• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Parents being forced to pay kids' college tuition

GT1999

GT1999

Diamond Member
When my girlfriend was just out of high school, her parents were divorced. Her mom brought her dad to court, and he was ordered to assist in paying for her college education. She still has lots of loans to pay off, and I'm not sure how much he was required to pay, but I know he was. This is in the state of Illinois. Has anyone else ever heard of this happening? Since when are parents obligated by law to pay for their kids college education? It just does not seem right.
 
There should probably be a limit.

What if the kid hated the parent and went to college for like 8 years, gathering up private school arts degrees?
 
Probably has something to do with how much money he has. I think it would be appropriate for the parents to either pay all or chip in if they have the income to do it.

I know I would feel like shit if I had the money but didnt pay for my son's school. Would I pay for food and partying and rent? No. But the school, yes.
 
LookBehindYou said:
Probably has something to do with how much money he has. I think it would be appropriate for the parents to either pay all or chip in if they have the income to do it.

I know I would feel like shit if I had the money but didnt pay for my son's school. Would I pay for food and partying and rent? No. But the school, yes.
Click to expand...

He never went to college and works as basically a sub-police officer w/o a gun for about $40k/year... he does not have money. I honestly think it was pretty cruel of her mom to do this seeing he doesn't have a lot of money.
 
Wow, the courts in Illinois are screwed up...

http://www.illinoisdivorce.com/family_law_articles/child_support_and_college.php


Non-custodial parents have a right to grade reports and student records.30 That’s about it, though. The law is very, very stringent in what it offers parents who pay for college expenses. In one case, the father was required to pay 50% of his daughter’s college expenses, but was not allowed to know even the name of the college she attended.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Geekish Thoughts said:
He never went to college and works as basically a sub-police officer w/o a gun for about $40k/year... he does not have money. I honestly think it was pretty cruel of her mom to do this seeing he doesn't have a lot of money.
Click to expand...

That's pretty jacked then. Like I said, if you have the disposable income, yeah you "should" pay for college. But it shouldn't be mandatory, especially if you really can't afford it anyway.
 
nanette1985 said:
Welcome to the wonderful world of divorce.
Click to expand...

You're telling me.. my mom took my dad to the cleaners when they got divorced back in '89 when I was only 8 years old. I still feel bad for him.... it took him 15 years to get married again. Somehow he managed to pay for a lot of my college (not under court order either) along with my sister's under a teacher's salary. God bless him.

The Illinois courts do NOT treat men fairly in the courtroom, IMHO.
 
On the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), most students are required to list their parents income until they are 24. It doesn't matter if the student actually receives any assistance from their parents or whether they live by themselves. Until you are 24 all of the parents' income is calculated into how much the student is eligible for.

There are a few exceptions, but only for a minority.

So basically as far as federal financial aid goes, all parents are supposed to contribute a certain percentage of their income to their children's education until they are 24.
 
nanette1985 said:
Welcome to the wonderful world of divorce.
Click to expand...

Yup... and if any of you are single and paying attention at all, you'll never get married.

Still get married??? You'll get first hand knowledge of how she gets half the equity in the house and gets to stay in it. You'll get first hand knowledge of how she gets half of your 401k and other investments. You'll get first hand knowledge of the term "Alimony" and depending on your state will get intimate awareness of child support.

Oh... and your attorney will charge between $10k and $15k minimum by time you are done, and the big shocker is that you could be required to pay your wife's attorney fees for the whole proceeding as well.

Oh wait... We are not done.

You then get to live through not being able to see your kids when you want because she got primary custody or lied and told the court you are violent and abusive and therefore have to have supervised visits with your own children. All that money you had to give her in 401k, and the alimony and child support? It just bought her that new car, the new dress, and the trip to Vegas.

The net of it is this... If you hadn't fucking married the bitch, you'd only be on the hook for the child support. ... and spare me the love shit and the she is a hard working girl, etc... After you marry her she becomes a couch potato and still gets half of everything you worked hard for when she wouldn't.

Stay single... Stay happy.
 
WackyDan said:
Yup... and if any of you are single and paying attention at all, you'll never get married.

Still get married??? You'll get first hand knowledge of how she gets half the equity in the house and gets to stay in it. You'll get first hand knowledge of how she gets half of your 401k and other investments. You'll get first hand knowledge of the term "Alimony" and depending on your state will get intimate awareness of child support.

Oh... and your attorney will charge between $10k and $15k minimum by time you are done, and the big shocker is that you could be required to pay your wife's attorney fees for the whole proceeding as well.

Oh wait... We are not done.

You then get to live through not being able to see your kids when you want because she got primary custody or lied and told the court you are violent and abusive and therefore have to have supervised visits with your own children. All that money you had to give her in 401k, and the alimony and child support? It just bought her that new car, the new dress, and the trip to Vegas.

The net of it is this... If you hadn't fucking married the bitch, you'd only be on the hook for the child support. ... and spare me the love shit and the she is a hard working girl, etc... After you marry her she becomes a couch potato and still gets half of everything you worked hard for when she wouldn't.

Stay single... Stay happy.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately a lot of that is true, however she should not be eligible to take your assets that you had prior to being married. A simple request to see the balance of your 401k plan prior to marriage can allow you to keep that amount.

Anything that is built while being married is split 50/50.

The part about custody of the kids is the worst part. My mom had some very serious issues, yet the court let her take us under full custody even though my dad was the better parent. Yet he was still required to pay full child support to us even though he could only see us on a very limited basis.

It was a terrible situation. Men really do get the shaft when it comes to divorce.
 
Geekish Thoughts said:
The Illinois courts do NOT treat men fairly in the courtroom, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Was your mom a house wife, or did she make good money?

IMO, the housewife deserves a larger share than 50% because it is much more difficult for her to make the same amount of money.
She put her career or college on hold to take care of the family.
The husband already has an established career and can recoup the money easier.

My mom got screwed in her divorce. She was making 30k/year working as a teacher's aid and my dad was making 80k+. They split everything 50/50. Now she is damn near poverty and my dad is still fine.
She had to cash out most of her share of the 401k to pay down a condo, so she could afford payments on it (lower than renting).
Now she has little retirement and is saving on a 30k salary while my dad is rebuilding on an 80k salary.
 
edro said:
Was your mom a house wife, or did she make good money?

IMO, the housewife deserves a larger share than 50% because it is much more difficult for her to make the same amount of money.
She put her career or college on hold to take care of the family.
The husband already has an established career and can recoup the money easier.

My mom got screwed in her divorce. She was making 30k/year working as a teacher's aid and my dad was making 80k+. They split everything 50/50. Now she is damn near poverty and my dad is still fine.
She had to cash out most of her share of the 401k to pay down a condo, so she could afford payments on it (lower than renting).
Now she has little retirement and is saving on a 30k salary while my dad is rebuilding on an 80k salary.
Click to expand...

She had a job as a teacher as well, until I was born in '81. Then she started working again. She didnt' stay at home. The situation with your dad/mom is also bad, but not the norm. They should've allocated more money to your mom... obviously. Sorry to hear.
 
LookBehindYou said:
That's pretty jacked then. Like I said, if you have the disposable income, yeah you "should" pay for college. But it shouldn't be mandatory, especially if you really can't afford it anyway.
Click to expand...

Just because the parent has disposable income doesn't mean they should be required to pay for college. College is a priveledge, not a right. All education that can be had for no additional cost outside of taxes already paid is a right. College is not.

Now, would I help pay for my kid's college? Yes, assuming they are taking it seriously. If they are just going to get drunk and laid, then forget about it. College is about setting yourself up for a better life with a secondary goal of getting drunk and laid, not the other way around.
 
Geekish Thoughts said:
Unfortunately a lot of that is true, however she should not be eligible to take your assets that you had prior to being married. A simple request to see the balance of your 401k plan prior to marriage can allow you to keep that amount.

Anything that is built while being married is split 50/50.

The part about custody of the kids is the worst part. My mom had some very serious issues, yet the court let her take us under full custody even though my dad was the better parent. Yet he was still required to pay full child support to us even though he could only see us on a very limited basis.

It was a terrible situation. Men really do get the shaft when it comes to divorce.
Click to expand...

Yes we do get screwed. One reason is the court system. Another is that few treat their divorces in a tactical sense. If you are the one planning the divorce it becomes easier to minimize your financial pain from the proceedings. I'm talking planning at least a year in advance before you spring the divorce on your wife.... You have to be careful about willful dissemination of assets as they can claim you were trying to liquify assets of the marriage and still hold you accountable for them... There are ways to shelter/expense some of what she would get in a settlement if you are willing to tough it out for another year or more.... This won't level the playing field but will buy you time to eliminate and hide some of the tens of thousands of dollars she would get otherwise.

I don't hate women mind you, I just think the system is unfair to men... and facing the reality of having one of "those wives" I've done my research on what the costs would be to me and how to mitigate it.
 
For some reason, I was under the assumption that once 18, child support ends... this seems to be a major flaw in my line of thinking...
 
edro said:
Was your mom a house wife, or did she make good money?

IMO, the housewife deserves a larger share than 50% because it is much more difficult for her to make the same amount of money.
She put her career or college on hold to take care of the family.
The husband already has an established career and can recoup the money easier.

My mom got screwed in her divorce. She was making 30k/year working as a teacher's aid and my dad was making 80k+. They split everything 50/50. Now she is damn near poverty and my dad is still fine.
She had to cash out most of her share of the 401k to pay down a condo, so she could afford payments on it (lower than renting).
Now she has little retirement and is saving on a 30k salary while my dad is rebuilding on an 80k salary.
Click to expand...

In 99% of cases, the men get the shaft in a divorce. You are the 1%.
 
edro said:
Was your mom a house wife, or did she make good money?

IMO, the housewife deserves a larger share than 50% because it is much more difficult for her to make the same amount of money.
She put her career or college on hold to take care of the family.
The husband already has an established career and can recoup the money easier.

My mom got screwed in her divorce. She was making 30k/year working as a teacher's aid and my dad was making 80k+. They split everything 50/50. Now she is damn near poverty and my dad is still fine.
She had to cash out most of her share of the 401k to pay down a condo, so she could afford payments on it (lower than renting).
Now she has little retirement and is saving on a 30k salary while my dad is rebuilding on an 80k salary.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, was she making 30K because that was the best she could do or because the family agreed she should be a teachers aid and not work as much? I ask, because if she attempted to work full time and that is all she was able to do, why should the husband pay her more? Not his fault. If it was agreed she wouldnt work as much, then he should pay her more.

For example, my wife and I. She makes half of what I make. This is because she hasnt gone to college and hasn't really tried to go out and do something better. If we were to ever get divorced, I'd be pissed if I had to pay her money because she didn't make that much.

And I'm not talking about child support or anything. Lets say there are no kids.
 
RABBLE RABBLE!!!!

In all seriousness, the amount of privacy afforded to students who are not footing the bill is a bit absurd. My parents were footing quite a bit of my bill yet I was able to decide whether or not they had access to ANY of my records. Yes, it is my information, but if you're receiving 50% of you tuition/fees/room & board from an outside source (sans bank loan or federal government) that individual should have full access to what their money is being spent on. It's just like a person investing money in stocks/bonds/mutual funds.

As far as the divorce thing goes, that's shitty. I've been fortunate with my parents, same with my girlfriend. Hopefully I'll never have to go through something like that *knock on wood*.
 
mvbighead said:
For some reason, I was under the assumption that once 18, child support ends... this seems to be a major flaw in my line of thinking...
Click to expand...

it might actually be 21. at least i think thats how its working for my Aunt and cousins

prob differes from stat to state
 
LookBehindYou said:
Out of curiosity, was she making 30K because that was the best she could do or because the family agreed she should be a teachers aid and not work as much? I ask, because if she attempted to work full time and that is all she was able to do, why should the husband pay her more? Not his fault. If it was agreed she wouldnt work as much, then he should pay her more.

For example, my wife and I. She makes half of what I make. This is because she hasnt gone to college and hasn't really tried to go out and do something better. If we were to ever get divorced, I'd be pissed if I had to pay her money because she didn't make that much.

And I'm not talking about child support or anything. Lets say there are no kids.
Click to expand...
That's the best she can do, so I see your point.
But who knows what she could have done if she started her career out 30 years ago, instead of 10 years ago after being out of the workforce for 30 years.
 
edro said:
That's the best she can do, so I see your point.
But who knows what she could have done if she started her career out 30 years ago, instead of 10 years ago after being out of the workforce for 30 years.
Click to expand...

Did she start just 10 years ago because of the family thing? If that's the case, then yes, she should have gotten more money. I'm mainly talking about a wife who never leaves the workforce from beginning to end. Everything they do career wise is their own choice. Those are the ones who really shouldnt get extra money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top