05 Jan '15 15:13>
Originally posted by no1marauder"Your child remains your child no matter how old they are "
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 cer ...[text shortened]... he age of majority" is a correct and full description whereas "adult" would not be in this case.
offspring is a more suitable term here. to avoid confusion caused by language limitations. son/daughter would also be better, but only to express the relation between two adults. that is the most important issue: is an adult "owed" something by another adult?
yes, parents should educate their children to the best of their ability. who decides that though? should someone struggling at poverty level be sued by their children for not sending them to harvard?
are you going to set up lists of apropriate colleges based on income?
is a parent promising a 5 year old to send him to college a binding contract?
you may not like these "silly hypotheticals", but they show just how ill conceived, abusable and worthless this law is.