You are here


mom2five's picture

Thought I would start my own blog. There is a blog on this site providing information on a non-custodial parent's responsibility to provide support to a child in college. I linked to accurate information, however, the poster immediately deleted the information and the link. This really bothers me because real people can end up getting into a lot of trouble when they rely on bad advise.

Yes, I know it's fun to stir the pot and paint every BM in a bad light. And yes, it's tempting to think that all family laws are designed to screw the NCP. However, just because you want it to be true doesn't make it true. And just because you discover information on the internet does not make it accurate.

If you want accurate information about your state's laws relating to college expenses and child support, talk to an attorney in your state. Or research the laws by going DIRECTLY to your state's statutes on your .gov website.

Lexis and West Law are also great resources.

It's dangerous to believe everything you read on a blog. Do not rely on any legal information you receive on line. Certainly not from me. And not from anyone claiming to be an attorney. A real attorney would never provide you legal advise through an on-line forum. Information? Yes. Advise related to a specific fact pattern...NEVER.


PoisonApples's picture

Where is your link? If you had one there, why isn't it here?

You insinuate that you provided a link which refuted the other poster's blog but for some reason you haven't provided it here.

Are you trying to make trouble?

You insinuate a lot of things in this blog that simply are not true.

Who claimed to be an attorney?

Oh, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, you title this blog 'misinformation' implying that the other blog is a pack of lies.

The honest thing to do if you are going to accuse would be to provide information that dispels the claims made in the other blog. Just pointing your finger and saying 'liar, liar' while providing absolutely NO ARGUMENT for your viewpoint is lazy and insulting to other's intelligence.

mom2five's picture

Nope. Not trying to start trouble.

I made a comment disputing a poster's claim that custodial parents are never forced to pay for college. That's absolutely NOT true. Courts in some states can and do order that the parties share in the cost of college education.

It is true that the parents in intact families are not forced to pay. But that is not the same as stating that only the NCP has to pay. That's just plain misinformation.

Links: I'm not going to go back and pull them all up. I think folks on this site are smart enough to look at their own state's specific website. Simply google your state. And look for a .gov extension. That should take you to your state's website. From there it is easy to find your state's statutes.

The other sites I suggested were West Law and Lexis. Findlaw is usually pretty good as well.

I never said anyone suggested she was an attorney. I was simply reminding folks that none of us can give accurate legal advise. Even if we were attorneys, we wouldn't be providing legal advise in an on-line forum. That wasn't at attack on anyone on this site. Simply a reminder that when reading information on any site it's important to read critically and remember that while the information may be interesting, it is not necessarily accurate.

mom2five's picture

Here's just one link:

"In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or a modification of a divorce judgment, a trial court may award sums of money out of the property and income of either or both parents for the post-minority education of a child of that dissolved marriage, . . . In doing so, the trial court shall consider all relevant factors that shall appear reasonable and necessary, including primarily the financial resources of the parents and the child and the child's commitment to, and aptitude for, the requested education.

I didn't shepardize this one..It may not be good law today. But I could link to hundreds like it in this and other states.

Clear enough, or do I need to cite a few more?

PoisonApples's picture

I just don't see how it could be worth going to create another blog.

You say I think folks on this site are smart enough to look at their own state's specific website.

But you must NOT think we are smart enough or you wouldn't have started this completely new blog to 'warn' us about it.

You were already insulting people regarding their reading comprehension skills earlier today and now you create a blog to point fingers at another poster, calling her a liar but refuse to substantiate your claim that she's a liar because you think everyone is smart enough to doubt it themselves. If you really thought that, you wouldn't have started this blog, imo.

It seems to me that the purpose of this blog is not so much to warn these people who you think are smart enough to not have to be warned so much as it is to point fingers at another poster and call her a liar who can't be trusted.

Because I saw your post on the original blog and I don't remember it containing a link at all.

PoisonApples's picture

Luv the Mall,

I guess I have to spell it out for you avoiding as many multiple syllable words as possible.

This post strongly implies that the other poster is a liar or is deliberately slanting facts to suit an agenda. Yes, it's covered up in fluff about just wanting to 'inform' people but basically, unless the reader is completely stupid, the message is 'don't believe anything x poster says because she's not honest'.

The irony is that this particular poster (and the very nature of this blog) is doing EXACTLY what the blog is accusing poster x of doing.

It's hypocritical. Furthermore, the blogger says that she thinks everyone here is smart enough to figure this out for themselves yet the fact that the blog was even written shows that she doesn't really think they are capable of figuring it out for themselves and they need her to point it out.

Sorry, I tried to write it in one syllable words but I couldn't.

mom2five's picture

Because I hate when folks spread bad information.

Did you read the case law I provided?

I think she is smart. I just think most people believe everything they read on the internet if it comes from what looks like a reliable source. Unfortunately, most of what is out there is either completely untrue or out of date.

And I think we are all guilty of wanting to believe that all courts are out to screw the NCP. While it's true in way too many situations, it's not always true. And it doesn't help to exaggerate. It takes away credibility.

caregiver1127's picture

Are you talking about me - cause I don't care that you think I am smart - and I am not spreading bad information - for everything that you post I could post something to contradict it.

mom2five's picture

You cannot contradict case law. Unless you can prove that it's bad law now.

There are courts that force both the NCP and the custodial parent to pay for college.

And I don't know who I was talking about. I was simply responding to the allegation that I think someone is "stupid". I don't. Being uninformed or misinformed is not the same thing as being stupid.

PoisonApples's picture

Because I hate when folks spread bad information.

it doesn't help to exaggerate. It takes away credibility.


Which is why I'm having trouble with your credibility.

There is a particular poster on this board who follows certain people, including me, around posting things like 'you hate your stepkids, you are miserable, you have a terrible life, blah, blah'. In reality NONE of those things are true and I've never once said anything that would indicate that they are true. However, I've noticed that more times than not YOU are right behind her agreeing with her saying things like 'I agree. I don't understand how they can hate children, blah, blah'. That poster exaggerates, if not outright lies, yet you are her number one cheerleader, parrotting every lie and exaggeration she tosses out. Why aren't you telling her that it doesn't help to exaggerate and that it takes away her credibility? Why don't you hate it when SHE spreads bad information? Is it OK to do it on a personal level as far as you are concerned?

mom2five's picture

That particular poster isn't me. I actually have no idea who you are talking about, Poison.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I thought you were one of the folks who liked her stepkids.

PoisonApples's picture

Why would that embarrass you?

I do like my stepkids...most of the time.

I'm just saying that whenever those accusations start flying about how miserable I (or someone else) supposedly is, how much we hate our stepkids or some other allegation about how evil we are you are always right there to throw in your ditto.

mom2five's picture

It embarrasses me because I can't keep posters straight. I was going to feel really dumb if you were one of the folks who truly hates the stepkids. I thought I remembered that most of the time you liked yours. Glad I was right.

As to the second remark. I may have been guilty of that. I would have to go back and read. I am a person who tends to take the side of the children only because I feel like they are the only ones who truly didn't get a choice in the whole stepfamily dynamic.

PoisonApples's picture

There's nothing wrong with taking the side of children by default. I think it's human nature to want to protect children in normal circumstances.

You can go back and read. I'm telling you that it has happened several times and it has made me lump you in with the tiny minority of posters who toss around allegations that are untrue. Nobody wants to be preached at here and we don't want to be accused of doing things we haven't done. When you come along and jump on the bandwagon it looks like you are the one doing it right along with the few instigators.

caregiver1127's picture

In most of these states CS is until 20 or 21 so if the NCP has to pay CS to a CP and the child is in school and takes that money and uses it for Child's education then is not the NCP paying for the college?

The CS is being paid to the CP and the child is away at school. Also a lot of CP's seem to get enough money that they don't work - so how are they paying for the college if they don't have a job and the states that stop CS at 18 and these CP's don't work where are they getting the money to pay for college - there not - if you have been collecting CS for years and have been using it as your "Job" and not working after being out of the work force all of those years and if you now are not getting CS you will not be using that money for your child's education - the money you are making will be used to keep a roof over your head.

It seems good in theory that both parents have to pay but if the NCP is still paying CS then he is paying for college.

mom2five's picture

I have heard of situations where the money is actually paid directly to the college. I would think you could make a pretty good argument in court for insisting on doing it that way.

mom2five's picture

My order states that my ex and I equally share in college costs.

He has never paid a dime.

The court order between my DH and his ex states they will equally share the cost.

She is so broke, she can't even pay respects at a funeral.

We'll pay for all five. Our oldest is on a scholarship. Hopefully, the others will do the same. Even with a scholarship, there are so many costs associated with getting the kids settled into school. But it's important. And I'm thankful we are in the financial position to be able to afford to help.

caregiver1127's picture

I just read your case law and this supports the no voting blog - how can any court say that after someone has reached the age of 18 and in this case 19 he is the dependent child of his father - this is why we are having so many problems with this generation coming up - is this "child" not embarrassed to be called a child after 19 - when I was 17 I went to college and I was self supporting because my parents could not afford it - they adopted me - I was not bio and they got no money for - I had to work 3 jobs to pay for school because my parents had no money - I would have been mortified if I was called the dependent child of anyone!

Diablo That the child, Patrick Bayliss, is now and after he attains nineteen (19) years of age will continue to be a ‘dependent’ child of John Martin Bayliss, III, and absent support from his said father, the said child will not be able to complete his college education. The said minor child was not self-supporting or self-sustaining at the time of the Final Decree of Divorce, is not self-supporting or self-sustaining as of the date hereof, and will not be self-supporting or self-sustaining until he has completed his college education. That the plaintiff lacks the funds to finance the college education for the child, Patrick Bayliss.

mom2five's picture

No. No it doesn't caregiver. There is no case law in this country that support not allowing an otherwise eligible 18+ year old to vote based on child support.

There is nothing about voting rights in that decision.

caregiver1127's picture

Ladies I said the voting blog not some law please before both of you try and support each other and jump down my throat please read my post - I said BLOG BLOG BLOG BLOG BLOG BLOG not the law - the BLOG about voting not the law BLog not the law am I clear now!!

mom2five's picture

I understand what you're saying, care. But your first sentence did say "I just read your case law and this supports the no voting blog"

I don't see how the case law supports the no voting blog at all. I'm honestly not jumping down your throat. I just don't see the connection.

caregiver1127's picture

The no voting blog was stating that children over 18 who still received CS should not blog - they made this 19 year old a dependent child on his father - so I was just tying the two together. How can a child vote?

mom2five's picture

I see. If the "child" is dependent on the father, you don't think he should have the right to vote. I get the concept. But it's a slippery slope. What if my DH loses his job tomorrow, we deplete our savings, and we move in with my parents. Do we lose our right to vote?

We can't apply the law unequally. That's the problem most folks have with awarding college costs in a divorce action. If you can't make everyone pay college costs for their kids, you shouldn't be able to make divorcing parents pay.

caregiver1127's picture

This we agree upon your last paragraph - but to include if your DH loses his job it is a different scenario - you are already out there as adults - I think what everyone is pissed about is that NCP have to pay CS after the child has graduated or turned 18 - this would not happen in an intact family - once you graduate you are on your own and I have some friends that their parents kicked them out when they were 16 and they were on their own.

Luckily for me DH put his foot down and refused to sign a divorce decree that would have had him paying for SS's college - he said he did not know where he would be financially when it was time for SS to go to college and so he said no way - well BM decided that the only schools that SS would check out cost more than $47,000 - all of them - the one that SS wants to go to is $51,000 - DH was never called upon to discuss this huge decision with them and then BM wanted him to pay for it - no way!! This would put us in debt so anyone who has to by law do this - it is not fair and then pay CS on top of it. Laws need to change.

Stick's picture

My sister (CP) and her ex-husband (NCP) were both court-ordered to pay for college. But since her ex is a doctor and my sister is a real estate broker in business for herself, Ex was ordered to pay 75% and my sister 25%. I can give all of the details about the story. Ex wanted to stop child support to my sister since daughter was in college. Ex wanted daughter to go to an Ivy League school, while my sister wanted her to start at a less expensive college until she figured out her major and on and on.

BOTH parents were court-ordered in New York State to pay for the kids' college education.

And while I would appreciate it if my niece did contribute toward her education, I do know that she is a good student. She wants to work at NASA and possibly be an astronaut! She has a part-time job every summer that she comes home to - same job she has had since high school. She is a good kid. I know when she gets out of school, she will be a productive member of society AND will help her mom / dad if they need it.

My whole point is - there is no black and white. There is no clear cut rules. Sometimes only the NCP is ordered to pay. Sometimes both parents are ordered to pay. Sometimes kids that get free educations party all the time and don't study and drop out. Sometimes they become doctors or engineers and give back to the communities. Sometimes kids like my husband had to pay for their own college and they drop out because they can't afford to go to school and earn a living at the same time. (My husband went to school to be an architect and was working, supporting himself and puttig himself through school. He couldn't afford the tuition and was on his way to getting married to BM. Sad )

These arguments are somewhat pointless... in my humble opinion. Because we can always find an exception to any rule or fact that someone presents on here. Which I believe is part of the reason why we are all on here in the first place.