There was never any doubt in my parents’ minds that I would go to college. I can remember when I was four years old and threatened to quit school when I was 16. At that time, I thought quitting school was a good thing. My mother strongly disagreed, and although I did not know what college was, I knew from that day forward that it was in my future.
Under Indiana law, married parents are under no obligation to provide a college education to their children. Even divorced parents are not under a strict obligation to pay for post-secondary school or training. However, a court can order a divorced parent to help defray post-secondary expenses because of the parent’s obligation to provide support for the child until he or she reaches the age of 21. Thus, whether or not the child has a right to the parent’s assistance in his scholastic endeavors, the court can impose a financial burden on his mother or father merely because they are no longer married.
In Newdecker v. Newdecker, 566 N.E.2d 557, and Carr v. Carr, 566 N.E.2d 557, the Indiana court found that divorced parents can be treated differently than those who are still married when their children attend institutions of higher education. The rationale is that parents who remain together are likely to agree that a college education for their children is desirable. Parents who no longer maintain a common home are thought to have less incentive to provide this assistance to their children, and thus can be compelled to do so. The idea is that the children should be protected from a parent’s unwillingness to assist them merely because their relationship with the other parent is flawed. As stated in Eppler v. Eppler, 2005 N.E.2d Slip (2005-681), the courts should make the parents contribute to their children’s post-secondary expenses to the extent that they would have paid had they stayed married.
If the children repudiate their parents, however, even a divorced parent may not be forced to contribute to their higher education expenses. In McKay v. McKay, 644 N.E.2d 164, the Indiana court found that a 20-year-old man’s refusal to attempt reconciliation with his father was enough to relieve the father of any obligation to contribute to his college expenses. In this case, the father had made numerous attempts to reconcile his relationship with his son. In Norris v. Pethe, 2005 N.E.2d Slip (2005-548), the court again found that a child’s unwillingness to try to repair her relationship with her father was enough to end any obligation he may have had to contribute to her college expenses.
Generally, it does not take a lot for a court to find that a parent-child relationship has not been repudiated. In Staresnick v. Staresnick, 2005 N.E.2d Slip (2005-397), the court found that the child’s willingness to try to repair his relationship with his father was adequate to cause the father to have to contribute to the child’s college expenses, even though the child’s relationship with the father had been seriously damaged. The alleged repudiation cannot be a result of the parents’ hostile actions towards the child. Million v. Swager, 807 N.E.2d 140.
In most cases, parents can be compelled to contribute to the child’s college education. As mentioned above, this is partially because of the court’s desire to protect children whose divorced parents may not plan for college expenses as they would if they remained married. The court can impose conditions on the parents’ contribution, however. A child’s grade point average may have to be above a certain level to justify forcing his parents to help him or her defray college expenses. The child may be under an obligation to maintain a minimal grade point average, and may be required to report his grades to his parents as a condition of continued support. In re Sebastian v. Sebastian, 798 N.E.2d 224. A trial court may also decide what constitutes college expenses. Not only can books, lab fees, and tuition be taken into account, but room and board can also be considered, if the child lives on campus. Other living expenses, such as cell phone charges, Internet access, transportation, and miscellaneous living costs can be part of the court’s order. Lewis-Brodt v. Lewis, 2005 N.E.2d Slip (2005-171). The parents’ ability to meet these expenses and the child’s ability to contribute to his own education should also be considered. Quinn v. Threlkel, 2006 N.E.2d (55A01-0607-CV-314A).
Finally, a child is automatically emancipated when he or she reaches the age of 21. If no request for college assistance has been made before the child’s 21st birthday, he or she automatically loses the right to request such assistance from his or her parents. However, if the request is made in a timely manner, the court can order the parents to continue assisting the child even after his 21st birthday has occurred. Snow v. Anita R., 2005 N.E.2d Slip (2005-142); Sutton v. Sutton, 773 N.E.2d 289.
Fortunately, most parents want their children to have the advantages in life that a college education can provide. In many divorce cases, parents specifically agree that their children will attend college and sometimes even establish what contributions they will make. The court can modify these arrangements to the extent that the parents’ ability to contribute has changed, but the fact that the child is attending college is a given when the parents have agreed to provide for a higher education in their divorce decree. Borth v. Borth, 806 N.E.2d 866. Absent such an agreement, the parents can still be forced to contribute. Thus, divorced parents are well-advised to save money for their children’s college education. Otherwise, a court order regarding such expenses can end up being an expensive and unpleasant surprise.
