Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that's not the concerning part.
the bigger issue here is how, as far as i know, this decision has no legal basis other than a precedent set in the 80's. the problem here is how a judge is allowed to set up these kinds of precedents.
The precedent was established by the New Jersey Supreme Court which is binding on the lower courts in that State. To wit:
Newburgh v. Newburgh, 88 N.J. 529, 443 A.2d 1031 (1982) held that the court has jurisdiction to award a payment of support and expenses of a child attending college even though the child has reached the age of majority.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/termination-of-support-college-support.aspx
The New Jersey legislature has also endorsed the awarding of payments for college educational expenses by parents:
Writing for the Court in Newburgh, supra, 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. 88 N.J. at 545, 443 A.2d 1031. The enumerated factors are
(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.
[Ibid.]
“Six years [after Newburgh was decided], the Legislature essentially approved those criteria when amending the support statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a). Compare N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) (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.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1238085.html
As usual, the case is more complicated than the superficial treatment of the issues given by the media. I have not been able to find the specific decisions for this case, but at first glance they seem to be within the legal boundaries set out above.