I have a better idea. Why don't they include a course in the sophomore year: How to obtain financial aid.

How people can say that their college money is running out is beyond me. I'm currently enrolled for my third college degree and yes, I'm doing it with financial aid.

But..but... they're disadvantaged! Scarred for life from the divorce! Sadly, they have this law here in Oregon. Non custodial or never married parents are required to support an adult child in college from 18 to 21 I think.

IIRC, the kid is required to maintain a certain GPA but don't hold me to that. This is a subject I can't bring up with my mother. She blindly supports it as a good thing (sore point in my parents divorce).

We're so messed up in this country regarding when adulthood is reached. I believe, legally, at least in some states, parents are still responsible for their children until age 21. We're expected to pay their medical expenses, like they're still "minors", but we can't see their health records because they're "adults". They can go to war, yet they can't drink.

College expenses are a problem for divorced couples. It's not so much the tuition, which can be covered with scholarships or financial aid, but the added expenses, like housing, books, and food. College kids today can't find jobs. There aren't any in many areas, and/or the ones that used to be filled by college kids are actually being taken by adults hungry for work.

I have a friend who is paying all of the extra college expenses for her two kids because the ex, who makes much more than she does, figures his obligation to them is done. It isn't fair, but I agree it would violate equal protection just to require divorced couples to do this.

I have an even better idea Patrick. Don't marry, don't have kids, don't cohabitate, don't even look in their direction. The legal system is getting us there quicker than we will admit.

Who the hell would even PROPOSE a bill like that, and with WHAT justification???

I have heard of many judges ordering this as part of child support obligations. Our system straddles the fence on this subject. When I wanted to go to college, I was unable to get any financial aid because of my parent's income regardless of the fact that they did not contribute a penny toward my upkeep and refused to help pay for college. They started charging me rent when I was 16 and still living at home. I think that we should either require parents to pay for college or declare young adults independent and eligible for financial aid.

I think that we should either require parents to pay for college or declare young adults independent and eligible for financial aid.

Or do away with (government) financial aid altogether and force the universities to actually compete on a cost basis.

There are strong arguments (with evidence) that suggest that the bulk of tuition inflation is due to the easy availability of student aid at no risk to the universities themselves.

When two people divorce, they make up a divorce settlement agreement, which addresses who will pay for what (i.e., who is responsible for maintaining health insurance for the kids, who will pay for their school supplies, etc.). College tuition is almost always included as far as I have seen (I'm an attorney and work for the court). So, why is this law even needed? People can come to these agreements on their own.

My (not divorced, thank God) parents didn't pay for my college expenses (I earned a scholarship, went to a cheap school, and worked), and I've always thought that I was better for it. I took it a lot more seriously than most of my friends who were still on their parents' dole.

Sorry if this posts twice, am having server problems.

My parents' divorce agreement included our educational expenses. Halfway through, my dad declared that he "couldn't afford it anymore". I got a job, worked 30 hours a week and guess what happened? My grades skyrocketed.

You guys will love this one: Custodial mom pushes son to attend a college in hometown. Also pushes son to stay at home instead of moving out, and appeals to the judge to extend child support until son graduates from college. 'Cuz, ya know, it's really much LESS expensive for him to live at home then go out an establish another residence. It's really all in the son's best interest, wink wink. But the irony was the son had no interest in college, went into the Army and pissed his mom off to no end. She had plans for a three-season room off the back of the house that would have been financed by his remaining at home and drawing more child support checks.

I ran into the same problem as Jen: couldn't get financial aid because of my parents' combined income, despite the fact that I was actually supporting myself. I wound up getting a private student loan which covered the first year and a half. After that, I worked internships, working around my school hours. It was exhausting at the time, but the internships gave me a big leg up in the job market after graduation.

Just a reminder, all you taxpayers are paying the salaries of the people who sit and come up with these things.

I'm with Lyssa on the why needed?, this is often in the divorce decree. :shrug: The problem STILL is that even with the divorce decree, they don't respond to how much a parent can actually afford, if the other parent is in a position to force an amount on the other. Like going to an state college rather than a private one that costs 3-4 times as much. A friend has been in court 3x over this very thing. The kid wants to go to a certain school that is very expensive... but neither she nor anyone else can afford that. So? They are using the court to force one parent to pay for it.

As a parent, you want to help your kids. But as mentioned... If there is no money, you have to do the best you can. Ruining one parent to help the kid via the state is unconscionable.

My standard of expectation on this is, what would be reasonable if the parents were still together? Not what can you force one parent to pay under potential contempt of court and jailtime.

Another case of unequal protection under the law that effects mostly men. If I remember correctly the proportion of females that get sole custody after a divorce as opposed to men is in the high eighties. Around 87% if I can recall correctly but I'm too lazy to look it up today, if someone else wants to then feel free.

Want to know what my parents did when they wanted me to go to college, but; refused to pay for it? Took me straight to military recruiters at age 17. The army recruiter offended my mom; the Air force recruiter was an arrogant dick to me; and there was no way I was joining the marines, so I ended up in the Navy. I was in the delayed entry program by my senior year of high school, and was being shipped to basic training shortly after I graduated high school. I would venture to say I'm better off because of it.

While we're on the topic of unequal protection under the law for Non-custodial parents: Lets not forget that if someone in an intact couple loses their job, then the family automatically spends less and makes financial sacrifices. However if a NCP loses their job, they are expected to keep sending the same amount of money to their child and ex. If the NCP falls behind he will be thrown in jail, where it's impossible to find a new source of income.

Also if the member of an intact family chooses to take a lower paying less stressful job then that is his choice. However if a NCP does the same thing then a judge 'IMPUTES' his income, and he has to pay the same amount of CS [which is usually impossible] or go to prison.

I often have wondered how everyday citizens would react if politicians decided to implement tax laws in a similar way.

For example if you lost you're job you would be required to pay the same amount in taxes until a judge decided that you had suffered a 'change in circumstances' 6 to 12 months later. Or if after taking a lower paying job the government would make you pay taxes based on 'imputed income' still leaving you with a large tax burden that would be impossible to pay with your new smaller salary. All with the threat of prison time if you fail to comply.

I'm more then willing to bet that the reaction to such laws would make the first American Revolution look like a church picnic.

I am tired of people getting married, having kids, and then getting divorced.

"There are strong arguments (with evidence) that suggest that the bulk of tuition inflation is due to the easy availability of student aid at no risk to the universities themselves."

Makes sense. This is a by-product of a bigger issue, though. Most people in college shouldn't even be there. They are just doing it because so many companies require college degrees for jobs that don't really need one. This, in turn, is because a high school diploma no longer means anything. So all these middle-class people feel like they need to jump through those hoops, go to college for four years and buy a degree, just so they can make it past the trolls in human resources. This, when a high school education costs the taxpayers around $250K for a single kid.

"I took it a lot more seriously than most of my friends who were still on their parents' dole."

That's great, but they still got the same degree you did. C's get degrees.

In my state, NC, parents are responsible for the uninsured, 21 and over, children if they live in the same house with the parents. I call it the doctor's and hospital protective act.

keep the government out of our homes! Let the parents decide when their children should be emancipated not the state.

No to the nanny state. Parents have to take back authority in the house and not give everything to the child that they ask for. We are raising generations of spoiled brats who become criminals oftentimes. www.kalamazooobjectivist.blogspot.com

Richard Cook: I have an even better idea Patrick. Don't marry, don't have kids, don't cohabitate, don't even look in their direction. The legal system is getting us there quicker than we will admit.

I'm taking your advice to heart, Richard. I am not married, nor will I marry, and I certainly won't cohabitate.

Same here, Patrick. This discussion has got me wondering, to expand on what I said above - Why don't people demand an overhaul of the K-12 system and make it worth something, instead of demanding government assistance with college? People stick their kids in the school system for most of their childhoods, and it seems more like tax-subsidized daycare than a real education. The point of school isn't to be custodial. Why not make sure a kid graduating from high school is actually fit to hold down a job and function in the real world? That alone would render most of this expensive college stuff unnecessary. It's nothing more than drinking camp for a lot of students.

I said :"I took it a lot more seriously than most of my friends who were still on their parents' dole."

Pirate Jo said: "That's great, but they still got the same degree you did. C's get degrees."

Not necessarily true. Many dropped out, and some did the drop in, drop out thing and took years more to get the degree. Also, GPA matters at least some- I certainly wouldn't have gotten into law school with many C's, and I still (like most I know) have my undergrad GPA on my resume.

Pirate Jo also said: "Why don't people demand an overhaul of the K-12 system and make it worth something, instead of demanding government assistance with college? People stick their kids in the school system for most of their childhoods, and it seems more like tax-subsidized daycare than a real education."

Word. That's what needs changing, but I'm really at a loss as to how.

Passing this idiot law will only result in a slew of divorced non-custodial parents moving out of Virginia.

@Richard Cook: Why bother getting married when you can just find a woman you hate and buy her a house?

don't states base the amount of child support on a % of income, rather than a specific dollar amount? or does it depend on the specific divorce agreement?
when my parents divorced my father was ordered to pay 17-23% of his check for child support. he paid 20%. but he wasn't required to increase the dollar amount if he got a raise - i know, because he made a big point of telling me that he did it anyway. my mother paid health insurance, my father started a savings account for my college. when i went, i had to work, get as much aid as possible and pay for whatever i could - but my parents covered the rest. i got a's and b's. except in organic chemistry. i got a c in that....
i don't think divorced parents should be required to pay for their kids' college any more than married parents should - but i think there should be a difference in the amount of aid available to kids whose parents aren't helping. and fyi, private schools have a tendency to offer a lot more scholarships/grants than public, so the actual cost is often the same or sometimes less than public. they have to compete, after all. not too many pay sticker price.

My brother's child support was set through a long legal formula...actual the child support is set and then apporationed to each parent according to a modified income and then one generally pays the other according to some balancing formula. Frankly, I think it is black magic. The payments stay the same (unless they end up in court for some reason) until the kids reach a certain age and once the kid reaches that age they get more support. Like whatever said, the amount after it is initially setup is not dependant on income without going to court. Whether a job is lost or a raised - the support is the same and has to be paid.

The one wrinkle I know of that is playing out is his ex-wife later had kid with another man. He was injuried in an accident and now is on a government aid program since he cannot work. This means the government has legally decieded his income (i.e. a judge could impute income to him because it has already been decieded in the eyes of the law) and that amount is at level where he would not have to or be able to pay child support.

fyi, private schools have a tendency to offer a lot more scholarships/grants than public, so the actual cost is often the same or sometimes less than public. they have to compete, after all. not too many pay sticker price. -- Whatever

When I got my undergraduate degree I went to the most expensive school in the state. Yet because of all the aid I got I ended up paying less then my buddy from HS that went to the big State school down the road.

They just sent me a request for money. According to their flyer 97% of the students there recieve finicial aid through the finicial aid office.

While we're on the topic of unequal protection under the law for Non-custodial parents: Lets not forget that if someone in an intact couple loses their job, then the family automatically spends less and makes financial sacrifices. However if a NCP loses their job, they are expected to keep sending the same amount of money to their child and ex. If the NCP falls behind he will be thrown in jail, where it's impossible to find a new source of income.

Also if the member of an intact family chooses to take a lower paying less stressful job then that is his choice. However if a NCP does the same thing then a judge 'IMPUTES' his income, and he has to pay the same amount of CS [which is usually impossible] or go to prison.

I often have wondered how everyday citizens would react if politicians decided to implement tax laws in a similar way.
====================================
Mike Hunter- Great Points!
Feminists groups have trained the courts and the media to view non-custodial Dads as ATM's only.
They make seperate laws for non-custodial parents (Dads) because they have made them so unpopular so that anything the court heaps on them they deserve.

The whole system is totally fucked, and I don't mean maybe.

Then there are guys like my Ex, whose parents give him an allowance, out of which I get my measly $69/weekly for 2 kids. I haven't been able to even apply for more child support, because he hasn't worked in over 8 years. But as long as his parents are paying his child support, he won't go to jail, nor will he have to take any kind of responsibility for himself or his children. Isn't that great? /sarcasm

The whole system is totally fucked, and I don't mean maybe.

Then there are guys like my Ex, whose parents give him an allowance, out of which I get my measly $69/weekly for 2 kids. I haven't been able to even apply for more child support, because he hasn't worked in over 8 years. But as long as his parents are paying his child support, he won't go to jail, nor will he have to take any kind of responsibility for himself or his children. Isn't that great? /sarcasm

Posted by: Flynne at January 10, 2010 8:32 AM
=====================================
I'm paying a borderline mother $575 dollars a month for one child. She also gets $400 from the father of her other child. She is now going through a divorce with a man she was married to for 4 years and has no kids with. She is living in his $250,000 property in the midwest (3100 sq foot house and 10 acres of land plus out buildings)driving his $25,000 Suburban with video monitors all bells and whistles etc. While he and his kids live in half a duplex and she is driving him into bankruptcy.

I have spent $30,000 in attorneys fees and court costs so I can see my daughter and so her mom will use her legal name.
Isn't that great? Consider yourself lucky. He doesn't want to be involved- there isn't much you can do.
If my ex handed me our daughter and didn't want to be involved and never paid a dime I would be doing cart wheels and jumping jacks. It depends on your perspective and what you have been through.

I'm right there with you Flynne. My ex lives with a woman who makes a lot of money. For years he made a lot of money. I begged him to up his meager support when my industry collapsed and, especially, when I had to take a year-plus to battle cancer. Uh, nope. But he lost his job on Oct. 15 and on Oct. 16 notified me that he was cutting support because of his hard times. Mine apparently were irrelevant to him, as clearly were our kid's.

Couldn't afford to take him back to court then (I chose to pay the deductible for the chemo instead) and have just depleted my cancer fund defending myself against his demand for more custody AND EVEN LESS child support. He actually asked to be let out of sharing the cost of our child's birth, which I paid in full and have waited seven years to be repaid on his word.

Yeah, Mike, all the moms are bitches and all the dads are masters of goodness, at least in the imaginary world where you live. Where I live, in the land of single moms, almost everyone is struggling and would never deny their kid what they had to give. The dads? Not so much. I don't see them sacrificing for their children unless ordered to do so. I don't see them voluntarily offering more when they can. Nope, money is their weapon and they use it to punish us moms and to hell with it if the kids get punished along the way.

And, yeah, I picked horribly. I admit it. And every day I get up and feed and dress and educate my child to the best of my ability and try to make up for him. It's not enough but it's what I have.

I knew you'd go right there, Amy.

Actually we were together, until our child was three. He was present at the birth. He was present after. He just wasn't present one day when we came home from vacation (neither was the furniture, but that's another story).

He lost his job the day before I found out I was pregnant and after that was unemployed or underemployed and so while on bed rest and recovering from a C-section I paid all my bills, all his bills, and all the kid's bills out of my savings and income -- because parents who can have a moral obligation to provide. But at the time he promised to make it up to me/us. I'm still waiting for that day. His getting a fantastic paying job didn't seem to make any difference.

I know you disagree, but people change, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. If change wasn't possible you wouldn't have a job because your job is to instruct people in positive change. He changed for the worse. No one saw it coming. Today, for instance, he is paying $3000 for his dog's surgery but is withholding money for our child's $300 a month in medicine to punish me. He can do that because he knows I'd stand on the street corner and let people take swings at me for $5 a punch to raise money if I had to -- most fathers do, and that's why they can and do walk away financially (not always, maybe not even most of the time, but far too much of it).

And you can condemn my wonderful funny sunny child to a damned future all you want. I'll have her call you in 20 years to tell you what a wonderful life she had and is having. My entire being is dedicated to ensuring she doesn't become a statistic of any sort, unless it's a National Merit Scholar statistic.

Go lecture her father.

Go lecture her father.

That's your job. And if that doesn't work, then maybe you needed to have a conversation with his mother before you got horizontal with him.

You chose poorly. Now you reap the reward.

Oh, and on the subject at hand - college costs and who pays. My motherless niece -- with a father who not just didn't pay for her but didn't want the bother of her around -- had herself declared an emancipated minor at 17. She graduated almost full scholarship from a prestigious university and is now all grown up and doing such good and so well in the world. She's also a whiz at finding money for things she wants (like getting her master's in public policy now while working full-time)

Thank you for the advice Brian. It's not surprising coming from you. But I'm done lecturing him. I've just helping my child live the best life possible.

Perhaps if men stood up and lectured other men for their bad behavior some of that behavior would stop. I know my role in this. But so much easier to beat up on the single mothers than say, "Any man who doesn't live up to his responsibilities to his child fully and completely is a bum and a bad guy and should be shunned by all of society."

Not that I care what you think, but he did in fact change. I can't wave a wand and change him back. I can only make the best life possible for my child.

Thank you for the advice Brian. It's not surprising coming from you. But I'm done lecturing him.

Perhaps if men stood up and lectured other men for their bad behavior some of that behavior would stop. I know my role in this. But so much easier to beat up on the single mothers than say, "Any man who doesn't live up to his responsibilities to his child fully and completely is a bum and a bad guy and should be shunned by all of society."

Not that I care what you think, but he did in fact change. I can't wave a wand and change him back. I can only make the best life possible for my child.

Perhaps if men stood up and lectured other men for their bad behavior some of that behavior would stop.

Ya know, I just don't see this happening. Because it's still the woman's fault for choosing poorly. Never the man's, mind you. People are so quick to throw the responsibility back at the other person, because it's easier to do that to admit you made a mistake. I admit mine all the time. I thank the gods for my parents, who have helped me and my girls through thick and thin. My ex's parents think my girls are little trophies to trot out when it's convenient for them, and ex treats them like pals, for the 6 hours that he deigns to take them one day a week. And bitches at me because the younger one needs braces. And the older one needs money for school. And so it falls to me to provide for them. And so I do, to the best of my ability. Their father can go pound sand for all I care, but the girls love him and so I will never say that to his face, though there have been MANY times when I wanted to. One day they'll understand. He probably never will.

I doubt you'll see many guys lcturing for two reasons.

First, women reward such reprehensible behavior on the part of men, and the men who take advantage of that fact dont give a shit.

Second the guys who dont behave in such a manner are far more concerned with their own relationships to give a fuck about the problems of women they spent most of high school and college warning about such guys. Not that the guys in group one would listen to the guys in group two anyway.

Agreed lujlp. Another reason that dovetails in with #1 would be getting tired of being lumped in with the "dogs" and having to constantly prove ourselves as being "fine upstanding men". The reward being a pat on the head, an "atta boy" and them ignoring us, till they need a sympathetic ear or money.

Virginia's HB 146 makes perfect sense when you understand an ulterior motive that's probably driving it. It's an annual "profit" that's otherwise known as the "Federal Incentive Match," and that's provided under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

In short, each state is "awarded" an annual incentive match by the federal government (us of course) for their total statewide "child support" collections. It's simple, the more child support dollars collected, the more a state is rewarded with your tax dollars.

Keep in mind that just because Virginia's custodial parents may end up collecting "child support" until their children turn 23, that doesn't mean those college kids whose "best interests" that order allegedly serves will see one dime of those extra monies. What it does guarantee however, is that Virginia's annual share of the federal incentive match pie will be significantly larger as a direct result.

See the last paragraph of page 2 in forthcoming link. At least Ohio is honest about it being an "award."
http://www.odjfs.state.oh.us/clearances/public/TransDocVIEW.aspx?tdid=433453

When you understand that your State's budgets aren't immune to today's brutal recession, then forcing noncustodial parents (NCPs), the father in 84% of cases nationally, to pay more child support over a longer period makes perfect sense for the States financially.

For example, in 2003 I believe the year was, Ohio "earned" an award of $229 million for making itself the middleman in collecting child support from NCPs. A quarter-billion dollars is a lot of money to add to a state's bottom line, just ask Ohio. In these economic times, it's probably becoming more of a must for some states.

This link from a federal government website http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/family/childenf/noncustodial.htm provides some interesting information such as the fact that up to 65% of an NCP's "net" income may be seized for child support. I note that to dispel those myths that anything to the contrary is true at the federal level.

I know of one noncustodial mom who was ordered to pay more in child support annually than she'd earned in summation over an eight year period as a stay at home mom pre-divorce. What "visitation" was she granted to her children? None. She hadn't seen nor spoken to them in years because her ex was well-connected politically, and thereby had completely alienated her from her children.

For those men who incorrectly think that not dating, cohabitating, marrying, or copulating protects you from paying child support until a child to whom you're not the father turns 23, 25 etc, think again.

That same link in the paragraph above advises, "it may be possible, depending on state law, to challenge the paternity finding." Understand that it matters not that you're truly not the father, all that matters is that you were named and thereby found to be the father in a court of law.

In layman's terms, that means that if you were served according to that State's (the one naming you paternally) statutes, then you're the father, end of story, period. Pay your "child support" or go to jail; "deadbeat."

In 2006, $5.6 billion was expended to enforce child support collections nationally. How much was spent that same year to enforce visitation? A shameful and paltry $10 million was "awarded" by the federal government (to the States) to enforce visitation orders nationwide. Those dollars were divided between 54 (sic) States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands). Sadly, the federal government brags of this financial “accomplishment.”

$5.6 billion spent nationally to enforce child support collections, and $10 million to enforce visitation orders for those very same children? That's utterly despicable! Moreover, it speaks volumes as to whether today's draconian child support collection efforts are truly in "the children's best interest," or alternatively (and more aptly), in each state's best financial interest.

Stated otherwise, only 1/1000th of 1.7 percent (or .00017 percent) of the monies spent to enforce child support orders is spent to enforce visitation orders for those very same children. It's hard not to argue then that dollars are more important than dads in the eyes of our government.

Perhaps then, this partially explains why society views us fathers as nothing more than living, breathing (albeit absolutely devoid of love and adulation of course) ATM machines that are to be accessed with impunity by the courts, and on behalf of our children as we're told? Sadly, the following acronym accurately depicts Fatherhood as it exists today, and with the ever increasing degenerative ills of our society reflecting it as such all too well? DAD = Debit As Dictated.

Maybe if it were the other way around, (where dads where more important that dollars) those like me who drive eight to ten hours and over 500 miles one way to "visit" their children bi-weekly, wouldn't hear the words "you're not seeing your daughter" uttered by the custodial parent, and out of nothing more than blinding and vindictive hatred.

The fact that I'm nearly $7,000 overpaid in my "child support" doesn't afford me anymore access to, or contact with, my beloved daughter whom I love so dearly and miss tremendously. Nevertheless, those regularly scheduled "child support" debits keep coming, and that, while her cheerful voice becomes more and more of a very painful and distant memory to me, her proud and loving father.

My endless attempts to reach her on the cell phone that I've provided to her continue to prove futile. Thankfully, when my call to her cell phone goes to voicemail (as it has every day for nearly two weeks now), I am reminded of that precious sound of my beautiful daughter's voice.

Speaking as one who grew up exceedingly poor and without a father, I can tell you with 100% certainty that if the choice were mine and to this day, I would have chosen my dad over dollars every minute of every day of every year. This is especially true of those years that were spent in an orphanage and in various foster care homes while my father was alive.

Tony Fantetti
Ohio Council for Fathers Rights

Lujlp, Sio -- How about standing up to them because it's the right thing to do, and the thing a good man would do?

You guys sound so much like anti-choice activists. Think of the children, think of children, until it actually comes to taking care of the children. Better to let little ones suffer from their fathers' sins than man up, indeed.

I find your categorization that these are all bad boys doing this to their children hilarious. Middle-age men walk away from their families every single day after 20-plus years of marriage. If you could have predicted each of these in college, then you need to open up a service right now. You will be rich in a week.

Tony, I don't see anyone as an ATM. I do see a child who has somewhat serious medical issues and very serious dental needs and a father who, like far too many I know, understands that the mother would die before letting her child suffer and so doesn't step up. Again, what kind of man who is able does not provide everything he possibly can for his child, especially one who sees his child on a regular basis? Without complaint or bragging.

Why doesn't your daughter want to take your calls Tony? In this blame-the-mother mood here, I'm sure it's not your fault at all. But I can't imagine any circumstance under which my own wouldn't leap to talk to me, especially if she had her own phone. She'd keep that thing at her side as her most precious possession. She'd never let anyone -- including her father -- take it from her. So why isn't she answering?

Tony,

Please hang around.

We're pulling for you.

"She'd never let anyone -- including her father -- take it from her. So why isn't she answering?"

It couldn't be parental alienation... no siree bub.

Flynne:

Out of which I get my measly $69/weekly for 2 kids. I haven't been able to even apply for more child support, because he hasn't worked in over 8 years...

If you can't afford to support your children by yourself, then; you shouldn't reproduce. You are a woman after all, so it was a choice.

Every custodial parent in a courtroom screeching about the money that their entitled to should be asked one question: 'If your ex died how would you feed your children?' If their answer is something along the lines of: 'Derr my children would starve' then the custodial parent is an unfit parent.

But as long as his parents are paying his child support, he won't go to jail, nor will he have to take any kind of responsibility for himself or his children.

The law holds him responsible for himself; that should be obvious. He's also financially responsible for his children, as you also know, since you're collecting $3,360 tax free from him every year. If you don't think that is real money then feel free to send it to me.

Elementary:

First of all sorry that you have/had cancer. But it's not relevant to the overall discussion. If you think that I'm just going to check my beliefs at the door because life kicked you in the teeth, and you decided to play the 'poor me' card then you're sadly mistaken.

For years he made a lot of money. I begged him to up his meager support when my industry collapsed...

It's not called mommy support for a reason. Child support is suppose to cover half of the cost of raising your children. That money is not suppose to be spent on the custodial parent although some of it usually is; and, child support from him isn't suppose to pay for your half of the costs of raising the children you decided to have.

Uh, nope. But he lost his job on Oct. 15 and on Oct. 16 notified me that he was cutting support because of his hard times. Mine apparently were irrelevant to him, as clearly were our kid's.

Your hard times are irrelevant. Again it's child support not mommy support. Also if one of the providers in an intact family loses their job, then; the family has to cut back and make sacrifices. Why should it be any different when a couple is no longer together?

You should be grateful that you won't have your drivers license suspended or be thrown in jail if you are unable to spend the same amount of money on your children while going though hard times. That's a luxury that a NCP doesn't have, and it usually takes 6 months to 1 year for the judge to consider it a change in circumstances and lower the amount of CS. That's not even counting the 3 - 6 months that it takes to even get to even see the judge to ask for a downward modification. In the meantime you'll be getting charged interest and penalties on the child support that you can't pay.

depleted my cancer fund defending myself against his demand for more custody AND EVEN LESS child support.

OH NO!! Anything but more custody! If you really are having financial difficulties supporting your children, and the amount of child support per day that you receive is too low, then dad having more custody will ease your financial burden. Of course the amount of child support will go down, it's not mommy support remember? If the children spend less time with you, then you don't have to spend as much money on them.

Unless of course it really is about the money. In which case you were planning on spending that extra child support on you instead of your children. Which is defacto child neglect.

Yeah, Mike, all the moms are bitches and all the dads are masters of goodness, at least in the imaginary world where you live.

Why debate someone with when you can just put words in their mouth? Please tell me where and when I said this. Remember to be specific.

Where I live, in the land of single moms, almost everyone is struggling and would never deny their kid what they had to give. The dads? Not so much. I don't see them sacrificing for their children unless ordered to do so. I don't see them voluntarily offering more when they can. Nope, money is their weapon and they use it to punish us moms and to hell with it if the kids get punished along the way.

I would rebut this comment, but there's nothing to rebut. The entire thing is sexist misandry. I wonder how a comment like this would fly on here or even in public if you changed the group that you were attacking. For example if you replaced the word dad's with the word jews.

It would look something like this:

Where I live, in the land of single moms, almost everyone is struggling and would never deny their kid what they had to give. The jews? Not so much. I don't see them sacrificing for their children unless ordered to do so. I don't see them voluntarily offering more when they can. Nope, money is their weapon and they use it to punish us moms and to hell with it if the kids get punished along the way.

And, yeah, I picked horribly. I admit it.

Bingo we have a winner!

Perhaps if men stood up and lectured other men for their bad behavior some of that behavior would stop.

You could say the same thing about women I suppose. But that's part of the human condition isn't it. Every group of people is going to have a few bad apples.

But so much easier to beat up on the single mothers than say, "Any man who doesn't live up to his responsibilities to his child fully and completely is a bum and a bad guy and should be shunned by all of society."

I had to laugh at this. When has society ever 'beat up' on single mothers? It's enabled them every step of the way, and in the past couple of decades has made them out to be martyrs.

Shunning is fine with me. I wouldn't want to associate with someone who doesn't respect my rights as a human being because of my gender or custodial status anyway. Taking away other peoples liberty and property at gunpoint to enforce a chauvinistic worldview is the problem.

You guys sound so much like anti-choice activists. Think of the children, think of children, until it actually comes to taking care of the children. Better to let little ones suffer from their fathers' sins than man up, indeed.

First of all as a bitter middle age divorcee you don't know the first thing about being a man, so stop telling people to "man up".

Second of all if you don't support a man's right to unilaterally abandon his parental responsibilities,after a pregnancy has already occurred; legal protection which women already have, then, you are an anti-choice activist.

I find your categorization that these are all bad boys doing this to their children hilarious. Middle-age men walk away from their families every single day after 20-plus years of marriage.

So do middle aged women; the only difference is that they do it twice as often. Women initiate 66% of all divorces. However in states that have laws of presumptive shared custody unless one parent is considered unfit, the percentage of divorces initiated by women is much lower, and divorce in general is much lower. I wonder why? It seems that many men are not "walking away" from their families; but, are instead being driven out of their families by vindictive ex-wives.

Mike Hunter -

I wish I had time to read that entire thing. I think I got the laughable gist.

I paid for my child's entire, extraordinarily expensive prenatal care because she had huge problems in utero. I paid every cent of the hospital/C section bill. I paid every single cent of her expenses for the 3 years her father and I were together after her birth. When he left he didn't pay a cent in child support for a year -- including when I got cancer. Still, I allowed him to see our child whenever he wanted. Then he got a job and paid the absolute minimum until he lost said job, and then immediately slashed what he paid. Please explain to me where your hilarious notion of mommy support fits in.

I on the other hand live in a great school district where rent is high so my child can attend the public school. He lives in a lousy one and has low rent -- not an option for me. I pay her health insurance, her medical bills, her dental bills. What he pays doesn't cover half of her food bill and half of the rent for a second bedroom in this school district, much less everything else involved in raising a child. He has never once offered to stay home with her when she was sick, and as she has been sickly that has meant tons of lost wages for me while, again, I am the one largely supporting her and for a long time was the only one supporting her.

Let's not forget he had $3000 for surgery for his dog today.

By the way, he begged me to have this child.

I tell women all the time that children need fathers. For a long time he had keys to my house and came and went as he pleased. Funny how he waited 7 years -- until he wanted to stop paying anything at all -- to seek any sort of custody.

My kid has seen me cry at the pharmacy when the bill was handed to me. She's seen me go a week with virtually no sleep to earn enough extra to pay for the dance lessons she adores. She's seen me 90 pounds and bald collapse in the alley as I walked her to preschool because he had other plans that day.

I'd never play the cancer card. But a man who would abandon his toddler to a woman who cannot walk, who cannot lift her, who will and did tear stitches three times trying to tend to her -- well that's not a man who gets to suddenly decide now he wants more custody. A man who abandons his responsibilities has abandoned his rights.

Parental alienation? I think it's time some men -- not all -- admit they do a damn fine job of what I call child alienation.

I own up to every mistake I've made. And I atone. How do I do that? By being the absolutely best parent I can possibly be -- which, yes, means encouraging a relationship with her father. But tonight when he called, she didn't take the phone, either. She listened to him on the machine and walked away.

Who do you think is responsible for that?

I wish I had time to read that entire thing. I think I got the laughable gist... Please explain to me where your hilarious notion of mommy support fits in.

Why bother? You won't read it anyway. I already explained my position, and it makes sense. If you want to have a debate, or, even a conversation with someone you have to at least listen to their replies. By the way it might behoove you to take some of your own advice:

Again, what kind of man who is able does not provide everything he possibly can for his child, especially one who sees his child on a regular basis? Without complaint or bragging.

The majority of your rambling posts contain you complaining about your ex or bragging about how you would do anything for your child.

And yet I never complain about having to take care of my child. I am proud to do so, and enormously relieved that I could through impossibly trying circumstances that prove a parent who wants to provide will find a way to do so. There is no can't when you must.

I don't brag about what I do for my child. I just do it. Again, as any decent and responsible parent would.

Go hate on women. Doesn't matter to me. I'm too busy loving my child, my father, and so many other men in my life. My disrespect is quite clearly aimed at one person who earned it and one specific type of behavior, which is deplorable and indefensible, except by you. Yours? An entire gender. I hope you don't have daughters. It'd be awful to know your dad thought about women the way you do.

Thank you for the advice Brian. It's not surprising coming from you. But I'm done lecturing him.

Wait wait wait.

What's this "coming from you" shit?

I've got no abandoned children or failed relationships in my wake.

People don't just change. An asshole is an asshole. You did the horizontal bone dance with a douchebag, and somehow, you expect us to believe that he was Mr. Wonderful until one day he just up and changed?

Did he have a nervous breakdown? Alcoholism? Drugs? Those things will "change" a person.

Otherwise, I refuse to believe that you couldn't tell he was a douchebag when you were sharing your bed with him.

No, for some reason modern women are attracted to douchebags, and they get burned by them, and then they complain that the "nice guys" aren't interested in listening to their sob stories.

Look, you failed. If you aren't using the legal avenues available to you to go after the douchebag, then that's fine - you don't need to rub everyone's nose in how wonderful of a mother you are in the face of his abandonment.

But maybe you'll be more careful in your choice of prospective mates in the future. If not, at least you can serve as a dire warning to other women about the danger of the douchebag menace.

Brian, I actually judge people's characters for a living in a sense (Amy knows what I do) and I missed this one by a mile.

To this day people still shake their heads and say, not in a million years. People who don't know the details would still vouch for him in a second. But privately he is a man who would punish his child in order to hurt her mother.

I am not a kid, he is not a kid, this isn't some hot bad boy thing gone wrong. It's just gone wrong. If I could explain it, I would. And, yes, it is my absolute greatest regret and shame. I have never ever said otherwise.

Again, if you have the powers to foresee every relationship where someone will change for the worse, PLEASE open a business. I promise to be your first client.

Finally, I wish I had had the financial means to go after him, or the emotional ones. But -- and again I am not seeking sympathy -- I had other more pressing concerns when this first began. I thought the best thing I could do for my child was to focus on surviving. Still, I'm sorry if I offended you. Trust me, this situation has offended me enough for both of us.

OK, I"m done with this topic. I don't know what set me off about it today. But this need to blame women in general is just wrong. Even youjust now Brian. "For some reason modern women are attracted to douchebags." So every guy who has a modern woman is a douchebag? Eighty percent? Fifty? Because if that's what modern women are attracted to we have to assume that men are mostly douchebags. A sweeping generalization like that just undercuts everything that precedes and follows it.

I think one of the big problems is how support is determined. I look at my brother's divorce. Our parent's and me (to a lessor extent) had to support him for two years after the divorce. I mean that my parents were buying food for him and the kids during his time. When you think about it, it makes sense. They were getting by but not by a lot before. After the split, two houses have to be maintained, the legal fees, etc - clearly the total costs are going to be significantly more yet the income is the same.

My brother seriously considered giving up - he worked the math and he would actually have basically as much just becoming bum. Sure, he might loose his DL, and couldn't hve much. Been he wouldn't have to work near so hard either and would still have about the same amount.

Hi
The recent emergence of online college and university programs is providing wonderful opportunities for many people to earn college degrees who would not otherwise be able to get them. College and university tuition costs can be prohibitively expensive for many people. The advantage of an online degree program is that it costs much less.
Most online college and university programs give you the option of paying per course, making it easy to earn your degree at a pace you can afford. Also, because you are learning from home, there is no room and board to pay. In addition, all your reading material is on the web, so there's no need to buy costly textbooks.
Another advantage of earning a degree though online college and university programs is that you can do it at your own pace. Working professionals and busy parents can earn degrees while also attending to their everyday lives. You can study whenever it's most convenient for you, in the evening, on weekends, during breaks at work.
Also, you can study from whatever location is easiest. Many parents who are studying for online college and university degrees choose to study at libraries or coffee shops because there is less distraction. As long as you have computer access from your location, you can study there. This allows for a freedom and a flexibility that is simply not possible when earning a degree on campus at a ?brick and mortar? university.
The benefits of earning a degree through one of the many online college and university programs are numerous. Many people are stuck in careers they don't like, or are unable to be promoted within their company, because they lack a college degree. Employers value employees with college degrees for good reason ? college graduates tend to be more diligent, more thoughtful, more creative and more driven than other employees.
Online college and university programs teach students to think critically and creatively, and to analyze information in an intelligent way, skills which prove invaluable in the workplace. Not only do job chances improve with an online college and university degree, but you can expect to earn more money as well.

But this need to blame women in general is just wrong. Even youjust now Brian. "For some reason modern women are attracted to douchebags." So every guy who has a modern woman is a douchebag? Eighty percent? Fifty? Because if that's what modern women are attracted to we have to assume that men are mostly douchebags.

Not mostly, but it's often a safe bet.

The more attractive a (young) woman, the more likely she is to go for a douchebag. Douchebags are beta males who have managed to successfully mimic alpha traits long enough to get a woman to make an emotional investment.

I'm not blaming women, just stating observed reality. Blame genetics if you like. The douchebag is someone who's figured out how to use your genes against you.

A sweeping generalization like that just undercuts everything that precedes and follows it.

Pot. Kettle.

Generalizations are useful for explaining things. The only generalizations that undercut anything are ones that are wrong.

Elementary said:

"Perhaps if men stood up and lectured other men for their bad behavior some of that behavior would stop."

Yeah, YOUR decision to mate with a fellow and his subsequent behavior are grounds for YOU to demand that WE men collectively take action in response. Narcissism.

"I know my role in this."

Honestly, I don't think you do.

"But so much easier to beat up on the single mothers..."

Yeah, *that* is what we do in this society, "beat up on single mothers"...by sending them welfare money in various forms, offering state-paid armed guards to collect child support from fathers, and lionizing single mothers to the point where you can, without irony, demand action from other men to shame the man *you* selected.

"Any man who doesn't live up to his responsibilities to his child fully and completely is a bum and a bad guy and should be shunned by all of society."

Let's start with you first. What are we to say about women who mate with such men? What should we say about such women, particularly the ones who expect society to intervene and act on behalf of such women AFTER the child arrives?

So after all the sex and romance and good times, when the kid shows up, and the guy is a bum, me and all the other guys are supposed to take on the burden of both shaming your sex partner AND providing for our own families? That is what you expect?

Good luck in life. Seriously, I mean that--I wish you the best. But just leave all of us out of it, okay? I had nothing to do with creating your kid--that was all your fun. Don't get all loud now, after the good times are over and the hard work is here, and start self-righteously demanding that other "guys" (i.e., me and other men not your sex partner) have any obligation to lift a finger helping you. We don't.

And yet I never complain about having to take care of my child. ...I don't brag about what I do for my child.

Yes you do. Most of your previous posts consisted of: You complaining about how hard it is to take care of your child; you complaining about your ex; and you bragging about how you would do anything to care for your child. No one here takes you seriously because you can't even live up to your own standards. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch.

Go hate on women. Doesn't matter to me.

My disrespect is quite clearly aimed at one person who earned it and one specific type of behavior, which is deplorable and indefensible, except by you. Yours? An entire gender. I hope you don't have daughters. It'd be awful to know your dad thought about women the way you do.

As an MRA I'm use to being called a woman hater, it comes with the territory. But don't confuse insults with arguments. The only person who is attacking an entire class of people is you. As I said before look at your hateful anti-father rant, and replace the word dad's with the word jews or blacks. Now ask yourself if you would say something like that about any other class of people.

Also I never defended the actions of your ex, or attacked mothers in general [although you had no problem trashing all of the fathers out there]. So stop putting words in my mouth.

If you can't afford to support your children by yourself, then; you shouldn't reproduce. You are a woman after all, so it was a choice.

Who said I couldn't afford to support my kids? The reason I was "awared" $69/week for 2 kids was because I WAS MAKING MORE MONEY THAN MY EX. Why? Oh I dunno, because I WAS WORKING FOR A LIVING. Take your holier-than-thou attitude and shove it. The only thing I EVER wanted my ex to do was to BE A FATHER. He failed in so many ways it's not even funny anymore. I'm so glad you're such a better person than the rest of us, Mike. Now have a nice big glass of STFU.

And remember, he WANTED these kids. It wasn't JUST me, asshole. Where the fuck to you get off thinking that it was a one-sided deal? Ex didn't know he didn't want the responsibility until he had to deal with it. And then he decided he didn't want to deal with it anymore. So he didn't. Marriage and raising a family is supposed to be a PARTNERSHIP. What is one supposed to do when the other partner BAILS, eh? They carry on AS BEST AS THEY CAN. Which is what I did. No thanks to the EX. Wake up. Wake UP. WAKE UP. Do you honestly think women like me and elementary WANTED to raise our kids alone and without the means to do so?? You're an imbicile of the highest order if you think that.

Who said I couldn't afford to support my kids? The reason I was "awared" $69/week for 2 kids was because I WAS MAKING MORE MONEY THAN MY EX

Then what the hell are you bitching about? Money is obviously not an issue. Are you complaining because you want the judge to take even more of his meager earnings to punish him?

You were the one who chose to reproduce with this guy. Complain to him not me. I don't think I'm better then everyone else. But if you think that it's acceptable to use your children as a way to try to hurt your ex emotionally or financially, then I know I'm better then you.

First of all, I wasn't complaining to you, specifically. You CHOSE to answer me. Secondly, I would like the judge to enforce some responsibility on the ex, because he refuses to accept any of his own accord.
I have NEVER and WOULD NEVER use my children as a way to hurt my ex in ANY way, shape or form! HE can see then any time he wants to. That he CHOOSES to only see them on Sundays for 6 hours is on him, especially when I've told him he can take them any day of the week after school, and he can't be bothered! How dare you even insinuate such a thing! What an asinine thing to say. Maybe SOME women do that, but not THIS woman. Honestly you really are on some kind of high horse, aren't you? (Although I will admit, I had to hide a snicker when one of his friends told me about the time he got hit by some guy at the bar who pays over $400 a week for one child, when ex was "bragging" about "how little child support [he] got away with having to pay"!

Wow. My recollection is that the Pennsylvania law was in place for years; I recall horror stories like a divorced Dad being forced to pay out-of-state tuition for a son who refused to see him and openly disrespected him - even admittedly having spat in his face on occasion.
I'm all for personal responsibility, but I will not beat up on anyone- male or female - who got hosed by their ex. So easy to say "You shoud have" - "should have known he/she would screw you over," whatever. The sad fact is there are plenty of asswipes out there of both sexes who will use their kids as pawns and do whatever they can to make their exes' lives miserable. How sad.

"Why doesn't your daughter want to take your calls Tony? In this blame-the-mother mood here, I'm sure it's not your fault at all. But I can't imagine any circumstance under which my own wouldn't leap to talk to me, especially if she had her own phone. She'd keep that thing at her side as her most precious possession. She'd never let anyone -- including her father -- take it from her. So why isn't she answering?

Posted by: elementary at January 10, 2010 5:34 PM

Elementary, in addressing one of your comments,I was not by any stretch inferring that you treated dads as ATMs, I was speaking of "the system."

My main point is that if a child's "best interest" were truly the issue in family courts, then noncustodial parents having their "visitation" rights enforced would be a much higher priority for the system than it is.

Moreover, your words in many posts above "My disrespect is quite clearly aimed at one person who earned it and one specific type of behavior... are quite to the contrary from your insults hurled at me.

Nevertheless, I'll answer you because I was addressed. Speaking to my daughters phone, first, her charger "was lost." This despite her only being in fourth grade and never taking it anywhere outside her bedroom. After I replaced that, her phone shortly thereafter "fell in the toilet" while she was at school. Next, she's forced to regulary turn it off.

Why don't you explain to me why you think a nine year old child might not be "able" to take a noncustodial parents call?

Do you think that at age nine they're emotionally and intellectually capable of taking a stand on issues relating to custodial interference?

Could it be she doesn't (for reasons beyond her control) have possession of her phone, or fears what may happen while she's on the phone?

Did I mention that she's not texting or calling her friends either? That's been so out of hand in the past that I've had to disable her texting. Perhaps I also failed to mention no one else can reach her?

Alas, the conclusion you draw (which doesn't require much inference) is that my daughter doesn't want to speak with me. I presume that's because I too am a horrible father, just like the majority of others you want the "good fathers" to lecture?

By the way, I never said she "didn't want to take my calls," you did. And for the record, she "leaps to talk with me," when she's able.

Finally, please advise as to how she's to prevent anyone from taking that phone from her as a 4th grader, and I'll pass it along to her.

ADULT CHILD SUPPORT MUST END
AS ITS PURPOSE WAS DIRECTED AT CHILDREN

We, the undersigned citizens of New Jersey, draw the attention of the State of New Jersey Legislation to the following:

The law in New Jersey that requires only divorcing and non-custodial parents to pay adult child support and pay higher education costs for their adult children is unconstitutional.

NEW JERSEY LAW FOR ADULT CHILD SUPPORT & HIGHER EDUCATION
In New Jersey, the Legislature and our courts have long recognized a child's (a young adult’s) need for higher education and that this need is a proper consideration in determining a parent's adult child support & higher education oblation. Writing for the Court in Newburgh, Justice Pollock set forth a non-exhaustive list of twelve factors a court should consider in evaluating a claim for contribution toward the cost of higher education. See Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982).  
  The enumerated factors are as follows:
(1) whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed toward the costs of the requested higher education; (2) the effect of the background, values and goals of the parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education; (3) the amount of the contribution sought by the child for the cost of higher education; (4) the ability of the parent to pay that cost; (5) the relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course of study sought by the child; (6) the financial resources of both parents; (7) the commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education; (8) the financial resources of the child, including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust; (9) the ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation; (10) the availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans; (11) the child's relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance; and (12) the relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to the overall long-range goals of the child (adult).
In the aftermath of the Newburgh Decision, the Legislature essentially approved  those criteria’s when amending the support statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)(5). Compare N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)(5) (listing factors to consider in determining support) with Newburgh, supra, 88 N.J. at 545, 443 A.2d 1031 (listing factors to consider in determining payment of education expenses). Kiken v. Kiken,  149 N.J. 441, 449, 694 A.2d 557 (1997). Thus, a trial court should balance the statutory criteria of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) and the Newburgh factors, as well as any other relevant circumstances, to reach a fair and just decision whether and, if so, in what amount, a parent or parents must contribute to a child's educational expenses. It can be argued by the New Trial Lawyers Association and various women support groups that law in question is designed to promote the highest good, does not make this law constitutional.

THE NEW JERSEY & FEDERAL CONSTITUION SHOULD
PROTECT AGAINST AN INJUSTICE THAT WOULD
LEAD TO UNEQUAL TREATMENT

Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution sets forth the first principles of our governmental charter – that every person possesses the “unalienable rights” to enjoy life, liberty, and property, and to pursue happiness. The Equal Protection clause of Federal Constitution provide that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Although our State Constitution nowhere expressly states that every person shall be entitled to the equal protection of the laws, the New Jersey Supreme Court has construed the expansive language of Article I, Paragraph 1 to embrace that fundamental guarantee. Sojourner A. v. N.J. Dep’t of Human Servs., 177 N.J. 318, 332 (2003); Greenberg v. Kimmelman 99 N.J. 552, 567-68 (1985). The first paragraph to our State Constitution “protect[s] against injustice and against the unequal treatment of those who should be treated alike.” Greenberg, supra, 99 N.J. at 568.

When a statute is challenged on the ground that it does not
apply evenhandedly to similarly situated people, our equal protection jurisprudence requires that the legislation, in distinguishing between two classes of people, bear a substantial
relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. Caviglia v. Royal Tours of Am., 178 N.J. 460, 472-73 (2004); Barone v. Dep’t
of Human Servs., 107 N.J. 355, 368 (1987). The test that New Jersey Courts have applied to equal protection claims involves the weighing of three factors: the nature of the right at stake, the extent to which the challenged statutory scheme restricts that right, and the public need for the statutory restriction. Greenberg, supra, 99 N.J. at 567; Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 491-92, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976, 94 S. Ct. 292, 38 L.Ed. 2d 219 (1973). The test is a flexible one, measuring the importance of the right against the need for the governmental restriction. See Sojourner A., supra, 177 N.J. at 333. Under that approach, each claim is examined “on a continuum that reflects the nature of the burdened right and the importance of the governmental restriction.” Ibid. Accordingly, “the more personal the right, the greater the public need must be to justify governmental interference with the exercise of that right.” George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 29 (1994); see also Taxpayers Ass’n of Weymouth Twp. v. Weymouth Twp., 80 N.J. 6, 43 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 977,97 S. Ct. 1672, 52 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1977). Unless the public need justifies statutorily limiting the exercise of a claimed right, the State’s action is deemed arbitrary. See Robinson, supra, 62 N.J. at 491-92.

Our state equal protection analysis also differs from the more rigid, three-tiered federal equal protection methodology. When a statute is challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, one of three tiers of review applies -- strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis --depending on whether a fundamental right, protected class, or some other protected interest is in question. Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461, 108 S. Ct. 1910, 1914, 100 L. Ed. 2d 465, 471
(1988). All classifications must at a minimum survive rational basis review, the lowest tier.

POINT ONE

Why N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)(5) & New Jersey Common Law requiring
only divorcing & non-custodial parents to pay adult child
support & higher education costs for their adult children
is unconstitutional.

In cases where there is an intact family, with parents married and residing together, the statute has no application. In such cases, the parents have no legal obligation to provide support for adult children and adult children have no remedy for compelling such support. In essence, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)(5) and case law permits a burden to be imposed upon one class of citizens---divorced or separated parents---that cannot in like circumstances be imposed upon married parents residing together. Parents in this latter class are thus immune from such legal liability. Likewise, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)(5) and case law creates a privilege for one class of citizens---adult children of divorced or separated parents---that is not granted to children whose parents are married and residing together. In consequence, by establishing distinctions based upon the marital status of the parent, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)(5) and case law violates the equal protection clauses of both New Jersey and United States Constitutions.

A state's interest in secondary education, however highly ranked, is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on other fundamental rights and interests. This type of law that exists in New Jersey must be struck down --- even if it is a good law. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (Child Labor Tax Case), 259 U.S. 20, 37, 42 S. Ct. 449, 66 L. Ed. 817 (1922) (reviewing court must strike down unconstitutional law even though that law is “designed to promote the highest good. The good sought in this unconstitutional law is an insidious feature, because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it, without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant, or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards.”) The law also egregiously places different burdens and benefits placed on persons similarly situated also violate the guarantees of equal protection. Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 101 S. Ct. 2434 (4,5) (1981), South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Alabama, 526 U.S. 160, 119 S. Ct. 1180 (1999), Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996). This law establishes distinctions that are wholly unrelated to the legitimate state interest that the law seeks to advance.

SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
A recent South Carolina Supreme Court struck down a similar provision mandating post-majority support as a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. It reasoned that since married parents do not have to support their adult children, it was discriminatory to force divorced parents to do so. See Webb v. Sowell, 387 S.C. 328, 692 S.E.2d 543 (2010), see also Curtis v. Kline, 666 A.2d 265 (Pa. 1995). Grapin v. Grapin, 450 So.2d 853 (Fla. 1984). The Florida Supreme Court found based on equal protection grounds, that is was fundamentally unfair and a denial of equal protection under the law to impose the duty of supporting a post-majority child on divorced parents but not on the parents who are married to each other. In Ohio, the law regarding payment of post-secondary education expenses is well settled and set forth in Bardes v. Todd 746 N.E.2d 229, 235 (Ohio App. 1st Dist. 2000).In Bardes, the court restated the rule regarding payment of post-secondary educational expenses as follows: without a specific agreement of the parties and the subsequent adoption of the agreement by a trial court, a judge generally has no authority to issue orders setting aside money for future college expenses of a minor child. However, this rule only applies if the money would be used after the child reaches the age of majority. In addition, the Bardes court stated that no case law supported a holding that attending a college of one’s choice is a fundamental right guaranteed by the federal Constitution, even for the most gifted of children.
SUPPORTING LEGLISLATIVE ACTION
In January of 2003, the New Hampshire legislature introduced a bill proposing to change the existing law regarding post-secondary education orders. The previous statute, which applied before the amendment was introduced, granted superior courts the authority to order divorced parents to contribute to their child’s post-secondary educational expenses. This new bill was drafted to amend RSA § 458:17 by inserting the following provision: “No child support order shall require a parent to contribute to an adult child’s college expenses or other educational expenses beyond the completion of high school.” The purpose of this provision, according to the bill’s sponsor, was to remove a trial judge’s discretion when ordering divorced parents to contribute to their adult child’s college expenses. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives voted in favor of the bill, and on January 1, 2004, the new child support provision took effect. The new law is codified as RSA § 458:17(XI-a).
In February, 2010 the Virginia legislators killed a bill to extend child support to adult college students. The bills would have required a non-custodial parent to make payments to the other parent while their adult child is attending college. A limited number of states have such laws, but legislators in Virginia voted the bills down after receiving an avalanche of angry e-mails and phone calls from their constituents opposing the bill. The bill was killed by the House of Delegates Courts of Justice Committee in an voice vote on January 22 2010 to strike the bill from the docket. It was killed this legislative session by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, which voted 13-to-1 to shelve the bill indefinitely. On February 1, 2010 only Senator Roscoe Reynolds (D-Martinsville) voted to keep the bill alive.

POINT TWO
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the Amendment's Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, "guarantees more than fair process." The Clause also includes a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests."
The liberty interest at issue in this case -- the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children -- is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Supreme Court. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Court held that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." In New Jersey however, this right only applies to intact families in which they can not be forced to pay adult support and higher educational expenses for their adult children.
A few years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the Court again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." The Court explained in Pierce that "the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
In subsequent cases also, the Court have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'comes to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'"); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205(1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition".)
In New Jersey, these applicable principles are well settled. “Parents have a constitutionally protected, fundamental liberty interest in raising their biological children.” In re Adoption of a Child by W.P. & M.P., 308 N.J.Super. 376, 382, 706 A.2d 198 (App.Div.l998) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394, 71 L. Ed.2d 599, 606 (1982)), vacated on other grounds, 163 N.J. 158, 748 A.2d 515 (2000). “The Federal and State Constitutions protect the inviolability of the family unit.” W.P. & M.P., supra, 308 N.J.Super. at 382, 706 A.2d 198 (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212-13, 31 L. Ed.2d 551, 558-59 (1972)). However, government “is not without constitutional control over parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or mental health is jeopardized.” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 603, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 2504, 61 L. Ed.2d 101, 119 (1979) (citing Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 230, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1540, 32 L. Ed .2d 15, 33 (1972)). The State, as parens patriae, may sever the parent-child relationship to protect the child from serious physical and emotional injury. W.P. & M.P., supra, 308 N.J.Super. at 382, 706 A.2d 198.
It can be argued that the State's is empowered, as parens patriae, to extend the benefit of secondary education to adult children regardless of their parents' wishes can not be sustained against a free exercise claim. In selecting compulsory secondary education law to a select class based on marital status, it can not in anyway impair the physical or mental health of an adult child, nor result in an inability to be self-supporting, or to discharge the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, or in any way materially detract from the welfare of society. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 1,14.
Because fundamental rights are so important to our freedom as Americans, the government must meet a heightened burden of proof in order to restrict those rights. In legal terms, the government's case begins with a positive demonstration – they must prove that there is a government interest in restricting the right, and that the government has a specific interest in restricting the right of the particular parents whose actions are being challenged. In early 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court used this very language when talking about violations of religious liberty. According to the Court, the government must "demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law 'to the person'--the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened." Gonzales v. O Centro Espirito Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 548 U.S. 418, 430-431 (2006).

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in order for the state of Wisconsin to override the rights of Amish parents, the government had to show that it had a compelling interest in requiring students to stay in school until age 16. Speaking of the right of the parents, the Court said that "the essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972) (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has required the government to follow this standard whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right. Prominent examples of this are cases that deal with racial discrimination (see Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995): "All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. . . . Such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests"), restrictions on free speech (see Widmar v. Vincent, 254 U.S. 263, 269-270 (1982): Whenever discriminating against speech on the basis of its content, the government "must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end"), and invidious discrimination against religion (see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993): "To satisfy the commands of the First Amendment, a law restrictive of religious practice must advance 'interests of the highest order' and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests." In all these cases, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest, before the fundamental freedom at stake can be limited.
In general, parents of adult children have an "important" right concerning the question of whether or not they contribute to the cost of a college education for their adult children. Moreover, these constitutional rights derive from both privacy rights and liberty interests which have been established. To have laws in New Jersey compelling parents of a selected class to pay for secondary higher education is wrong. The decision of parents as to whether or not the adult children should go to college, and who shall pay for those educational expenses are matters of right that are purely personal to the parents, and to the adult child. The state of New Jersey has no legitimate interest in interfering with these decisions. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the right of a parent to the "custody and management" of a child is "constitutionally protected." Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 at p. 652, 43 L.Ed.2d 514, 95 S.Ct. 1225 (1975). The Court has specifically addressed the importance of parental interests.

The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her child come(s) to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551 at p. 559, 92 S.Ct. 1208 (1972).

The degree to which any parents wishes to support, or discourage, the post majority educational opportunities of adult children is encompassed within the management of children concept. The purpose of “Child Support,” is for the care and maintenance of children. Upon attending age 18, a child is deemed an adult in the State of New Jersey, and is thereupon possessed of all of the rights, privileges and obligations of adulthood, including the right to decide for himself whether or not to attend college, and which college to attend. The “Child Support Laws,” were created to assist children, not young adults. If so, Social Security Benefits and Welfare Benefits would be extended to all adult children attending college.

A Florida appellate court in 1978 declined to order a divorced parent to pay for his adult emancipated daughter’s undergraduate college tuition:

We agree that a trial court may not order post-majority support simply because the child is in college and the divorced parent can afford to pay. [citations omitted]

While most parents willingly assist their adult children in obtaining a higher education that is increasingly necessary in today's fast- changing world, any duty to do so is a moral rather than a legal one. Parents who remain married while their children attend college may continue supporting their children even beyond age twenty-one, but such support may be conditional or may be withdrawn at any time, and no one may bring an action to enforce continued payments. It would be fundamentally unfair for courts to enforce these moral obligations of support only against divorced parents while other parents may do as they choose. Grapin v. Grapin, 450 So.2d 853, 854 (Fla. 1984).

In light of this extensive precedent, there can be no doubt that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children’s education as they deemed fit. I respectfully submit that since married parents can not be forced to support their adult children with higher education and adult support, it is discriminatory and unconstitutional to force divorced parents or noncustodial parents to do so. In this State, upon attaining the age of 18, you are considered legally an adult. Adult support must end as well as forcing divorced and non-custodial parents to pay for higher education.
POINT THREE
The New Jersey Compulsory Education Law, N.J.S.A. 18A:38-25 terminates a parental obligation to educate their child upon attaining the age of 16.
N.J.S.A.18A:38-25. Attendance required of children between six and 16; exceptions provide:

Every parent, guardian or other person having custody and control of a child between the ages of six and 16 years shall cause such child regularly to attend the public schools of the district or a day school in which there is given instruction equivalent to that provided in the public schools for children of similar grades and attainments or to receive equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school.

The relationship between child and school authorities is not voluntary one but is compelled by law; child must attend school and is subject to school rules and disciplines; in turn school authorities are obligated to take reasonable precautions for his safety and well-being. Jackson v. Hankinson, 51 N.J. 230, 238 A.2d 685 (1968).

Hence, based on N.J.S.A.18A:38-25, a parent’s obligation for educating their children end upon a child turning 16. The question is, how can you reconcile the case and statutory law compelling college contribution and adult support to a select class of parents?