There is an interesting ruling out of New Jersey where a court has ruled that parents of an estranged adult daughter must pay for her college tuition. It is a ruling that runs against the traditional view that upon a child reaching the age of majority, parents are relieved of their mandatory financial obligations just as children are emancipated from their control. We discussed a prior case where a court ruled against such an adult daughter seeking tuition. However, Caitlyn Ricci has secured a ruling that her biological parents Michael Ricci and Maura McGarvey must pay the tuition even though she moved out of their home and has seen them for years — except in court.
The ruling requires the payment of $16,000 each year so Ricci, 21, can continue classes at Temple University in Philadelphia.
She brought the action when her parents were seeking an order to have their daughter declared emancipated from them. The parents say that their daughter moved out after refusing to follow their rules and went to live with her grandparents.
The Court relied on Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), where the state Supreme Court ruled divorced parents are responsible for providing for their child’s college education. In that case, the court concluded:
Generally parents are not under a duty to support children after the age of majority. Nonetheless, in appropriate circumstances, the privilege of parenthood carries with it the duty to assure a necessary education for children. Frequently, the issue of that duty arises in the context of a divorce or separation proceeding where a child, after attaining majority, seeks contribution from a non-custodial parent for the cost of a college education. In those cases, courts have treated “necessary education” as a flexible concept that can vary in different circumstances. . . .
In the past, a college education was reserved for the elite, but the vital impulse of egalitarianism has inspired the creation of a wide variety of educational institutions that provide post-secondary education for practically everyone. State, county and community colleges, as well as some private colleges and vocational schools provide educational opportunities at reasonable costs. Some parents cannot pay, some can pay in part, and still others can pay the entire cost of higher education for their children. In general, financially capable parents should contribute to the higher education of children who are qualified students. In appropriate circumstances, parental responsibility includes the duty to assure children of a college and even of a postgraduate education such as law school.
As an academic, much of that analysis resonates with me. I do believe that college is an important part of anyone’s life and that ideally it should be available to everyone. However, it is not a mandatory stage of education and is not required for the vast majority of positions. A recent study showed that only 2 out of 5 Americans have college degrees. That is actually a number on the rise, but we still lag behind other countries like Korea, Japan, Canada and Russia with more than 50 percent of their young people holding a degree beyond high school. It is a disappointing position since the United States is widely credited with inventing mass higher educational training. We are currently ranking 13th in the world. However, there is a great difference between a desire to increase higher education and making such education as requirement for parents in supporting adult children.
While Ricci’s parents were only married for two and a half years, it was enough to bind them for the tuition.
What do you think?
Source: ABC
My parents helped me go to college. They packed up my shit in the car and took me to college. Good ghod we live in a nation of grifters and thieves.
Here is another point – there is a trend among colleges to produce utterly useless degrees that render the graduate ill equipped to get a job anywhere save academia. It seems like nowadays you can graduate with a degree in Polka Studies, but that doesn’t mean you are now competitive in the job market. There are many people for whom trade schools are a practical alternative, enabling them to make a very good living in the real world. If everyone got a 4 year degree, there would be no one fixing our cars, our computers, etc.
We should not look down upon those who choose a trade school rather than university. The goal used to be get an education or a trade to suit you for a career. Not everyone has the money to get a degree just for fun. Now, for many, it just seems to be something to pass the time.
The court is insane. And they did not answer a few fundamental questions:
1) What level of support is required? Tuition only at an in-state State school? Room and board? Drinking money?
2) How long does this court imposed requirement last? 4 years? Graduate school?
3) Does this then allow the parents legal access to their daughter during college including her grades and dorm room?
It is my understanding from other news stories that there was no agreement between the parents, so it was not a matter of enforcing a property division or child support order. Another wrinkle is that students remain dependents for federal financial aid purposes until they are older (24?). While there are some exceptions, they are limited. As a result, a parent’s refusal to complete financial aid forms or provide what the system considers appropriate support given their financial situation can significantly impact the availability of financial aid.
Only married for 2.5 years. Are they both biological or adoptive parents?
If not only an actual parent should be held liable.
steveb – Charlie Chaplin was found responsible for financial support for a child that the court agreed was not his. As I said earlier, the law is an ass, impeach!
I don’t know Issac. We’ll wait another 10 years and recalculate. Awful lot of debt-riddled college grad kids running the scanners at the grocery stores in my town. Going to watch the VW CNN special Thursday.
On the same note, had to work my way through college, and my education means more to me than just about anything.
Crazy post though! Could be an example of truth stranger than fiction, or a situation where don’t have all the details.
Why do they have to pay for Temple? Even assuming the parents can be put on the hook for college (a big assumption), it can’t be the case that the child gets to pick any college, no matter the cost. Seems like the most they should have to pay is what it would cost to go to a state school (say, Rutgers) with in-state tuition.
Of course $16K can’t be the full cost for Temple, so maybe some limitation of that nature was included in the ruling. In general, though, this still seems like a suspect ruling. I was lucky that I was an only child and my parents were educators who saved to pay for my college. But I knew other kids whose parents either didn’t have the money or thought, for character-building reasons or whatever, that their kids should pay part or all of their own way. I don’t know why the courts should interfere with those kinds of parenting choices.
BW – the parents should be able to get away with 2 years of community college before getting stuck for the state college and the least expensive one at that.
18 = adult. Period. There is no “adult, except for paying for college”. If NJ wishes to go that route, they should take away the vote from college students and the right to get married until they graduate. But then I’m thinking logically and this is all about not thinking that way.
If one takes a look at available data, it becomes apparent that the more educated a population is the higher the standard of living and the higher the quality of life is in that country. Regardless of whether or not an individual uses their post secondary education in the profession they follow or it remains that, ‘college degree’ with all the memories, four years of education where in order to succeed one must do it alone, the experience benefits all.
This can be seen when available data is researched. Democrat voters average 55% High School Graduate while Republican voters average 41%. Democrat post graduate 53% with degrees versus Republican 44%. Statistics show that the US economy does substantially better under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents. The past 35 years have seen Reagan and Bush result in major recessions with Clinton leaving a surplus and prosperity and Obama doing a yeoman’s job cleaning up the disaster that was the three stooges for eight years.
Regardless of ideology two results can be found here over the past 40 +/- years. After Nixon left office in disgrace, the following Republican administrations voted in by lesser educated voters have resulted in disaster economically as well as having cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and the two Democratic administrations voted in by better educated voters have resulted in economic prosperity, social advancement, and better planning for the future.
It seems that the lesser educated wish to ‘Take America Back’ and the better educated wish to ‘Take America Forward’.
I would say anything and everything must be done to provide higher education to as many people as possible.
I personally find it is absolutely absurd and ridiculous that parents are bound by law to pay outrageous college costs for their now adult progeny. If the state deems college education a must then it should pay the costs or declare that these children are not adults at the age of 18. This isn’t complicated.
In addition to the points already made in the comments, I do not see any time restrictions on the liability of the parents. Will my parents be required to pay my tuition if I choose to attend college in my 30s, or to go to law school in my 40s? If so, parents can never make a financial decision–whether to buy a house, retire, invest–without considering the possibility that they may be placed on the hook for their children’s educations for as long as they live. Are we SURE that they did not agree to do this and the court is just enforcing their own agreement?
How angry does this make me? Let me count the ways…
Here’s another glaring trend by these Entitled Gen in the news – they drain their parents’ financial resources, but what do you think the chances are that they will take care of those same parents when they’re older, and lost their nest egg paying for their rehab, 3rd try at college, 8 year degree, etc? It seems to be a one way street.
I, too, value higher education, and yet I completely disagree with this ruling.
Once a child reaches majority, he or she is an independent adult. They are no longer bound to their parents’ rules, and, for better or worse, are 100% responsible for their own decisions. If they go to college, but blow off classes, there will be no notes sent home to their parents. It’s all up to them how they do.
It is ideal if parents can help with higher education, but many lack either the means or inclination to contribute. In addition, when a child contributes to at least part of her education, she values it more. She’ll be less likely to blow off classes if she paid for them.
The precedent this has set is for the Entitled Generation to control their parents. You can now move out, go against your parents’ wishes and values, and they still have to financially support you. What if she wanted to go to an expensive private school? Would the parents have been forced to pay over $100,000/year?
It’s really nice if you have parents who encourage you to go to college, and pay for it, but it’s your responsibility to steer your own boat. If your parents can’t pay for college, then you do what everyone else does – you get a scholarship, student loans, and/or a part time job. Or you go to a trade school.
That’s the hard part that the Entitlement Generation just doesn’t understand – that when you are an adult you have to start acting like one. Most of our grandparents we when they were still teenagers, or in their early twenties. They moved out, got married, started a family, and were independent. Now we have created a generation with failure to launch, still begging to be considered dependent at age 26. We’ve weakened their potential by raising them to think like this. Because we parents won’t be around one day. We should ensure that our children will be able to survive without us.
I’ve known people whose kids in their mid-twenties can’t hold down a job because they won’t follow the rules or show up on time, and they are still playing video games at home all day. Still on their insurance. What is going to happen to them when their parents are no longer around?
Impeach. IMPEACH!
Paul will have his pound of flesh someday, Someway!
laser – the law is an ass! And any judge who got to this decision is an a**hole!!! Impeach!
Higher education should be available to all. Germany has demonstrated a great example of what should be done here.
Be that as it may, this case is very interesting. Obviously there’s more to this one than meets the eye.
Would like to know much more.
If Caitlyn transfers to Princeton, Yale or Cornell University for a Masters and PhD degree, will the courts rule in her favor? Higher education, time to sue a family member.
If she hits the jackpot will she share or is it about a guile & covetous mindset?
I am totally against this. I think the court has lost its mind and should be impeached.
Ridiculous. She is an adult, they are adults, they should not be obligated to pay for anything they are not contractually obligated to. Where does it end?
I have not read the ruling and don’t know all the facts. If there was no written agreement between the now divorced spouses to provide for her college education then she should be SOL.
Seems to me that if you are tempted to go where this judge went and there was no written agreement, you should only order the parents to offer a loan to the daughter to pay for college.
I bet that barkin dog would favor a ruling that required the parents to pay for veterinarian school for her.