Should parents legally pay for their ADULT children's tuitio

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relati ... 6844565516

A HIGH school cheerleader has filed a lawsuit demanding her parents pay financial support after she was kicked out of home.
Rachel Canning, who has just turned 18, claims she was “abandoned” by her mother Amy and father Sean, but her father says she is a “spoiled” liar and she wasn’t playing by their rules.
Around November 1, 2013, Rachel left her comfortable home in Morris County, New Jersey to go and stay with a friend’s family.

In the rare lawsuit, the teen states around her 18th birthday her mother and father sent her packing by cutting her off ‘emotionally and financially’.
Court papers filed by Rachel claim: “They stopped paying my high school tuition to punish the school and me and have redirected my college fund indicating their refusal to afford me an education as a punishment.”

Morris Catholic High School, where Rachel attends, is backing the case of the A-grade teenager. Her parents already owe the school $5306, due to fees accrued after the feud started.
“Rachel has excellent grades and will not be removed from the school for this non-payment; however her parents do have a contractual obligation to pay. Rachel is certainly unable at this time to attend Morris Catholic High School full-time and support herself financially,” school president Michael St. Pierre said in a letter to court.

According to her father, Rachel left on her own accord after she refused to do her chores, return her sister’s belongings and be respectful.
“We love our child and miss her. This is terrible. It’s killing me and my wife. We have a child we want home. We’re not draconian and now we’re getting hauled into court. She’s demanding that we pay her bills but she doesn’t want to live at home and she’s saying ‘I don’t want to live under your rules’,” Mr Canning said.

Rachel is demanding her parents pay her high school and college fees plus expenses, cover her transport costs and even pay her court fees.
The first hearing is scheduled for Tuesday in Pennsylvania.

And she has lost the case.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relati ... 6846570363

My thoughts. The school fees presumably were the result of a contract the parents agreed to when they enrolled Rachel in when she was still a minor. Thus the are obligated to pay it. As for the rest (ie university fees etc), I don't see why when she is an adult and she doesn't like to live in the house. My house, my rules and all that (within reason). Although I will say that I am in a country where the government lends you money to pay for university, which is paid back when you start working. So the problem could be solved or at least lessened.

As to who is at fault for the deteriorating relationship, its really a case of my word vs yours isn't it? So I am not totally unsympathetic to her case because I am not completely sure who is mainly at fault here.

[Sea Skimmer]

No she didn't loose the case, but lots of media outlets are repeating the same simplified reports of that because they are run by morons who can't be bothered to read to the end of the articles they are copying, or something. That might be generous.

Actually all she lost was an attempt to gain immediate temporary financial assistance pending the outcome of the actual full hearing. That is a very typical thing in lawsuits for money, and has little bearing on the final outcome. Legally everything will pend on if the judge rules she willingly left home or not. The judge said that such immediate assistance will not be awarded because 1) the school agreed to let her keep attending even unpaid, and 2) her living situation is not an emergency situation. So nobody is forced to pay money up front, as they might have been had she say, been suspended for non payment and living on the street. Its pretty rare for such requests to be granted, even in what far more arguably are emergency situations.

I'd call asshole on both parties. Also she is very likely to loose anyway, but not yet.

[K. A. Pital]

In Russia or other countries with universal education this won't be a problem. Bad relationship with parents cannot force you out of Uni.

[Terralthra]

From what I understand, this isn't uni, this is an expensive private Catholic high school. Her parents were paying the tuition, then there was some sort of falling out when she hit 18 during her senior year and now she can't continue going because they stopped.

[salm]

In Germany parents are forced to pay educational fees (including rent, food and things like that) until the child turns 26. That applies if the parents are rich enough to not be granted sufficient educational governmental funds.
I have no problem with parents being financially responsible for their kids even after they are adult. It would be quite difficult to get a university degree if you have rich but asshole parents. Sure, there will be a certain amount of asshole students who are going to abuse this but i´d rather deal with that than with people being cheated out of a good education.

[LaCroix]

Same as in Germany, but until 27 in Austria. Heck, we even do have a legal obligation to pay an adequate dowry in the books - usually 25-30% of annual earnings, but with caveats - only for the first marriage, and not threatening for the parents, the child isn't rich (spouse doesn't count, funnily). Both is seen as a continuation of parental responsibility beyond adulthood.

In this particular case, we do have an A-level student who is even defended by school officials, so it's not as clean-cut a case as such things usually are. Citing "didn't do her chores" and "didn't give stuff back to silbling" do sound a bit excessive to me as a reason to kick a child (probably currently under stress due to being in higher education) out.

[dragon]

In Germany parents are forced to pay educational fees (including rent, food and things like that) until the child turns 26. That applies if the parents are rich enough to not be granted sufficient educational governmental funds.
I have no problem with parents being financially responsible for their kids even after they are adult. It would be quite difficult to get a university degree if you have rich but asshole parents. Sure, there will be a certain amount of asshole students who are going to abuse this but i´d rather deal with that than with people being cheated out of a good education.

My German wife was kicked out at 18 and when she went to court to try to get the money it was dismissed as she was a legal adult and tution is payed for

[salm]

In Germany parents are forced to pay educational fees (including rent, food and things like that) until the child turns 26. That applies if the parents are rich enough to not be granted sufficient educational governmental funds.
I have no problem with parents being financially responsible for their kids even after they are adult. It would be quite difficult to get a university degree if you have rich but asshole parents. Sure, there will be a certain amount of asshole students who are going to abuse this but i´d rather deal with that than with people being cheated out of a good education.

My German wife was kicked out at 18 and when she went to court to try to get the money it was dismissed as she was a legal adult and tution is payed for

Did she perhaps have an education beyond highschool at that time? Parents only have to pay if the children don´t allready have some kind of education. This can be either a university degree or a finished apprenticeship.

[LaCroix]

It also usually dependent on the financial situation of the parents - if they aren't (sufficiently) stable financially, court will not order them to continue payment if the child has at least Abitur level or any finished job training (school or apprenticeship), e.g. is theoretically able to find work to support their further education.

[JLTucker]

The answer is yes. If your child turns 18 and is unable to support him or herself financially, you have a duty to help. If that means paying tuition, so be it. You should have thought about the ramifications and responsibilities of having children. Too bad.

[AMT]

The issue at this point is Emancipation, not adulthood. In NJ, a person is not considered Emancipated until they leave the scope of their parents authority. I'd say by moving out and running away she's emancipated herself and thus it doesn't matter if she feels her parents should pay for her college tuition (the parents stopped payment for both high school and denied access to her college fund which was in their name) or rent/expenses while she lives outside of the house.

I'd say, unless there is abuse involved and the person left due to that, that this is a situation where the girl's shit outta luck.

[Lagmonster]

The answer is yes. If your child turns 18 and is unable to support him or herself financially, you have a duty to help. If that means paying tuition, so be it. You should have thought about the ramifications and responsibilities of having children. Too bad.

If you don't set some conditions and terms which are under the control of the parent to your 'duty to help', you will have made a mockery of the concept of adulthood.

You've probably noticed that when you're a kid, your parents support you, but they get to decide what you eat, what you wear, when you go to bed, and what you do. When you're an adult, your parents cannot do any of that. That means that a parent forced to pay for their adult kids' university tuition has no say in negotiating the costs involved, no way to mitigate the risks, and no control over the outcome - all of which a parent would have over a minor. Kid wants to sign up for a $50,000 a year specialty boarding school program in Tibet to bring out his psychic potential? Fuck you, dad, you'll be getting a second mortgage to pay for it, even if the idiot kid spends the whole time out partying. After all, the kid isn't on the hook for the consequences of failure and can totally ignore dad if he tries to ground the kid until their grades improve.

[TheHammer]

The answer is yes. If your child turns 18 and is unable to support him or herself financially, you have a duty to help. If that means paying tuition, so be it. You should have thought about the ramifications and responsibilities of having children. Too bad.

If you don't set some conditions and terms which are under the control of the parent to your 'duty to help', you will have made a mockery of the concept of adulthood.

You've probably noticed that when you're a kid, your parents support you, but they get to decide what you eat, what you wear, when you go to bed, and what you do. When you're an adult, your parents cannot do any of that. That means that a parent forced to pay for their adult kids' university tuition has no say in negotiating the costs involved, no way to mitigate the risks, and no control over the outcome - all of which a parent would have over a minor. Kid wants to sign up for a $50,000 a year specialty boarding school program in Tibet to bring out his psychic potential? Fuck you, dad, you'll be getting a second mortgage to pay for it, even if the idiot kid spends the whole time out partying. After all, the kid isn't on the hook for the consequences of failure and can totally ignore dad if he tries to ground the kid until their grades improve.

I think that sums it up in a nutshell. As I understand, the parent's position is that the daughter wasn't kicked out, she left when she refused to follow their rules - likely due to influence of a boyfriend. Essentially, she played the "I'm 18 and I can do what I want!" card, which is certainly her right, but to then come back and act as if she is owed additional money is ridiculous. She still would be able to attend public school, and I suspect had she come home willingly and followed her parents rules she would have had the tuition at her private school paid for to continue attending there.

[blahface]

Indirectly, they should pay. The state should pay for all higher education and there should be a tax on parents that would help pay for this.

Also, the state should pay for contraception and provide free abortions. The amount we would save in other forms of welfare and the crime reduction would probably make up for the costs. I know this would never happen, but this is how it should be.

[Simon_Jester]

Indirectly, they should pay. The state should pay for all higher education and there should be a tax on parents that would help pay for this.

I think this is actually questionable. It's not clear that it's in the state's interest to subsidize unlimited higher education, especially if the institution of higher learning in question is for-profit.

Think about it. There are people out there who are manifestly unsuited for higher learning. Either the school system has failed them, or they themselves simply lack the self-control and abstract thinking skills to learn advanced subjects. Or both.

As it stands in the US we have a serious problem on our hands because our universities are crammed with mediocre students taking out massive loans so they can get phony degrees in communications or whatever. It leads to credential inflation, probably wastes a lot of potentially productive man-hours, and definitely tends to relieve pressure on the high schools to actually produce educated people. Meanwhile, for-profit universities can make quite a bit of money off of this trend.

Making all higher education state-funded in America would if anything make the problem worse, because it would remove any serious attempt to control costs and allocate education funds efficiently.

So at the very least you'd need a system by which the state could gauge which people it's not worth spending taxpayer dollars to put through college... and I can't figure out how to design such a system without having it immediately torn apart for being unjust.

What we really need is state support for putting high-performing kids from disadvantaged backgrounds into college, and very, very serious state support for creating institutions that can reform teens with serious behavioral problems or major academic deficiencies.

[mr friendly guy]

As it stands in the US we have a serious problem on our hands because our universities are crammed with mediocre students taking out massive loans so they can get phony degrees in communications or whatever. It leads to credential inflation, probably wastes a lot of potentially productive man-hours, and definitely tends to relieve pressure on the high schools to actually produce educated people. Meanwhile, for-profit universities can make quite a bit of money off of this trend.

Making all higher education state-funded in America would if anything make the problem worse, because it would remove any serious attempt to control costs and allocate education funds efficiently.

Don't they have entry requirements into the course? That is you must have scored this many marks and taken subjects x,y,z in high school and passed them before coming into university.

[blahface]

Indirectly, they should pay. The state should pay for all higher education and there should be a tax on parents that would help pay for this.

I think this is actually questionable. It's not clear that it's in the state's interest to subsidize unlimited higher education, especially if the institution of higher learning in question is for-profit.

Think about it. There are people out there who are manifestly unsuited for higher learning. Either the school system has failed them, or they themselves simply lack the self-control and abstract thinking skills to learn advanced subjects. Or both.

As it stands in the US we have a serious problem on our hands because our universities are crammed with mediocre students taking out massive loans so they can get phony degrees in communications or whatever. It leads to credential inflation, probably wastes a lot of potentially productive man-hours, and definitely tends to relieve pressure on the high schools to actually produce educated people. Meanwhile, for-profit universities can make quite a bit of money off of this trend.

Making all higher education state-funded in America would if anything make the problem worse, because it would remove any serious attempt to control costs and allocate education funds efficiently.

So at the very least you'd need a system by which the state could gauge which people it's not worth spending taxpayer dollars to put through college... and I can't figure out how to design such a system without having it immediately torn apart for being unjust.

What we really need is state support for putting high-performing kids from disadvantaged backgrounds into college, and very, very serious state support for creating institutions that can reform teens with serious behavioral problems or major academic deficiencies.

I misspoke. I should have said the state should pay for higher education and not all higher education. I think public universities should be free, but I definitely don't think for profit colleges should be paid for by the state.

The reason I want free higher education isn't just because I want to level the playing field (although I do). I think it is important for citizens to be educated as much as possible because they vote and that effects the whole country. Even if they still come out of college as idiots, they are probably going to have better critical thinking skills and be exposed to people with different points of view.

[Elaro]

Indirectly, they should pay. The state should pay for all higher education and there should be a tax on parents that would help pay for this.

I think this is actually questionable. It's not clear that it's in the state's interest to subsidize unlimited higher education, especially if the institution of higher learning in question is for-profit.

Think about it. There are people out there who are manifestly unsuited for higher learning. Either the school system has failed them, or they themselves simply lack the self-control and abstract thinking skills to learn advanced subjects. Or both.

As it stands in the US we have a serious problem on our hands because our universities are crammed with mediocre students taking out massive loans so they can get phony degrees in communications or whatever. It leads to credential inflation, probably wastes a lot of potentially productive man-hours, and definitely tends to relieve pressure on the high schools to actually produce educated people. Meanwhile, for-profit universities can make quite a bit of money off of this trend.

Making all higher education state-funded in America would if anything make the problem worse, because it would remove any serious attempt to control costs and allocate education funds efficiently.

So at the very least you'd need a system by which the state could gauge which people it's not worth spending taxpayer dollars to put through college... and I can't figure out how to design such a system without having it immediately torn apart for being unjust.

What we really need is state support for putting high-performing kids from disadvantaged backgrounds into college, and very, very serious state support for creating institutions that can reform teens with serious behavioral problems or major academic deficiencies.

Hey, I have an idea, why not just fund a certain number of years of college? Like what they do in Quebec. Here, You get 36-40 months (our uni bachelor's degree last 3 years (with some exceptions)) of govt loans (or up to 30-40K dollars (yeah, it's sufficient; we are that good)) and then, if you don't achieve your bachelor's by then, you're cut off. Why not do that?

[Lagmonster]

Alternatively, you offer full compensation for tuition plus basic living expenses to people who provide proof of having earned their degree. That means that students still have to understand the risk and consequences going in, but know that if they don't fuck it up, that success means that they'll enter professional life with no student loan debt and a small paycheck to get them started (equivalent to a yearly minimum wage salary of the length of time they were in university).

[salm]

Hey, I have an idea, why not just fund a certain number of years of college? Like what they do in Quebec. Here, You get 36-40 months (our uni bachelor's degree last 3 years (with some exceptions)) of govt loans (or up to 30-40K dollars (yeah, it's sufficient; we are that good)) and then, if you don't achieve your bachelor's by then, you're cut off. Why not do that?

We do the same here. A certain time (enough to get one degree) at university is funded by the government. The funding comes in form of monthly payments, similar to a regular income so the recipients can use it for whatever they like. The amount of funding depends on the parents wealth and number of children the family has to support. A student form a wealthy single child family will get nothing while a student from a poor 4 children family will get the maximum amount.

Half of the funds have to be repaid when you get a job at very good terms. You can pay it at rates of your chosing. 50 Euros a month for the next 15 years for example.

[Simon_Jester]

Hey, I have an idea, why not just fund a certain number of years of college? Like what they do in Quebec. Here, You get 36-40 months (our uni bachelor's degree last 3 years (with some exceptions)) of govt loans (or up to 30-40K dollars (yeah, it's sufficient; we are that good)) and then, if you don't achieve your bachelor's by then, you're cut off. Why not do that?

There are probably a lot of ways to control costs, some of them complementary; my point is simply that there need to be cost controls. State investment in education is just that- an investment on society's part. Since it is very much subject to inflationary pressures, we need to be mindful of whether the return on our investment is justified.

[Welf]

Indirectly, they should pay. The state should pay for all higher education and there should be a tax on parents that would help pay for this.

I think this is actually questionable. It's not clear that it's in the state's interest to subsidize unlimited higher education, especially if the institution of higher learning in question is for-profit.

Think about it. There are people out there who are manifestly unsuited for higher learning. Either the school system has failed them, or they themselves simply lack the self-control and abstract thinking skills to learn advanced subjects. Or both.

As it stands in the US we have a serious problem on our hands because our universities are crammed with mediocre students taking out massive loans so they can get phony degrees in communications or whatever. It leads to credential inflation, probably wastes a lot of potentially productive man-hours, and definitely tends to relieve pressure on the high schools to actually produce educated people. Meanwhile, for-profit universities can make quite a bit of money off of this trend.

Making all higher education state-funded in America would if anything make the problem worse, because it would remove any serious attempt to control costs and allocate education funds efficiently.

So at the very least you'd need a system by which the state could gauge which people it's not worth spending taxpayer dollars to put through college... and I can't figure out how to design such a system without having it immediately torn apart for being unjust.

What we really need is state support for putting high-performing kids from disadvantaged backgrounds into college, and very, very serious state support for creating institutions that can reform teens with serious behavioral problems or major academic deficiencies.

The is the wrong approach to education and costs. It is basically a replay of the "welfare queen".
The approach of punishing students is based on the idea that they lazy and will avoid getting real jobs forever. probably because a lot of people remember that good time and envy them. But students already have a lot of monetary and social incentives to finish their education quickly and efficiently. They can' get a job, start a family or buy an house as long as they study.
On the other side, the universities and authorities have no reason to improve if the whole discussion is only about the students. They can improve their organizations for better service, hire more teachers, invest in infrastructure, counsel inexperienced students on their possibilities. And since they are the specialist it is easier for them to create efficiency gains.
To give an example: a friend of mine lost years (!) where he couldn't finish his degree. He lacked exactly one certificate. But every semester there were not enough places in the course, so the faculty randomly assigned the seats. He had a chance of 1:3 each semester and "lost" a few times in a row. Unlikely, but possible. Of course they could have used a more fair system with waiting lists, or made a second seminar each year, but why bother? There was no pressure for them, and won't be since here they also just talk about how the students are the root of the problem.

[Simon_Jester]

The is the wrong approach to education and costs. It is basically a replay of the "welfare queen".

The approach of punishing students is based on the idea that they lazy and will avoid getting real jobs forever. probably because a lot of people remember that good time and envy them. But students already have a lot of monetary and social incentives to finish their education quickly and efficiently. They can' get a job, start a family or buy an house as long as they study.

Er... that's not quite my argument. My argument is that some students lack the academic aptitude to complete a degree, and it may well be that tertiary education is not for everyone. There has to be some layer of education that only a modest percentage of the population actually obtains.

On the other side, the universities and authorities have no reason to improve if the whole discussion is only about the students. They can improve their organizations for better service, hire more teachers, invest in infrastructure, counsel inexperienced students on their possibilities. And since they are the specialist it is easier for them to create efficiency gains.

The main problem with this is that it costs more money- so we create a vicious cycle in which we are paying tax money for more students to enter college, and the cost per student is higher because more and more of those students have to be carefully led by the hand through the process of getting their degree.

At some point this stops making sense, and we have to ask "is it worthwhile to pay for this person's college education, given their pre-existing skill level, their apparent level of motivation, their plans, and the probability of economic payoff from them getting the degree?"

To give an example: a friend of mine lost years (!) where he couldn't finish his degree. He lacked exactly one certificate. But every semester there were not enough places in the course, so the faculty randomly assigned the seats. He had a chance of 1:3 each semester and "lost" a few times in a row. Unlikely, but possible. Of course they could have used a more fair system with waiting lists, or made a second seminar each year, but why bother? There was no pressure for them, and won't be since here they also just talk about how the students are the root of the problem.

I'm not advocating cutting off his tuition if that's coming from the state. And if the state is paying tuition then they have a right to complain to the university for using their money so incredibly inefficiently.

What I mean is more along the lines of "this child is in the 30th percentile of academic performance and shows no sign of exceptional motivation or untapped potential. Is it really worth our budget to fund this person's education for a long period of time?"

[TheHammer]

I'm in agreement with Simon. I don't think "higher education as a right" is really an effective way to do things. There are far too many people who would piss away money to get the "college experience" and yet not emerge with anything truly productive out of it. I think merit based, and service based (military or otherwise) assistance, or assistance for qualified students in a field where there is strong national demand is the way to go.

I do feel that government should be involved in making college affordable - perhaps through subsidies, but not outright free to anyone and everyone.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not sure I'd organize things the way Hammer would; we tend to disagree on issues rather often. I just think that we do need some kind of correlation between the state's willingness to plunk down N thousand dollars to support a college student, and the probability of it being worth N thousand dollars to get them that degree.

Otherwise, it would make more sense to plow the money back into improving primary and secondary education, among other things so that our high schools can stop sending unprepared ignoramuses off to college in the first place.