You are here


InsistingOnPrenup's picture


In some states Child Support continues past the age of 18 or graduation of HS (whichever is later). I find this absolutely ridiculous. In NYS where I live child support continues until 21 and I've heard whispers that it can be extended and continued through college (OMG hides from over zealous BM's). I feel that this violates the 14th Amendment equal protection of the law. Divorced or never married parents are forced to continue supporting their adult children- while no such mandatory enforcement is made to married parents. While many parents divorced or not do continue to support adult children for married parents or those blessed to not deal with the family court system this is not mandatory. How is it an ADULT can marry, join the military, move out (w/out consent) or refuse to see their non custodial parent, but yet child support is still enforceable. Does anyone know of any court cases that are or have tried to overturn this age? I've also heard of cases that require non-custodial child support paying parents of paying for college (not including divorce decrees where this was agreed upon).  I don't know but last I checked college was a privilege not a right. Your parents do not owe you a college education. Is there anyone that lives in NY or any other state that extends child support past 18/graduation of high school? And is there anything beCHILD SUPPORTing done to correct this discriminatory practice?


RedWingsFan's picture

It's 19 years of age here in Colorado. Crazy I think. Once you're an adult, at age 18, no one should be paying to support you unless you absolutely cannot support yourself (i.e. mental or medical health issues, etc)

MissLynnnie's picture

A hot issue with me --but I am no longer angry as I have wearily accepted that my husband required by CS contract and law to pay CS for his 21 year old D--- average son who never speaks to him for the next two years. At least we have an end in sight.

Read this sanctimonious lawyer's spiel. It is a cottage industry for lawyers who are the "enforcers" of demanding $ from NCPs for college expenses. The law is on their side. When we were looking for an attorney to help us this guy laughed in my face and told me our case would be laughed out of court as long as SS was "trying." This guy makes part of his by living shaking down NCPs for college expenses.

I would like to know how these laws evolved. It is all very mysterious. It is through case law--there are no real laws on the books. Most NCP cannot afford to pay lawyers fees to fight so they just pay. It is unfair and unconstitutional.

For further reading:

InsistingOnPrenup's picture

@MissLynnnie. Thank you I will read the article now. What Odontoceti understand is why these so called fathers rights group don't challenge these laws...

Clearly An Upgrade's picture

Yup. DH is on the hook until age 21 for $780/month, payable to SD (NOT the school!). All she has to do to keep the gravy train coming is enroll in at least six credits (wow! Two whole classes!!), and pass them. D grades are fine, so minimal, if any, effort will be required. DH also have to pay CS during the summer months, but SD will not be required to attend school during the summer. CS is just party money. BM is NOT required to pay anything to SD even if she's moved out of BM's home. Only DH. Solidifying that indeed, he is just a wallet.

SD does not talk to DH. They have NO relationship. BM and DH conceived SD during a ONS, and were never married. (They really didn't even have a relationship, they co-habitated for a year while BM had relations with other men.)

When speaking to our attorney and expressing the outrage at this development (DH's original CS order stated through 18, BM filed to modify in June of this year, SD is 17.5), attorney said "that's just how it is." I think that we should consult with a different attorney and fight it. Will that do any good? Idk. But I do know that we (and our DD's) will suffer due to this $ going to SD, and will only solidify SD's sense of entitlement. It is absolute BULLSHIT.

SanAntonioSoccerMom's picture

I am so sorry, this is probably one of the most disgusting orders I have heard about. $780 for a kid to take two classes? We are doomed as a society. We are supposed to be raising the future leaders of America and instead we are creating co-dependent kiddults with no accountability. It's sick.

SanAntonioSoccerMom's picture

Why is it, that parents are now obligated to pay for their kids' college? I don't give a crap how much money a person makes, that does not mean a free ride for their kids.

My husband is a high wage earner. We pay my SSs' college but there are stipulations. You will work part time. You will pay your car insurance. You will maintain a certain grade point average. You will either work or take summer classes over the summer. We choose to pay their college, we are not morally or legally obligated to do so.

No one paid my college and no one paid my husband's year and years and years of education. It's called wherewithal and that is something that is seriously lacking in this generation of kids.

Edit: I don't get the whole dentist's kid story. Why would the taxpayers have to pay for his kid's college? Huh? I'm confused? Is the kid unable to get a job and pay his own way? So is it a crime to not pay your kids' college is NYS? Don't get it...

SanAntonioSoccerMom's picture

If the dad is making 3 mil a year the kid would not even qualify for "financial aid" (the free kind/taxpayer subsidized) until the age of 21 which is well into adulthood. If there is a will there is a way. Ask me and my husband how we did it.

Rhyleighblue's picture

Uh... No "kid" should get taxpayer supported financial aide for school, HRNYC. However, once a "kid" turns 18 they become ADULTS.

Every adult should have the opportunity to improve their prospects for finding a good paying career. Such opportunities ultimately benefit society as a whole because a career pay better than entry level jobs, the employees are generally more committed to a career that they have worked hard to obtain and the combination of these two improves the tax base. More taxes means better schools, roads and other public services.

Higher education leads to a more stable economy and a healthier society. For these reasons every adult should have access to Federally funded financial aide.

Clearly An Upgrade's picture

There was no divorce in the case of DH and BM. Never married's are actually worse off than divorcing parties, as at least there are usually real negotiations. Not in our case. DH has just been told what he's going to do, and with the risk of ruined credit, garnishments, loss of Driver's license, and possible jail time, he has had no choice but to comply.

I have been doing some research, however, and it looks like there is legal precedence of emancipating a child if they are earning their own living, even if living at one of the parental homes. If they pay rent and other expenses to the parent, it is essentially a boarding situation. The courts concluded on several cases where this was occurring that the child was emacipated and the NCP no longer had to pay CS. This is exactly what is happening at BM' it's time to get another attorney's opinion.

SanAntonioSoccerMom's picture

My SS is on a partial athletic scholarship. Coaches don't want him to take more than 12 hours a semester because they travel so much and it does affect their grades. He has to take 3-4 summer classes to be caught up. I am not interesting in having a 6 year college senior on my pay roll!

SanAntonioSoccerMom's picture

Ummmm he takes summer classes at the local CC. He is only a sophmore. At some point he will no longer be able to take CC courses, and he is only allowed to transfer back so many credits to his "home college". He will max out at some point. His home college also offers summer courses.

SanAntonioSoccerMom's picture

I think he will be burnt out here shortly...he loves his sport but he is over it. It is hard in college. This is mostly my husband pushing/wanting him to do this. I have a feeling this may be his last year.

Clearly An Upgrade's picture

I see this more as "paying THE KID" to take two Mickey mouse courses with an expectation of at least D's. Again, DH's money will NOT be going to the school. It will go to SD to "spend as she sees fit" according to our state CS codes. This is a girl with a piercing and tattoo fixation, and low self esteem that she attempts to boost with clothing, make up, and other material possessions. I would be willing to bet the farm that VERY little of DH's hard earned money will go to anything school related. DH and BM are not high wage earners and SD's EFC (Expected Family Contribution) is only $210/month according to FAFSA. SD will get all the financial aid she needs as a full time student, let alone two classes. This is money to play with. And it will keep our family broke for the next three and a half years. We're not "good enough" to be considered "family", but there's no issue with taking DH's cash.

z3girl's picture

We are in NJ and DH is required to pay 65% of SD21's tuition, as well as $118 per week. We are hoping she will be emancipated when she graduates next May. I have heard it is common that the NCP has to continue child support after graduation until the child is "on their feet". Ha! If that's the case, the CS might go back up to $1000 per month like it used to be before SD went to college.

When DH tried to fight the 65% tuition (BM took him to court for $1600 per month CS as well as the 65% tuition when SD started college), the judge said that DH had no say where SD chose to go to school. So instead of going to the $20k per year state school, she decided to go to a $48k per year private university. It's also sad that in the original decree it stated that BM and DH would split tuition 50/50, and that was thrown out.

DH tried to make the tuition based on state schools as there is precedent in NJ, and the judge ignored it. UNBELIEVABLE.

Can't wait for the last tuition bill...CS is chump change compared to the tuition.

MissLynnnie's picture


How terrible for you. It is just so unfair.

We would have been happy to pay CS if son made an effort in school and got passing grades. He has 11 Es, a couple Cs, and one B. And he never talks to my DH. We lost all leverage to cut off the $ as we have to pay no matter what. Kid has trust fund. But as I said, I just wearily accept the situation. DH is a low earning teacher.

The laws should be amended.

HNRYC, why would taxpayers have to foot the bill for the student that deadbeat Dad wouldn't pay? Please explain. That is a sad situation but not the end of the earth. Kid could take out loan.

Clearly An Upgrade's picture

How these people get court orders that have been in place for years changed at the 11th hour is BEYOND ME! What an absolute load of shit!

lawyergirl06's picture

There are three types of scrutiny when it comes to constitutional law, strict, legitimate and rational review. Strict applies to the power of a state to regulate how you raise your children. They have to have a compelling interest. Rational applies to how you support your child....they have to a reasonably related interest. The argument goes you make a choice to have a child you have an obligation to support them. States can rationalize extended support because you only pay 33% of your income when you pay support. The argument is that 2 parent homes pay more than that since there is no specific number. If you don't support your child the state may have to, there is your reasonably related interest. Most states have an age of majority law. The argument is that if a child chooses to go to college and both parents income are imputed to financial aid then both parents should support the child. Its been tried that it violates equal protection and that argument has failed because if both parents aren't supporting then the govt picks up the tab because you wouldn't be able to impute non cp income so the deficit goes to pellets grants etc. Most states will only require continuing support if the kid is getting an education. If you don't force non cp to support but still impute their income then you discriminate against kids who have parents who can pay but wont because they wont qualify for federal aid that others do. It may seem illogical but when it comes to rational review the court will break their neck for the state

Clearly An Upgrade's picture

I can understand the state's argument if BOTH parents are held to the same standard. But for higher education funds to come from father only shows the incredible bias. BM should have to pay SD CS too, especially if she goes AWAY to college.

I even understand this if the divorce or breakup happens in the latter years of the child's education, with mom and dad having agreed during the marriage that contributing to a college education is their intention. But at the same time, things change. Divorce is one of the leading causes of bankruptcy. I see it this way. In an intact household, if you told your kid at age 13 that they would receive a car for their 16th birthday, and one of the parents fell ill, and there was a major financial impact because of it, kid doesn't get a car. Sorry Charlie, them's the breaks. It's LIFE. Sure kid will be disappointed, might even throw a fit. Doesn't change shit, because the parents cannot afford it.

So if DH and I can't promise our DD's that we will subsidize their college educations, why should SD get that benefit when it will cause us great financial hardship? The extension of CS for another three and a half years means that DD12 won't get braces (DH was ordered to pay 1/2 of SD's, so she's set), and that we will not be able to afford preschool for DD2. That is a grave injustice in my eyes. I don't know ONE person that had their college paid for by their parents. Everyone I know has loans, grants, scholarships...things they work for and are less likely to take for granted. This type of law is a good example of why this generation (for the most part) has shitty work ethic, little responsibility, and thinks the whole world owes them.

InsistingOnPrenup's picture

I don't understand what @HNRYC meant either. I'm 26 and went to a 4 year college 2004-2008. I got need based aid because I came from a low income background. I also got merit scholarships. If my parents had the means to pay but refused I'd have been SOL. Need based aid is warranted by need. In order to qualify you must submit w-2's if requested after filing for aid. The way the give looks at it is that your parents are more obligated than tax payers. I am in agreement. If I hadn't got any aid unwound have had to wait till 24 to be able to take out larger loans or go to a college I could afford without loans (they do exist). Either way I just don't think parents are obligated to provide funds for college. My two cents.

lawyergirl06's picture

Exactly and that is the point. In some countries they put everyone on the same playing field and provide education to all if their grades permit. We call them socialists. You want total comes at a price

12yrstepmonster's picture

Indiana just changed their law in july from 21 to 19. Sd turned 21 in Aug. We are still trying to get the papers signed and amended to one kid.

When sd went to college Bm wanted DH to continue to pay full support and half her room/board (her tuition was paid for with a grant). For us it didn't matter the payment structure. But we went after bms wallets, so we decresed support and paid college expenses to the school. Or sd. Bm was not happy!

However I would find the child support code and know it inside out.

We found that the school has to be a state funded school or the price is based off that.
I found that we can mandate full time AND require a specific GPA....we put it at a 2.0.

Bm wanted all money paid to sd but by saying the college if there wasn't a bill we owed no money.

We also had them put the dollar figure we paid.

250.00 for books....
140 for living allowance

If it was more tough Shit.

Know the code and find a way to protect yourself.

herewegoagain's picture

The ONLY reason this happens, although some men have attempted to say it is unconstitutional, is because the states make millions every year from every NCP who pays CS...It's NOT because they are helping anyone, it is NOT because they are helping poor families, it is NOT because they are getting people off welfare...heck, welfare rolls continue to go UP, not DOWN...even after CS laws were made...It won't change until someone with lots of money has the time/money to take this to the highest courts...meanwhile, yes, the kids of divorce and the ADULTS benefit greatly on the receiving end. Sick. Just freaking sick.

PS - mind you, my DH and I were NOT married for years and the aholes in Texas would NOT let me put a CS order against him because "we lived together"...funny, so, all it takes is for me to have said we did NOT live together for him to have to support his child...meanwhile, loser got it all...

PS - eventually it ends...yesterday we received the last letter from the AHOLES in Texas saying that he no longer had to, if they would only close the frea@#ing case!!!