1. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    15 Dec '14 18:44
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    again, not the issue here.

    i don't care much whether she wanted 100k a year for harvard (or whatever the fee is) or 100$ a year for Hicksville's Hillbily University (Trademark).


    the issue that is most important here is how a judge (adult) forced 2 adults to pay for another adult's bills. and, until someone can prove otherwise, how a judge made this decision without any law to back it up (other than another judge making a similar decision)
    "...until someone can prove otherwise, how a judge made this decision without any law to back it up..."

    Putting the burden on others to show a governing law, seems a little lazy.
  2. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    15 Dec '14 19:161 edit
    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.
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    15 Dec '14 20:37
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    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:/ ...[text shortened]... ns for this case, but at first glance they seem to be within the legal boundaries set out above.
    The first link has an interesting state-by-state breakdown. Thanks.
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    16 Dec '14 08:191 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    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:/ ...[text shortened]... ns for this case, but at first glance they seem to be within the legal boundaries set out above.
    ok, then at least it is only a matter of stupid law and not a blatant disregard of it.

    thanks.
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Jan '15
    Moves
    10189
    03 Jan '15 00:22
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    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:/ ...[text shortened]... ns for this case, but at first glance they seem to be within the legal boundaries set out above.
    What's missing from the more recent case are steps one and eleven from your example :
    1. "If the parent, still living with the child"
    11. "the child's relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance".

    I don't see either for these poor folks.
  6. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    03 Jan '15 00:40
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    What's missing from the more recent case are steps one and eleven from your example :
    1. "If the parent, still living with the child"
    11. "the child's relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance".

    I don't see either for these poor folks.
    Those aren't "steps"; they are factors to be considered. None of the factors are decisive in and of themselves.
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Jan '15
    Moves
    10189
    03 Jan '15 01:391 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Those aren't "steps"; they are factors to be considered. None of the factors are decisive in and of themselves.
    Oh excuse me "factors" versus "steps" yes thanks for the lesson in quibbling over tiny variations in definitions and legalese BS.
  8. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    03 Jan '15 02:02
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Oh excuse me "factors" versus "steps" yes thanks for the lesson in quibbling over tiny variations in definitions and legalese BS.
    That's what lawyers do.
  9. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    03 Jan '15 02:30
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Oh excuse me "factors" versus "steps" yes thanks for the lesson in quibbling over tiny variations in definitions and legalese BS.
    The "tiny variation" is the difference between any one of the things being determinative v. being only something to be considered along with other things.

    You're welcome. Being aware of that distinction might be useful in evaluating the reasonableness of decisions utilizing the two different things.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Jan '15
    Moves
    10189
    03 Jan '15 16:393 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The "tiny variation" is the difference between any one of the things being determinative v. being only something to be considered along with other things.

    You're welcome. Being aware of that distinction might be useful in evaluating the reasonableness of decisions utilizing the two different things.
    OK Mr. Marauder after sobering up this AM and looking at my post I must agree with you, it was an unfortunate choice of words on my part, "Factor" versus "Step" was far more appropriate. I apologize for my snippy answer.
    Does that somehow change my original claim that the first case has two large differences that should change things considerably under the circumstances?
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    04 Jan '15 21:28
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    What's missing from the more recent case are steps one and eleven from your example :
    1. "If the parent, still living with the child"
    11. "the child's relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance".

    I don't see either for these poor folks.
    in this case, not a child. adult.


    replace child with adult and you will see just how insane that legislature sounds.
  12. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    05 Jan '15 11:45
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    OK Mr. Marauder after sobering up this AM and looking at my post I must agree with you, it was an unfortunate choice of words on my part, "Factor" versus "Step" was far more appropriate. I apologize for my snippy answer.
    Does that somehow change my original claim that the first case has two large differences that should change things considerably under the circumstances?
    With the caveat that I have not been able to locate a written decision in the case, I would say that only (11) mitigates against an award of parental contribution toward college costs and all the rest support the awarding of such. So the decision seems warranted unless one believes that (11) should outweigh all the others which does not seem to have been the intent of the Legislature.

    (1) whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed toward the costs of the requested higher education;

    This does not mitigate against an award; it is saying IF the child was still living with the parent would that parent have paid some or all of the college bill. There is no requirement that the child actually do so and most of these cases concern non-custodial parents in divorce cases. Of course, (11) takes into account the nature of the child's relationship with the non-custodial parent but (1) does not.
  13. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    05 Jan '15 11:52
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    in this case, not a child. adult.


    replace child with adult and you will see just how insane that legislature sounds.
    Child that has reached the age of majority is the appropriate terminology.

    Most college students' parents who have the means to do so contribute to their child's educational expenses. Some state legislatures have taken the position that children of divorced parents should not be deprived of their chance to go to college because their parents have split up with the non-custodial parent having greater financial resources. These laws hardly sound "insane" given those facts and considerations even if one doesn't agree with the legislature's judgment.
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    05 Jan '15 13:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Child that has reached the age of majority is the appropriate terminology.

    Most college students' parents who have the means to do so contribute to their child's educational expenses. Some state legislatures have taken the position that children of divorced parents should not be deprived of their chance to go to college because their parents have spli ...[text shortened]... given those facts and considerations even if one doesn't agree with the legislature's judgment.
    i don't agree.

    "Child that has reached the age of majority is the appropriate terminology."
    perhaps in some legalese. everywhere else it is called being an adult.



    you reach the age of adulthood, you are no longer owed anything by your parents. the parent is no longer responsible for your well being. you are 2 adults, who happen to share genetic material, each responsible for yourselves.


    if you believe parents should be legally required to send their child to college, how would that law work? can someone change their mind? what happens to parents that never had the means to afford college tuition? can they be sued as well?

    shouldn't there be a law requiring sons and daughters to pay back that money, including the money spent on food, clothing, housing since age 0 to age 18? should there be a law requiring said sons and daughters to provide care for their parents when they are aging? what happens when a son wants to pay for one nursing home while the parent insists on another (a situation similar to the OP).


    you are talking about forcing an adult to give money to another. you must have a better reason than "he should"
  15. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    05 Jan '15 14:32
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i don't agree.

    "Child that has reached the age of majority is the appropriate terminology."
    perhaps in some legalese. everywhere else it is called being an adult.



    you reach the age of adulthood, you are no longer owed anything by your parents. the parent is no longer responsible for your well being. you are 2 adults, who happen to share genetic ...[text shortened]... about forcing an adult to give money to another. you must have a better reason than "he should"
    I'm not going to argue a bunch of silly hypotheticals or "parade of horribles". The law is a limited one regarding a particular circumstance where parents usually provide contribution and it does not seem out of line to me to say that non-custodial parents with the ability to do so contribute to the costs of a child's education where they would have certainly done so absent the split up of the family. That's all the law says and it seems a reasonable point of view.

    Your child remains your child no matter how old they are so "Child that has reached the age of majority" is a correct and full description whereas "adult" would not be in this case.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree