Home Recommended Products Contact Us
 
 
Home
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Donate
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
 
 
Signup for Newsletter
 
E-mail:  
 
 
Search Site
 
 
 
 
 
 
Divorce and Children's College Costs 
 
Divorced Parents Are treated differently and have no choice, this is discriminatory since married parents are NOT forced to pay for college costs and can set their own terms and standards for kids to remain in school
 
This area (loss of parental decision making re: college & costs) is my pet peeve as it is what was used to take all from me to prepay  4-7 years early college educations,  which as seen below appears to be premature but nonetheless happened. 
 
There have been a number of cases rejecting this in other states for NCP/divorced parents. 14th amendment equality between married and divorced parents  having same rights.  I recall a case from Pennsylvania specifically.  My attorney in Mass said this had been reviewed by SJC and upheld that DIVORCED parents must pay college costs.  I don't know the case.
Here is some prior stuff on this topic:
Regarding post- 18 age support:
At Joe's request here a few cases I have for a rainy day. Still have not found the case the lawyer was talking about regarding equal protection of married v
divorced parents.
Attachment of plaintiff's assets. The judgment attached $ 60,000 of funds the plaintiff is currently holding in a bank account. General Laws c. 208, [***16] 36, provides that, "when alimony or support is adjudged for the spouse or children, the Court may require sufficient security for its payment according to the judgment" (emphasis added). The plaintiff argues that the primary purpose of the attachment was to secure the college expenses of his son n10 and that, because these expenses are a future contingency, they have not yet been subject to a judgment, as required by G. L. c. 208, 36. The plaintiff concludes [*190] that the judge correspondingly exceeded his authority under G. L. c. 208, 36. We disagree. PHILIP N. ROSENBERG vs. CINDY M. MERIDA. SJC-07682 SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS 428 Mass. 182; 697 N.E.2d 987;