So I recently received the reasons for decision in regarding my motion. My daughter is finished her first program in February and is taking a second program starting in September. The judge has ordered me to pay support for this second program, but has also ordered me to pay monthly support from the end of her first, all the way to the end of her second. She will be out of school for 7 months and I was still ordered to pay during this time. How is this fair? Especially when she works lots of hours when she is not going to school. How can he order support during the months she is not attending school? Anyone have any advice on this? My daughter is also paying her mom rent during the time that she is not in school plus she would be receiving money from me. The judge was provided with all this information, yet I still have to pay while she is out of school. Wtf? There is something totally wrong in the family court system.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Paying monthly support when adult child is not attending school
Collapse
X
-
The issue is that she is taking a second program not related to the first and I'm ordered to pay during the 7 months she's not in school as well as during her second program until she's done. How is that fair? I have to pay her mom while her mom is also charging her rent? That's just ridiculous. If she's charging our daughter monthly rent and receiving money from me as well, what the heck would her mother be contributing at all?
Comment
-
Before the judge made his order did you provide information, and argument, of the length of the terms of the programs and emphasize that the child of the marriage would be out-of-school for many months?
It's not like the custodial parent can up and sell or move for the 7 months that the child of the marriage is still living at home. Mortgage, utilities etc. still have to be paid. Obviously the ideal situation would have been for a reduced amount to be paid while child was not attending school.
Judges don't like to make orders that are predictive in nature. The child of the marriage may "intend" to pay rent but this may not pan out. The child may get fired from the summer job or the child may fritter away the money they earn. Judge likely knows that real expenses exist now and whether child of the marriage works or not, the bills still have to be paid. Judge also knows that parents like to project how responsible their children are but, in reality, they can be little irresponsible shits who leave parents out a lot of money.
Comment
-
The ex told the judge that my daughter would be and has been paying rent for the months that she is not attending school. How can she be so selfish as to charge rent to my daughter and also get money from me. She should not be charging her anything if I am paying support. I don't even agree that I should have to pay for 2 unrelated diplomas.
Comment
-
Shes still a child of the marriage in those 7 months much like a kid in university is still entitled to support for four months.
Judges don’t like to “hurt” the child even though that means rewarding the ex. Its bullshit and I agree with you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mcdreamy View PostSeems like you've received a fair decision.
If the child of the marriage has a legitimate career plan, seems reasonable she should have the support of both parents.
I think you missed the part where this is the kid's second degree. It is an obviously unfair decision. I do not know a single child who has had a second degree paid for by the parents, divorced or not.
And if the child is paying rent, then this just ascends to a new level of craptitude.
Comment
-
There is no more. My ex was fighting specifically for this second diploma. Now I'm on the hook for 7 months that she is not attending school plus the duration of her second program. All the judge said in his reasons was that there is no reason to not fund her second program since my daughter thinks this one will enhance her skills for the last one. No more explanation than that. It's baloney.
Comment
-
Also, I was ordered to pay some costs, but had no opportunity to present the offers I made to my ex to the judge. I thought they did not decide on costs without seeing the offers that were made first? Almost everything the judge ordered was similar to what I offered. The only thing I was fighting against was paying for a second diploma and I got screwed with that. I make less than $40,000 a year, yet I was still ordered to pay for that second diploma even though my kid has a job in the field of her first diploma. Eventually parents will be paying for their kids until they are 40. Unbelievable how messed up the world is today.
Comment
Comment