Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!

From: [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:30:39 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>In soc.women, [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>
>    ...the interesting part is that they don't think there is
>    anything wrong with the young man's father being forced to pay for his
>    college tuition because of a divorce decree....
>
>If the man's father said he would pay the college tuition at the time of
>the divorce, then I really do not see anything wrong with him fulfilling
>that promise and paying!  Where do you get "forced to pay" from?  My ex
>agreed to pay the childrens' college expenses so that I would agree to
>alimony that was much smaller than normal.  He got the concessions and
>agreed to the consequences.  The children had less money when they were
>in grade school.  They should not feel guilty of what you consider a
>"free ride" any more than a child who gets a "free meal" at the age of 2.
>Their parents wanted them to have this priviledge and they have it, period.

Hey, if a father has the money to pay his children's college expenses,
and he wants to pay, then who in the world would question his right to
do so?  No one.  All intact families are given the choice of paying for
their children's college educations, and many don't have the money -
some have the money, but don't pay.  The point is that in some states
the law forces non-custodial parents (85% of whom are fathers) to pay
for the college expenses of their children.  They are not given any
choice.   In fact, Indiana is one such state and my parents divorced in
Indiana several years ago.  My mother can take my father to court and
force my father to pay college expenses for my 16-year-old brother when
he graduates from high school.  My parents paid less than $1500 towards
my college education - and none of it was forced.

Obviously Vicky, you did not understand the situation I was talking
about.  There is no law that can force a financial obligation of paying
for children's college expenses for parents of intact families.  In
fact, if there ever was such a law, it would surely be overturned as
unconstitutional.  However, in some states, non-custodial parents are
not given the same rights as parents of intact families in this regard -
and they are forced to continue paying child support for children that
are even over age 21 - until those children graduate from college.  I
don't know which states have such a law or how many states have this law
- but there is at least one - Indiana - and I have heard there are more.

When my ex2b graduated high school, her parents sat her down and told
her they were not going to help her with college expenses.  They
claimed that, because she had three younger brothers, and because her
brothers would have to support wives and families, they would only pay
for their male offsprings' educations.  In fact, they recommended to my
ex2b that, if she wanted to go to college, get a job as a waitress in
a nice restaurant, meet a doctor or lawyer, marry him and get him to
pay for her education.

Now, that kind of attitude is as sexist as it gets, but they had the
right to do just what they said they were going to do - and they did it!

But for non-custodial parents in some states, even if there are 12
children of the marriage, the non-custodial parent is forced, by law, to
pay college expenses for every child of the marriage that decides to go
to college - all of them - as long as they go to college and choose to
remain dependents.

The message posted by the young fiance appeared to be a situation where
a non-custodial father was forced by law to pay for a dependent child
over age 18 to go to college.  The woman and her fiance were hedging on
getting married because her fiance would lose his dependent status as a
result of the marriage and would lose the forced college expense
assistance of his non-custodial father.  Because of the threat or risk
of losing this "free," forced money (which denies equal protection under
the law and should be unconstitutional) this woman's fiance wanted to
put off the marriage.

And you think these folks have the moral high ground?

If the non-custodial parent "wanted" to pay for his son's college
expenses and had the money, there is nothing to stop him.  However, in
this case, it appeared the non-custodial father was forced by law and was
given no choice.

The woman also expressed that her fiance and his father weren't very
close.  I wonder if his being forced to pay for his son's college
expenses had anything to do with it?

Vicky, is there any law which "forces" you to pay for your children's
college expenses?

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
[email-masked] 

P.S.  Personally, I believe this young man and woman should get married
and not use an unconstitutional law that forces non-custodial parents
to pay for their children's college expenses.  They should take
responsiblity for their own lives and not force someone else to do it
for them - after all, they aren't children anymore.  Besides, I wonder
how many of these states send the "college assistance" money to the
"custodial" mother of the "children" and still give her the absolute
authority to spend it in any way she chooses - and not send the money
to the college.  What if a child decides to get a degree on the
seven-year plan?  What if this child fails most of his/her classes
because it's not his/her money she/he is throwing down the toilet?

P.P.S.  BTW, my ex2b paid her own way through college - none of her
brothers did.