05 Jan 15
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.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhy don't you actually read the factors given in my post on the last page? That will answer your hypotheticals.
"Your child remains your child no matter how old they are "
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 ...[text shortened]... "silly hypotheticals", but they show just how ill conceived, abusable and worthless this law is.
A tip: try to actually read what a law says before you decide it's "ill conceived, abusable and worthless".
And yes very often an adult is "owed" something by another adult.
05 Jan 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziNot really, according to the Yahoo article - which only reports the father's side of this - the parents attempted to control her social life and she moved out to her grandparents. So the father's argument is inconsistent. Essentially, it is no good complaining that she is an adult and should make her own way in the world, if he insists on policing her life as if she were still a minor. Her grandparents presumably require a reasonable level of behaviour, but must have a much lighter touch when it comes to enforcing it.
"Your child remains your child no matter how old they are "
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 ...[text shortened]... "silly hypotheticals", but they show just how ill conceived, abusable and worthless this law is.
He's trying to use her access to education as a way of controlling her and the court is right to stop him from doing that.
06 Jan 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtan adult is offering a service to another adult on certain conditions. those conditions were deemed unacceptable so the "child that has reached adulthood" (you keep insisting on this term)
Not really, according to the Yahoo article - which only reports the father's side of this - the parents attempted to control her social life and she moved out to her grandparents. So the father's argument is inconsistent. Essentially, it is no good complaining that she is an adult and should make her own way in the world, if he insists on policing her ...[text shortened]... ess to education as a way of controlling her and the court is right to stop him from doing that.
since when is college a right? since when is a parent supposed to do something for an adult offspring?
will we sue parents for not getting us a car? will we sue for not contributing when we buy a house? my dad helped me with a down payment, let's make it a law so all parents dip into their retirement money so the "child that has reached adulthood" could have anything someone else deems necessary.
all obligations of the parent stop the second the child turns 18. period.
would it be incredibly evil to kick an 18 year old out of the house and cut him off the second he turns 18? yes, absolutely. but that is not something courts get to decide.
06 Jan 15
in better countries, college is free. sadly, the US decided that you must either be rich or in debt to go to college.
parents will make that sacrifice regardless. i would too for my kid. but not for a second do i believe i should be forced to. also, the conditions i set for him are non negotiable, even if he would be a 40 year old living at his parents house.
06 Jan 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtif he insists on policing her life as if she were still a minor
Not really, according to the Yahoo article - which only reports the father's side of this - the parents attempted to control her social life and she moved out to her grandparents. So the father's argument is inconsistent. Essentially, it is no good complaining that she is an adult and should make her own way in the world, if he insists on policing her ...[text shortened]... ess to education as a way of controlling her and the court is right to stop him from doing that.
not a minor. someone living in his house, eating his retirement fund. (i consider each and every cent owned after the child turns 18 part of the retirement fund)
06 Jan 15
Originally posted by no1marauderwhy don't you save the condescending tone for when you're speaking to someone else?
Why don't you actually read the factors given in my post on the last page? That will answer your hypotheticals.
A tip: try to actually read what a law says before you decide it's "ill conceived, abusable and worthless".
And yes very often an adult is "owed" something by another adult.
i read the factors, you still are saying an adult must care for another adult without any benefit.
06 Jan 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziIn determining Pell grant and Stafford loan eligibility under the US Dept. of Education rules for college students, federal regulations require an "expected family contribution" (EFC) be calculated based on the parents' income and factored into the equation to determine eligibility for need-based financial assistance. So federal regulation at least anticipates a parental contribution to an adult student.
why don't you save the condescending tone for when you're speaking to someone else?
i read the factors, you still are saying an adult must care for another adult without any benefit.
I don't like the result in this case. It "feels" wrong to me to force a parent to pay for an adult child's college education. But it's not quite so cut and dried.
06 Jan 15
Originally posted by sh76Would it "feel wrong" if the student was living with one parent and the non-custodial parent who had a much higher income had to pay a portion of college costs?
In determining Pell grant and Stafford loan eligibility under the US Dept. of Education rules for college students, federal regulations require an "expected family contribution" (EFC) be calculated based on the parents' income and factored into the equation to determine eligibility for need-based financial assistance. So federal regulation at least anticipates ...[text shortened]... rce a parent to pay for an adult child's college education. But it's not quite so cut and dried.
Would it "feel right" that a student who would have certainly gone to college if her parents had stayed together was deprived of the chance to attend college because her parents divorced?
06 Jan 15
Originally posted by no1marauderWould it "feel wrong" if the student was living with one parent and the non-custodial parent who had a much higher income had to pay a portion of college costs?
Would it "feel wrong" if the student was living with one parent and the non-custodial parent who had a much higher income had to pay a portion of college costs?
Would it "feel right" that a student who would have certainly gone to college if her parents had stayed together was deprived of the chance to attend college because her parents divorced?
Yes.
Would it "feel right" that a student who would have certainly gone to college if her parents had stayed together was deprived of the chance to attend college because her parents divorced?
No. Solution: don't put the burden of paying for college on parents or the students individually. Provide taxpayer-funded or heavily subsidized public education. If someone wants private education and the parents don't pay to pay, tough faeces.
06 Jan 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziIn this case the child is 21 which implies to me that she was already at the college and they had been paying her fees. This would create a reasonable expectation that the remainder of her college education would be paid for. I might be wrong, the article does not make this clear. Either way, she could demonstrate that she had a reasonable expectation that her fees would be paid by him to the satisfaction of the court. The court had all the evidence and not just the father's point of view as reported in the Yahoo article. If he'd become bankrupt and couldn't pay then it would, of course, be a different matter.
an adult is offering a service to another adult on certain conditions. those conditions were deemed unacceptable so the "child that has reached adulthood" (you keep insisting on this term)
since when is college a right? since when is a parent supposed to do something for an adult offspring?
will we sue parents for not getting us a car? will we sue f ...[text shortened]... him off the second he turns 18? yes, absolutely. but that is not something courts get to decide.
It's worth noting that the grandparents seem to be taking her side in this.
06 Jan 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIMHO, parents must see that a child gets a high school education (under the law). Many fail to do this, often because the public school system is so broken. To extend public education to college will result in the deterioration of the University system to the level of public K-12.
Not really, according to the Yahoo article - which only reports the father's side of this - the parents attempted to control her social life and she moved out to her grandparents. So the father's argument is inconsistent. Essentially, it is no good complaining that she is an adult and should make her own way in the world, if he insists on policing her ...[text shortened]... ess to education as a way of controlling her and the court is right to stop him from doing that.
A lot of the current high cost of education can be laid at the feet of people lobbying for a lot of public support, including grants and loans, which really just enable the college system to grant higher compensation for its employees than would be possible if salaries were dictated by what their product would sell for. An example is the way teaching assistants often do most of the instruction, allowing full professors to do writing and research, when their real job ought to be instruction.
I can see no reason to justify forcing parents to pay for the education of an adult child, especially one that has left the family home to enjoy a lifestyle without parental restrictions.
06 Jan 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy use a market at all? Why not make everything free to consumers, and pay for it all out of taxes? Why should any citizen have to make choices, or exert effort to succeed?
[b]Would it "feel wrong" if the student was living with one parent and the non-custodial parent who had a much higher income had to pay a portion of college costs?
Yes.
Would it "feel right" that a student who would have certainly gone to college if her parents had stayed together was deprived of the chance to attend college because her par ...[text shortened]... ic education. If someone wants private education and the parents don't pay to pay, tough faeces.
06 Jan 15
Originally posted by normbenignI'm not saying it shouldn't take effort to get a degree. I'm saying it should take effort to get a degree rather than luck. I know you prefer a class-based society where people are born into a certain craft or career, but I prefer one that optimizes people's talents and empowers people to put them to use.
Why use a market at all? Why not make everything free to consumers, and pay for it all out of taxes? Why should any citizen have to make choices, or exert effort to succeed?
06 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder===Would it "feel wrong" if the student was living with one parent and the non-custodial parent who had a much higher income had to pay a portion of college costs? ===
Would it "feel wrong" if the student was living with one parent and the non-custodial parent who had a much higher income had to pay a portion of college costs?
Would it "feel right" that a student who would have certainly gone to college if her parents had stayed together was deprived of the chance to attend college because her parents divorced?
I don't like the idea of forcing parents to pay for adult children's expenses in any case. Do the parents have a moral responsibility to pay? Possibly. Should the government force them to? I don't think so.
===Would it "feel right" that a student who would have certainly gone to college if her parents had stayed together was deprived of the chance to attend college because her parents divorced?===
I don't think anybody is truly deprived of the opportunity to go to college for financial reasons. Even if you don't qualify for Pell grants, there is always the Title IV unsubsidized loan option (which is still very good compared to commercial loans) which is not income-tested.