post secondary support

[2hopefull]

I'm having such a hard time understanding why when someone is 18 yrs old and going to post-secondary would a parent (s) have to pay tuition costs? If a couple is still married that child is considered and adult and is on their own. I'm not that old but if I remember correctly everyone had quite the few part time jobs, loans, grants and paid their own way - even if their parents had a lot of money.

So why are children of divorced parents treated differently than children of parents that stay together?

What are the children of this generation going to be? Yes divorce is not great but if a 16yr can quit school, have sex, drive, move out, 18yrs can vote etc....

Why is there a double standard - don't get me wrong I told my daughter that post secondary education is not an option (not that I can really do anything about it) but it's something to be earned along with marks

Thoughts?

[logicalvelocity]

Yes it appears that there is a double standard along the way.

With Intact families, there is a presumption the the parents of this 18 year old that the family will assist this young adult with education costs.


With divorced families, to avoid disputes between the parties and for clarification, guidelines(statues) have been put in place to settle the issue of who pays for what.

Generally, I think any parent regardless of their situation would help their child to the best of their ability. An education is one of the best gifts you can give your child.

[Jenny]

Also consider that your children may not even be able to get student loans based on the parents income - regardless of the parents choice not to pay for their education.

[Grace]

I am helping my child out in university financially. I'm with LV, an education is the best gift you can give a child. I also beleive that they should be working both summer jobs and part-time jobs during the school year to contribute as well.

It will be pay back time when I hit the old folk's home and they will be paying for it. Hopefully down south somewhere .

[2hopefull]

don't get me wrong I totally believe in post secondary education - high school doesn't cut it - but I know many a parent(s) who have "children" quitting high school - then wanting to go to post secondary - not completing a term etc.... - my god teenagers don't even want jobs that are considered "beneath them". Most people that I've met did not consider it their right for post-secondary - if you want to be an adult, then be one. I'm sorry it's just the conflicting messages and then people wonder what is happening with our society

[confusedalso]

I've a question. Perhaps this is a common question here but I don't have a clue. I read in some government pamphlet (which I can no longer locate) that once a child (ours is 22) has received a certificate or some such (graduation is in April) from her post secondary school that obligatory child support comes to an end by law. If so what happens if she decides to take another year?
Don't get me wrong, I do believe in continuing ed. but there must be some kind of end, I hope.

[NBDad]

Not so much a double standard. The way it "should" work, is that the child should be expected to exhaust other sources of funding (goverment student loans, bursaries, etc.) to cover the cost of their education, and the parents should then split the remaining 2/3 costs, either 50-50 or proportional to income. Every situation is different, but in the case of a divorce, you should know the rules are slightly different.

You CAN go to court over the costs for post secondary education, and if you are proposing the above, you'll come out as the reasonable party.

Simply telling the child that it "isn't an option" won't cut it. If the child/other parent is so inclined, they can haul you into court and you will most likely be accountable towards some of the cost.

[billm]

Originally Posted by logicalvelocity

...

Generally, I think any parent regardless of their situation would help their child to the best of their ability. An education is one of the best gifts you can give your child.

Yes but it should not be legislated AND I think that divorce will not change a parents attitude toward helping a child financially, so it should not be altered by the other parent via 'divorce court'.

If you don't want to help your child after 18, you should not have to PERIOD. They are ADULTS.

I will help my kids the same way as if I had remained married. My parents, and I love them dearly, did not help me in any way financially (or helping me pick a university or housing etc), and it would have been unjust to force them. When I was 18, I was an adult and able to take care of myself thank you very much (student loans, hard working good paying summer jobs, debts...).

Forcing a parent to pay for their ADULT children's education is simply wrong.

[Mess]

If both parents agree not to fund the education, then there shouldn't be a problem, don't pay.

If both parents don't agree, then what would you do if you were married? You'd compromise, or fight and argue, or one of you would pay behind the other's back. It's not so clear cut.

[billm]

Originally Posted by Mess

If both parents agree not to fund the education, then there shouldn't be a problem, don't pay.

If both parents don't agree, then what would you do if you were married? You'd compromise, or fight and argue, or one of you would pay behind the other's back. It's not so clear cut.

Good point!