I don't think that divorced parents should have to pay for adult offspring"s college education. On the other hand, when parents refuse to assist these "children", parental income should not be a factor in work study or financial assistance.

My parents refused to help me. When I finally felt that I could afford to go back to school (I put mt husband through four years of school and then we started our family) I was 37 years old, it really stuck in my craw that I had to get copies of their income tax reports. They live in another state and have not contributed a dime to me since I was 18. These forms were required even though I had no need or desire for financial aid. Perhaps it was because the school receives federal funds.

It can't go both ways. Students are told what their parents are expected to contribute. Decisions are made based on the expectations. Self supporting students are stuck.

I remember when my husband went to law school and the school had him sign a contract that he would not work at all due to the rigorous work load of that field. We applied for financial aid, but did not qualify because students should be able to maintain 30 percent of their income while attending school.

It's true Amy, I'm in that situation right now. My daughter has to complete the FAFSA for financial aid for grad school. She's 21. I have to provide my information, SS#, and tax return information, even though I won't be contributing to this round of school for her. And like Jen's husband, she will be unable to work for the 3 years she's in the program. The thought behind this, according to the schools' websites, is the following: If they gave every student financial aid based on the student's [zero] income, since they are unable to work, every student would qualify for the max. Therefore, they base it on the parents' income.

I'll save my child support rant for later. But the system is broken, particularly in California, or maybe I just had a misogynistic asshole for a judge last week.

That's appalling, Sara and Jen. That ensures adults who are actually self-supporting get shafted. I am considering going to grad school once I've wrapped up my father's probate. I wonder whether the schools will expect my dead parents to contribute.

One you hit 24 you no longer need parental information for federal fincial aid.

I experienced this myself. At 21, I had all but completed enrollment in a community college and was hit with this requirement of tax information from my divorced and estranged parents, one of whom abandoned all involvement when I was 16 . I had moved out of the other's residence when I was 18.
I had a huge stack of financial records showing that I was self-supporting since 18. However, I couldn't get tax info from either parent; the earlier estranged one exhibits traits of borderline personality disorder and I felt it was dangerous to initiate contact, and the other was categorically "forbidden" by the spouse.
So, the answer was "Aww, that's cute. Come back when you're -this- tall."

Also, I'd already had to order a copy of my birth certificate because the earlier estranged wouldn't let me have the original, so it wouldn't have done me any good to brave that undertow anyway.

What if they're estranged from their parents and their parents try to hold them up in order to get the documents they need?

That's almost what happened to my brother. He and my mom were estranged from the day he turned 18. Every one of us was kicked out of the house around the time we turned 18, with the exception of my one sister, who was kicked out when she was 16.
When my brother went to go to college, he needed the FAFSA info from both parents in order to get financial aid, and my mom refused to give him the info. The school he wound up at was a community college, and they didn't require the info as long as he paid up front for the full price of tuition. He moved in with an uncle, and got a job, and started school a semester late so that he could pay for it himself.

forcing parents to make payments to their ex-spouse who was once the custodial parent, rather than directly to their child or the child's college, thus actually reducing the child's ability to attend college,
My dad was one of the parents who refused to pay child support willingly. His reasoning was that he would rather buy us what we needed than give the money to my mom. He did buy us school clothes every year, and paid for all of my activities fees in high school. He also bought me my first car, and drove me to work before I had the car. He did wind up sending, IIRC, about $20.00 each pay period to avoid having the money deducted automatically from his paycheck. I'm not sure how that worked.
My mom went to court and put a lean against his house, so when he sold it, she collected all of the back child support.
I was not quite 18 at the time he sold the house, and my mom used the money she got to buy herself a new car. I brought up the argument that the money was supposed to be used for us kids, and wouldn't it be better to split it into savings accounts for college? (Three of graduated high school in four years, and I was the oldest.) Her response?
"This is my reward for supporting you myself all those years."

I wound up not going to college, and starting the lovely tradition of being kicked out and becoming estranged from my mother.

"Her response?
"This is my reward for supporting you myself all those years."

I wound up not going to college, and starting the lovely tradition of being kicked out and becoming estranged from my mother."

I'm so sorry, Jazzhands. I empathize with experience.

My brother got this from the parent end. He married his wife and she had 5 kids she brought to the marriage. Her oldest wouldn't obey house rules (not fucking his 14 year old girlfriend in their house when they were out and he was 18 years of age). Not doing agreed upon chores in trade for cell phone service, food, etc.Her oldest moved out and finished high school sleeping on someone's sofa. Then he applied for college and he brought papers for financial aid for my bro to sign. Bro was all "Hell no!" Bro refused to sign to be financially responsible for someone he couldn't trust. Nor would he give out financial info. School was pretty adamant. Bro was even more determined. Bro won that battle

Boy figured it out on his own and is doing well. It has been really good for him to man up and make tough decisions and have to be responsible for them, good or bad.

Huh, I've seen the reverse situation, where the student is tight with the parents, but tries to prove she's "independent" and poor in order to get Pell Grants.

When I went back to school I didn't apply for anything. I just paid tuition in three installments every quarter.

It's my understanding that states "earns" money for every dollar of child support they collect (I've been told this but never confirmed, maybe somebody here knows for sure?). If this is true, extending the amount of time child support must be paid would be a huge cash cow for the state.

It really burns me to see other people getting college for free when I've worked so very hard to be self-sustaining...doesn't matter if it's from a parent or a federal grant, it isn't fair to the rest of us to decide which one of us gets aide and which one doesn't on any thing other than achievement.

Meloni, I believe its the Social Security Act, Title IV (1975) that allows states to get federal money as long as they collect support the way the feds say to do so.

The system is broken, it's that simple. Miscreants play the system, responsibility is grossly displaced where it isn't entirely abolished, and as a result a minority who are willing and able to take responsibility for themselves are disproportionately punished for doing so.

I ended a friendship with a young lady in high school because she felt the only avenue to try to gain independence from her abusive middle-class parents was to do her damnest to get pregnant in order to qualify for financial assistance in all areas.

Meanwhile, I lost a 4.0 average because the set of parents I wound up with were more concerned with histrionics than the fact that I worked full-time and studied hard. I wound up spending my earnings getting out of a volatile home instead of using my savings for tuition. C'est la vie.

The way the system works, from many years ago, was that if your parents were responsible and had a 10% savings have to pay more for their kids college than the parents that bought $250K house mortgaged to the hilt and a couple of Corvettes in the driveway.

I think we're on the road to make the legal age of adulthood 27.

I weep for the future.

"I think we're on the road to make the legal age of adulthood 27.

I weep for the future."

Agreed! It's shameful, simultaneously coddling the irresponsible to rely on mommy & daddy, widening the window of opportunity for federal assistance or insurance fraud, and giving people who had no business reproducing in the first place further opportunity to blackmail, wheedle, taunt, and maniuplate their grown children who became adults long before any age-related rite of passage.

At least when I went to school, if you could prove you were self-supporting you did not need parental info even before age 24. Several parent friends and I are in agreement-when you turn 18, you enlist or you have a scholarship. I suppose you work and support yourself would work, too. All of us are middle class, but not high enough we can pay for 2 or 3 or 4 college educations, nor do I think we should. My well to do parents didn't pay for mine and I still got it. My hubby let the military pay for his AND got paid to get it. It builds good character-cliche, yeah, but true.

Of course if we at all can and a kid can go, we will help out. But they don't need to depend on that and get lazy. And I won't forgo retirement for it.

Absolutely agree, momof4.

Mental note to me: DO NOT MOVE TO MARYLAND
Done.

Or WV.

The problem is, financial aid is based on your parents' income. So if your parents are divorced, and the non-custodial one is rich, but the custodial one can't pay out of pocket, you can't get financial aid. So you're screwed if the non-custodial parent doesn't help.

I personally believe education up to a BA to be the responsibility of the parents. There's something really wrong about people who can afford to educate their children but don't. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for the boo-hoos of the "But I'm not close to my child, my child hates me!"... well, you should have thought of that before you got divorced. Doesn't absolve you of your responsibility.

No, I don't think the state should force you to pay, but I think you are a bonafide asshole. Raising your child is your job. Part of raising a kid means educating him/her.

"I personally believe education up to a BA to be the responsibility of the parents. "

Why? Most of the country doesn't even NEED a BA. There are 100 better ways to go about getting a stable career in almost any feild. Why is a parent's job to foot the bill for 4 to 5 years of basically doing whatever the "kid" (read adult) wants? Why stop there? It's a parent's job to feed and house their kids, should that continue on to 25 or so too? Should we all be required to buy our kids their first house? When does it end?

I got my BA on my own, and it's a big fat waste of money. DH has a 2 year degree he got paid to get, and he supports a family of 6 comfortably. Should his parents have been forced to pay for him to take 4 years of unnecessary school? Again, why?

Personally, I think everyone should be forced to work at least 2 years before deciding what sort of continued education they want past high school. Few 18 year olds have any idea 1) what real life is like and 2) what they want to do with theirs.

Seconding momof4's comment wholeheartedly.

One other problem with the collection of child-support is that the custodial-parent has no accountability when it comes to spending the funds. I realize that it would be difficult to monitor this, but there is something terribly wrong with a mother who gets her manicures and massages funded by the father, who stays at the Union Gospel Mission between truck runs because he can't even afford a place to live (for example).

No one NEEDS a college degree, but no one NEEDS to have kids either, and if you don't have a vested interest in your child's well-being and financial stability after age 18 then maybe you shouldn't be reproducing in the first place. It's one thing to have momof4's attitude where you'll help your kids out if you can but they're aware that you can't guarantee a free ride. My parents had a similar philosophy, and I would never expect them to spend money on me that they don't have or go into debt to finance my education. But it's another thing to have the money but decide you'd rather buy a new car/install a swimming pool/spend thousands on a designer wardrobe instead. Your kids shouldn't be working three minimum wage jobs to pay for school while you're buying a new luxury vehicle every year.

And in intact families, I think this is less likely to happen because (hopefully) everyone's interests are aligned and the parents want what's best for their kids. But with divorce the focus shifts to getting/keeping as much of the assets as possible regardless of what's in your child's best interest; ie dad resents all the child support payments and refuses to pay a penny after they turn 18, and mom decides that if he doesn't have to then why should she? So you have situations where parents could easily pay for the education but they won't solely out of spite, and the kid is the one who's punished. I don't know if it makes sense to legislate in every case, but maybe there could be a threshold where if you're making X amount of money then you MUST contribute toward your child's education, and it would be easy to mandate that the money is paid directly to the school goes into a fund that's not touchable by the other parent, and expires if not used for tuition purposes.

" I don't know if it makes sense to legislate in every case, but maybe there could be a threshold where if you're making X amount of money then you MUST contribute toward your child's education, and it would be easy to mandate that the money is paid directly to the school goes into a fund that's not touchable by the other parent, and expires if not used for tuition purposes."

This would avoid situations like the $80,000 trust fund for my education that was put away by my grandmother and frittered away by my parent after I was out of the picture two years and reached the age of majority.

and if you don't have a vested interest in your child's well-being and financial stability after age 18 then maybe you shouldn't be reproducing in the first place. -- Shannon at February 15, 2012 2:36 PM

Regardless of family status -- Until the age 18 I can't sign a contract, own real property, (technically) be charged with a crime, etc. So I have 6,574 days that I am not a responsible person. On day 6,575 I am now responsible and can join the military, get a credit card, buy a house, buy a car, etc. But now you want to hold the parent in hock to what the kid who wants to study the effects of Buddha on the Inuit in the fourteenth century.

KMA!!! Part of being an adult is being responsible. I disagree that FAFSA should question the parents information.

Let me guess -- you would have Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as beholden to his kids as much as the kid who was pulled out of the house by Social Services at age 12 for criminal child abuse because they left the kids alone for 15 minutes to go shopping?

"But now you want to hold the parent in hock to what the kid who wants to study the effects of Buddha on the Inuit in the fourteenth century."

If the alternative is Mom buying herself a new designer wardrobe every season then yes I think the money would be better spent sending your kid to study Buddha. Although ideally as a parent you should be raising your kids with enough common sense not to pick useless majors. But I'm not talking about cases where the parents quite reasonably aren't willing to finance a useless pursuit, but where they could easily pay but just don't feel like it. Sure that's your right but it's still shitty parenting, not to mention usually a sign of selfishness and poor money management.

Why shouldn't the mom spend the money she's earned on clothes for her for once after 18 years? What if she'd rather finally see Europe than help with a housing down payment? Rather have a car that doesn't smell like petrified french fries than buy textbooks? Why is that wrong? How long do you want one adult's earnings given to another adult, for ANY reason?

Generally speaking, a parent can block a child from entering a free vocational-trade program available through a public school, and can prohibit a child from working for money/ earning an income.

It is possible for parents to assure that a child graduates high school with no marketable trade skills, no savings, and nowhere to live.

And then they can effectively block their young adult progeny from qualifying for financial aid for 6 years.

Thank you, Michelle.
Yes, it's abhorrent how legally impotent young people are to vindictive and/or mentally ill parents. Again, the system is broken: countless parents are harassed on meritless reports of abuse turned in to authorities by vicious neighbors or bratty children, while minor victims of physical or psychological terrorism in the home are left to languish because their district is overworked, underfunded, and bullied by the accused parents into dropping the cases.
Caring or, at least, indifferent parents are within their rights not to spend their savings to support or educate their children after they reach 18, but there are serious problems with the overreaching authority that parents are given. If the kid's going to fend for himself at 18, he needs to learn some life skills before then. This does NOT happen when parents are given the authority, for example, to home-school (usually without ANY qualifications) their child, forbid the child to work, forbid the child to engage in any media awareness, and forbid the child to socialize whatsoever (be mindful that I refer to long-term scenarios - I'm not castigating parents who do their parental duty by "grounding" a child of social privileges short-term, or of limiting media access if their kids are socialized and/or enrolled in a group school setting). One's job as a parent is to prepare their child to be functional, if not well-adjusted, in societal living. The law, unfortunately, allows for the deranged to reproduce and maniacally dominate their kids for their formative years (or completely ignore them). That's even greater disincentive to say that ADULTS should be tied back up by the government into the umbilical cord for basic living decisions after they reach 18 - let alone 21, 24, or 27 (late twenties? Really, people?!) It's just totally unnecessary, since the people who care about their kids are going to help them within reason anyway, whereas legislation like this is just giving already resentful breeders a bigger axe to grind about and with their children.

In a word: Arrrrrrrrrrgggh

Good discussion above.... I cannot imagine what drives any legislator to think this might be a good idea. We in Maryland have faced such silliness for many years, and in dealing with issues of divorce, custody, support, etc., formed Fathers United for Equal Rights Foundation
http://www.marylandfathers.org/ holding legal clinics for how to deal with the system.