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? IA

I've been trying to find out why college tuition support is ordered in some states and not others. Does anyone have an opinion on this? Doesn't seem quite right. Just because parents are divorced they are now responsible for paying for their childs education. My parents were not "ordered" to pay for MYcollege education. http://www.child-support-collections.com/post-majority-support.html

Q: Is this constitutional?

Because each state is "sovereign" when it comes to the issues of making law in the family law arena. Each state has the constitutional right to make laws based on their state constitution.

Everybody has opinions on the right and wrong of it....but that is the technical explanation of why its possible.

 

[LegalStranger]

Thanks LdiJ, still makes it argumentative

 

[emilye]

very wrong...

I have to disagree. The taxpayers should not have to subsidize someones education just because their parents are jack@$$es. It's for students whose parents can't afford to send them.

I was in the same situation as you were, but I feel that parents who can afford to help their children get a higher education should, and the rest of us should not have to cover it for them. There would be absolutely no motivation for financially stable parents to help out their kids if this was the case.

Taxpayers don't pay for student's financial aid! That is totally incorrect.

Financial aid is in the form of student loans, Stafford - Subsidized, Stafford - Unsub, PLUS, SLSS. Tax payers DO NOT pay for these, these are all LOANS. Grants and schlorships are awarded on differing bases and don't have to be paid back by anyone, and these are often quite nominal. All of these are governed by the Department of Education and its strict guidelines.

On Stafford - Subsidized loans, the student is ALWAYS responsible for the principal, but any interest is paid by the government, only while the loan is deferred. The government's interest rate is variable from year to year (it changes on July 1st of each year for almost ALL student loans, there are exceptions but not for the Stafford loans) and has typically been around 2-3%. So the interest on a Subsidized Stafford loan of $2625.00 would be approximately $78.00. This is the amount ($78.00) "the taxpayers" as you say, would pay for. The taxpayers are not ever responsible for the principal nor the interest that accrues after repayment begins.

At no time does a student or parent taking out student loans ever get out of re-paying them. IF they default on them, (270 days after the loans went into repayment or sometimes sooner for some loans, ie PLUS loans) a default process begins and the claim is sent to the guarantor of the state.

Even if this default claim process takes place, the student is NEVER released from their student loan obligation/s. Just like IRS judgements, it will NOT come off their credit ever. Student loan obligations CANNOT be relieved by bankruptcy. They are there for the student to repay until they are repaid.

Again, "taxpayers" do not pay for student loans.

Once the loan is in repayment (6 months + one day after student stops going to class for a minimum numbers of class hours) the interest becomes the responsibility of the student, as well as the principal. This is the same for any student regardless of state (or country) the student lives in.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just because parents are well off doesn't mean they will pay for their child's education. Mine wouldn't. But that doesn't mean they should have been ordered to pay for it.

If that was true, then all parents should be forced to put aside part of their income for their child/ren to go to college... maybe it could be automatically deducted from their checks?!?!? NO!!!

And a parent isn't a "jack@$$" just because when their child/ren become adults they want them to start being responsible for themselves. Are you implying that poor parents are automatically saints because they didn't work to provide their child/ren a better life and now society owes them instead?

Student loans are available to just about everyone now days. Its that way so that people from ANY BACKGROUND, RICH OR POOR are able to pursue continuing education, not to put some undue burden on "the taxpayers."

 

[nicetryadmin]

I have to disagree. The taxpayers should not have to subsidize someones education just because their parents are jack@$$es. It's for students whose parents can't afford to send them.

I was in the same situation as you were, but I feel that parents who can afford to help their children get a higher education should, and the rest of us should not have to cover it for them. There would be absolutely no motivation for financially stable parents to help out their kids if this was the case.

Umm...you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Financial aid is available to alot of students. So you're saying that every single person who gets financial aid assistance of any kind, their parent's are jackasses?

Hey, how about pulling your head out of your ass and know how the financial aid program works.

 

[nicetryadmin]

Yes, qualifying for aid, and qualifying for loans are two seperate things.

The federally subsidized student loans are pretty easy to get. A student whose parent's make to much to qualify for those is what I am talking about. This does not appear to be your parents case.

In your attempt to backpeddle, you are only making LESS sense.

Loans, grants and scholarships are all considered "aid." And loans are paid back, with interest.

 

[nicetryadmin]

Thanks LdiJ, still makes it argumentative

If the parents agreed in a decree/order, then try to back out, that's one thing.

But for a State to simply "order" both parents, I believe it would make it highly argumentative in Court as unconstitutional.

First of all, it violates the equal protection clause within the US Constitution (ordering child support for children from a divorced/separated family is, in essence, giving protection to a particular class/section of children).

Secondly, a child is considered an adult at the age of 18.

Thirdly, college is not required.

 

[Confusedtoo]

1 already there & 1 is going

As a single parent for 15 years w/NO child support and NO public assistance.. I only average $25K a year.... my state started a pre-paid collage fund. It was the only way I could afford for my kids to go. I made that choice and now it's paying off....

I now have one already in collage and one will be going in the fall. The youngest child received an academic scholarship, then received a few from the state plus the pell grant.... now with her pre-paid collage fund... her 4 years education at a private university will be paid for IN FULL.... not including books.... the oldest was not as lucky with her academics... once her pre-paid is gone she will have to apply for loans. She only qualifies for the pell (when her academic grades are good)************** becasue I make to much money.... geeze!

The point is.... there are ways single/married parents can help pay for their kids collage... these kids will be running our goverment when WE as parents will be on social security.... I don't want any dumbA$$ taking my benefits away when I'm old...

I wanted my kids to be "somebody", make a difference in the world, not to struggle like I did.... I think parents really need to push there kids in the right direction... and if that means showing them that you support their choices (by going to collage) then maybe parents need to show that by making an effort and helping them start that path....

Sorry, just my two cents.

 

[nicetryadmin]

I wanted my kids to be "somebody", make a difference in the world, not to struggle like I did.... I think parents really need to push there kids in the right direction... and if that means showing them that you support their choices (by going to collage) then maybe parents need to show that by making an effort and helping them start that path.....

But once your child becomes a legal adult, their path is their own choosing. As much as parents we'd love to see our children strive for the best, some simply don't. Ever hear of the saying "you can take a horse to water..."??

 

[LegalStranger]

Some are just not getting the point********************************************************....

Unless All Parents are required to pay their child's tuition bills, regardless of their marital status, divorced and unwed parents Should not be the exception.

You can lead a horse to water**************.....

 

[AmarieNorton]

The point is.... there are ways single/married parents can help pay for their kids collage...

No one is say that there aren't ways to help your child. The real point however is that no parent should be legally obligated to support their adult offspring. If you want to, then more power to you but you shouldn't be forced to (and this goes for CPs and NCPs).

I wanted my kids to be "somebody", make a difference in the world, not to struggle like I did.... I think parents really need to push there kids in the right direction... and if that means showing them that you support their choices (by going to collage) then maybe parents need to show that by making an effort and helping them start that path....

Sorry, just my two cents.

You are really rambling on about nothing.

 

[Zephyr]

But once your child becomes a legal adult, their path is their own choosing. As much as parents we'd love to see our children strive for the best, some simply don't. Ever hear of the saying "you can take a horse to water..."??

I agree with this, adults should not be made to pay for things for other adults, period.....now, if they want to make the age of majority 21 or 22 or until collge is complete.....