Child support; court may order continuation for child over age 18 who is attending college. (SB319)

Introduced By

Sen. Frank Ruff (R-Clarksville)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Child support; child attending college. Provides that child support may be ordered for a child attending an institution of higher learning until the child obtains an undergraduate degree or reaches the age of 23. Read the Bill »

Status

02/01/2010: Failed to Pass in Committee

History

DateAction
01/12/2010Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10101107D
01/12/2010Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/14/2010Assigned Courts sub: Civil
01/21/2010Impact statement from DPB (SB319)
02/01/2010Passed by indefinitely in Courts of Justice (13-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)

Duplicate Bills

The following bills are identical to this one: HB146.

Comments

Dave Briggman writes:

Let me see if I understand this.

In the past two years, this General Assembly has passed legislation to let about 900 non-attorney employees of DCSE to engage in the practice of law, which I'm not sure is legal prospectively, but I'm really sure they couldn't do it retroactively; and this past session they passed legislation to let DCSE administratively-suspend the driver's licenses of non-custodial parents who are subject to judicial support orders (thus giving DCSE a tool to place an NCP into violation of a judicial support order; and now, they want child support to continue until the "child" reaches 23 — even after the support had been previously terminated by operation of law?

Let's see who this legislation was offered on behalf of...

My first question, aside from since when are adults old enough to die for their country considered children in Virginia? This appears to be patterned after Massachusetts law.

My second question is whether the "support" is paid to the child or the custodial parent?

My third question is whether a "child" attending a military vocation school which in some instances last well over a year would be eligible for receiving child support?

Ring and email O'Bannon till he goes absolutely berserk, then send campaign contributions to anyone who runs against him.

Marsha Maines writes:

"child" support is supposed to be FOR CHILDREN - not a money making money laundering business venture to FUND THE STATE with FEDERAL FUNNY $$$.
When Virginia lawyers and social workers FIRST start spending their lives in jail to see what they are doing to the PARENTS of children, THEN - the lightbulbs out over their freakin bobbleheads might turn on. Hasn't anyone ever watched the Sound of Music? What WHITE COLLAR idiot would even consider this type of legislation UNLESS THEY ARE A SOCIALIST? Per the warning from Charles Lindbergh in 1917, "The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party." Do you submit to a political party or are you going to fight for your INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?

D'Arcy L McGreer writes:

This bill will only cause ERFs (ejected rejected fathers) to continue in destitution and more sent to jail since many have problems paying what they are ordered to pay. It prevents children from absent fathers growing up like any young adult has to do from a poor family if they want to get an education. What we need is not more impoverishment by unaccounted child support that the custodial parent can spend on hair styling or boyfriends but, fairness for parents and their children in this unhappy situation in which it is usually the mother who decided to break up the family and gets the children and the money. It is obvious that Delegate O'Bannon is either clueless about the destruction of the family in Virginia or has introduced this bill for some cynical and perverse reason.

A Father writes:

What about millions of Fathers who are MIA because of the family court system? Political figures often discuss the welfare of our children but never discuss the problem regarding our family court system, unfair visitation laws and how those laws effective fathers who want to be part of their children’s lives.

There is a Child Support Enforcement agency in every state but not a Visitation/Parenting Time Enforcement Agency. Why?? This needs to be an issue addressed at the federal level and not decided by the states because the system at the state level is not working. Most states call the time Fathers spend with their children as “Visitation” instead of calling it what it is “Parenting time”. Parenting time is a time to be a parent to your child. Visitation is what the family court force on fathers, as they want fathers to become an occasional visitor. Family courts wants fathers to settle for becoming a 'Disney Dad,' one whose role is nothing more than outings to theme parks once or twice a month. Why can’t the family courts grant time to fathers in a frequency, duration, and type reasonably calculated to promote a strong and loving relationship between the child and the parent? The standard visitation which is four days a month is not enough time to be an effective parent to your child. The family courts very, very rarely enforce visitation. Here, the prejudice is against fathers and their parental rights. The congress refuses to acknowledge the injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of denying the love and companionship between a father and their child. Divorce from a spouse is not a divorce from your children, nor should custody decisions be used as a punishment. Joint custody can benefit the children, the divorced parents, and society in general by having both parents involved in the child’s upbringing.

Fathers are systematically eliminated from their children’s lives. Father’s parental rights are systematically terminated by family court judges who have a deep seated gender bias against fathers. Termination of parental rights is both total and irrevocable. Termination of parental rights is the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case. The primary casualties in our Domestic Relations courts are our children.

Courts are supposed to approach cases of child custody, support payments, and visitation rights in a gender-neutral posture. It sounds fair, and it is fair. But it is a myth. Judges are not enforcing these gender laws fairly, and few seem to care. Unless you have been forcefully removed from the everyday upbringing of your child by the Court, you can not fathom the emotional distress. To discriminate against fathers because of their gender in this day and age is no different than telling a person to go to the back of the bus because of their skin color. With sole or primary custody going to the mother in roughly 90% of cases, claiming custody is not based on gender would be like claiming hiring is not based on race if 90% of a particular race, though equally qualified, was unable to obtain employment. This was missing from the Obama’s Father’s day speech. What about millions of Fathers who are MIA because of the family court system?

Anguish is experienced by hundreds of thousands of fathers across the country. Their grievances include: blocked visitation and unenforced visitation orders; "move away" spouses who use geography as a method of driving fathers out of their children's lives; acceptance by the courts of false and/or uncorroborated accusations as a basis for denying custody or even contact between parent and child; a "win/lose" system which pits ex-spouses against one another by designating a custodial and a noncustodial parent; courts which in determining custody tilt heavily towards the parent who initiates the divorce, thus encouraging each parent to "strike first"; burdensome legal costs; and judicial preference for mothers over fathers as custodial parents.

The child's right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by the application of both parents' wisdom, judgment and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce.

Andrew Bilski writes:

I have a dream that both parents are created equal.

We need to thank Delegate O'Bannon for reminding some parents that providing for their children education is not only their privilege but also their duty. But we also need to make Delegate O'Bannon realize that his approach of adding his proposed mandate to the existing unfair reality will make it even more unfair, in an overwhelming number of cases, to the father.
I propose that if we fix the reality by making sure that, truly 'as between the parents, there shall be no presumption or inference of law in favor of either', and that both get equal opportunity to rare their children, then both parents are likely to be compelled and happy to provide for their children health, education and any care within the means of each parent.
I am not that naive to think that all parents will do that but it would be 'in the best interest of the child(ren)' to not deny that to those parents who are willing to do anything for their child(ren).

At minimum I propose that the bill be amended that the parent receiving payments shall only use it strictly on child's education and that detail bills documenting that shall be provided to the other parent.

But I really propose that we first pass a bill requiring that for every hour in a week that a custody order favors either parent the judge shall provide detailed written justification for such ruling. I further propose that any order favoring either parent by more than 30% of time with child(ren) shall be automatically docketed for an en banc review hearing.

And, in a lesser matter, which may help judges realize what they are ordering, I propose that, rather than reading 'the other parent is allowed to visit on Wednesdays and every other weekend', the order would read 'the other parent is forbidden from being with the child other than on Wednesdays and every other weekend'. This may sound like a small detail but I propose that the judge can only forbid me (more or less) from being with my child as allowing me to be with my child at any and all times has been granted to me at my child's birth by God, natural law and as a part of fundamental constitutional liberty to raise my child.
I vote that we take this opportunity of working on the portion of the statue dealing with family laws to incorporate changes similar to the ones I suggested or that we kill the bill until such changes can be incorporated in it.

Dave Briggman writes:

I should also point out that this identical statute was declared unconstitutional in Pennsylvania by their Supreme Court last year on grounds that it unfairly discriminated against divorced parents.

The Republican led General Assembly doesn't seem to have much of a problem passing such unconstitutional laws because it would take either luck (as in my case) or buttloads of money to fight these bastards in a Virginia appellate court.

Steven F writes:

Here's what I wrote Rep. O'Bannon:

Dear Sir,

In regards to your proposed bill, HB146, I have to say to you, “shame on you”. Has our Great Nation degenerated so far that our lawmakers seek to extort money from their own constituents well after a child is grown and capable of fending for his or herself? I was, once, a member of the Republican party. I am now just a conservative, Constitution-believing, pro-American Way patriot. It is audacious proposed “laws” like these that are destroying the fabric of our nation, and have driven people like me from the ranks of your supporters.

Being a good former Non-Commissioned Officer, I will not offer a rebuke without a proposed solution: Please, quit funding these vultures that prey on the most precious asset in the United States of America – the FAMILY. Please, find legislation that is PRO-family, and punishes fly-by-night marriages rather than rewarding the “Divorce For Profit” industry! Sir, you took an oath, just like me, to uphold the laws of our land, and to defend them. Seek legislation that defends the families of the United States of America.

Very best regards,

Steven F

Bruce Novitsky writes:

Dear Sir,

In regards to your proposed bill, HB146, I have to say to you, “shame on you” as well. You are tearing apart families not helping them. Assistance by a parent to a child once that child is grown is between them not the government and not the courts. You should be ashamed to even consider this bill let alone be its author. Why will you not write a bill that keeps parents involved emotionally by making custodial time equal and if it is not making the courts justify why and removing corrupt judges. You certainly do not want Vitginia to be the next Luzerne County Pennsylvania or do you?

Sincerely,

Bruce Novitsky

Robert writes:

I agree that this is a bad bill. So do the overwhelming majority of commenters on the web, not just at this site.

Married parents do not have to support their children during college. Why should divorced parents? That is simply discrimination. When you are over 18 you are an adult, and have no right to force your parents to support you.

In states that have similar legislation, adults who are disrespectful and abusive to a parent, or not even on speaking terms with the parent, have forced the parent to support them (even when the legislation supposedly gave judges discretion about whether to award support during college).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court apparently struck down similar legislation.

The few who support this bill seem to do so as a punitive measure towards non-custodial parents (for the most part, fathers), under the false assumption that they abandoned their families. But as any divorce lawyer could tell you, two-thirds of all divorces are sought by wives over the husband's objection, so the husbands/fathers haven't abandoned their families. They've been booted out after the spouses grew apart. (Most divorces are "no-fault." That is, no adultery, and no domestic violence, was shown).

Moreover, the support that can be awarded under this bill may not even be used to pay for college, as opposed to paying the custodial parents expenses.

Hans writes:

Robert is right. This will be used to erode parental rights by forcing divorced parents to pay the living expenses of adult "children", even if the children behave abusively towards the parent -- and even though married parents have no duty to support their college-age children. It is discrimination, pure and simple.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision he alludes to, which struck down such a requirement, is Curtis v. Kline, 666 A.2d 265 (Pa. 1995).

Robert's observation that non-custodial parents and fathers do not initiate most divorces is backed up by data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics, and studies from across the ideological spectrum, collected in Sanford Braver's 1998 book, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths."

I oppose this requirement based on my experience as a lawyer. (I should note, by the way, that I am not divorced, and have no child support obligations, and do not receive any money from divorce or family-law cases).

As an intake lawyer for a non-profit law firm for over 6 years, I saw cases of aging divorced parents forced to pay the college bills of disrespectful, ungrateful offspring with whom they had an acrimonious relationship, even though they could ill-afford to do so – like a father dying of an incurable liver disease forced to pay his estranged daughter’s graduate school expenses, under a state law permitting child support to be awarded for adult children. (We did not handle family-law cases in state court and I thus had no choice but to reject these people’s pleas for legal assistance).

Divorced parents, like married parents, should have the right not to pay for their adult children's living expenses or college costs -- for example, if the child engages in conduct or a field of study that is objectionable to the parent.

It is an unfortunate reality that courts are likely to apply this bill, if it is enacted and not struck down, in a way that results in support obligations that are inequitable to some aging parents. Virginia courts have sometimes awarded support even in situations where statutory language would appear to bar any support. For example, in Calvin v. Calvin, 31 Va. App. 181 (1999), the Virginia Court of Appeals awarded spousal support, even though the recipient had engaged in adultery and been “vindictive and cruel” in the court’s own words, and even though Virginia’s statutes expressly bar support to adulterous spouses absent a finding of “manifest injustice” under both economic and fault-based factors.

Karen writes:

As said in the comments above, I do not support this! Unlike the comments above, some parents, custodial and non-custodial, simply cannot afford to pay for their children's higher education fees and especially in times like these. When adult children choose to go to college and the parents can't pay, the child and family figures out another way.

In an intact family no court would order the parents to pay for college. Why does the court have to be involved in this?

It is simply another way for the state to make more money.

Lexi, Custody Coach writes:

It's a shame that our elected officials spend more time trying to get more child support collected so we get all of the federal matching dollars instead of doing what is right, which would be creating laws that enforce visitation and shared custody. Numerous studies show that the more custody parents have, the more child support is paid, not to mention the emotional and behavioral impacts that are made on the children who have better outcomes when both parents are involved in their lives.

This law is simply discriminatory, no married parents are forced to provide college funding, or for that matter health care, extra curricular activities or any other standard of living. When a married parent loses their job, does the government step in and force the parents to continue the kids sports lessons? No, only divorced parents, and 85% of them fathers who are forced into financial hardship just so the state can continue to collect child support that the mother doesn't even have to verify she has spent on the child.

Do something that is actually in the best interests of the children, provide them with BOTH parents, end the legislation that takes one parent out of their lives just so the state can make money, and ENFORCE visitation rather than allowing mothers to hold their children hostage.

Dave Briggman writes:

This piece of crap legislation was recommended to be stricken from the docket yesterday (the 18th) in the Civil Subcommittee of the House Court's of Justice Committee...

Bravo, folks!

Dave Briggman writes:

Senate Bill 319, the other version of this bill has gone through fiscal scrutiny:

See it here:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+oth+SB319F122+PDF

Dave Briggman writes:

Folks, I just got finished speaking with the Legislative Assistant of this so-called Republican (RINO)...the Legislative Assistant asked me "Don't you think parents should support their children, whether they're 20 or 103?"

The Legislative Assistant didn't know who asked the Senator to carry this piece of garbage...didn't need a copy of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's declaration that such a law is unconstitutional...didn't dispute that child support would be paid to "children" who are in basic training or tech school...

This should make of all very afraid that TWO REPUBLICANS in the General Assembly have pushed this garbage in one session.

Dave Briggman writes:

Thanks to some allies, this piece of crap was, in fact, stricken from the docket today...I'm pretty sure it doesn't been that it's permanently gone...yet.

Maintain a careful eye on this, since the Legislative Information System isn't always or up-to-date.

Douglas Vann writes:

Let's focus on some real legislation instead of garbage like this. Like, for example, ever wonder why there are so many "deadbeat" dads out there? Hmm. Maybe it's because there are so many women who take advantage of this system, who know that all they have to do is walk out on their family and find some sugar daddy and make a killing in both child support and selling their bodies? We need to start penalizing women who turn their backs on family values by not making it so easy for them to get their big fat child support checks. Let's start by lowing child support for fathers that got walked out on, and then we'll see how many deadbeats we have, because womean might actually appreciate men as breadwinners rather than take advantage of them.

Eric Callabria writes:

John O'Bannon is an idiot for introducing such an stupid bill. The fathers are already overburdened with onerous child support bills. Why does O'Bannon want to add to their misery? I live in Henrico County. I will work hard to defeat him in the next election.

jean kline writes:

This is total garbage,i think parents are smart enough to look out for their kids college if they are married or divorced without the court stepping in. My son pays alot of child support and his wife supports her mom and brother that live with her, the court does nothing about it. he has a college fund for both of his kids why should he have to do more. I will keep track of this and will help vote you out of office.

Joan Buchanan writes:

I 100% support this bill. Divorced and have received child support on-time. Both children are attending college through student loans. Their father has always said and still says that he will pay...but guess what, he hasn't paid a dime. Both children live with me on breaks, guess what he doesn't help out. With today's economy and cost of education, why should one parent vs another be on the hook for student loans? Its unfair.

GS writes:

10 states already mandate this nonsense - An adult in our society is defined as one at age 18. I wanted to weigh in to express how grateful I am this was shot down as I am living this nightmare in another state and that have no business going through in the first place. I have a Michigan decree which states I am done paying for my children at age 18, which both now are. Indiana is now the tribunal state to record my payments (as we all left Michigan) but now my ex wife and lawyer have convinced a very novice judge to use every Indiana law and pay for college up to 23, including child support payments. UIFSA Section 611 states clearly that the original states duration of child support will be used. Unfair does not even begin to describe such a law. Married couples choose to send their kids to college or not too. We have no law mandating that married couples must send their kids away to school based on their "ability," and pay for their "education" so why would you penalize a non-custodial parent? This law had it passed in Virginia would be like the law in Indiana that I am fighting that also states, child support has to be paid for the 23 weeks when they are home?

c.Jewell writes:

wow,Finally a site I've been looking for.I have been raked over the coals in Henrico for 14 years and today I'm going back to court for the bogus medical bills(chiropractor and band aids)also for continued support.My Child turns 18 in August so I have filed a motion to end support.
These clowns in the General Assembly have given DCSE the Hitler-esque right to ignore judicial rulings and are constantly screwing things up.
Hopefully today it will end.
Thanks guys for letting me vent.

Giovanni writes:

Perhaps someone will listen in New Jersey.

The law in New Jersey that requires only divorcing and non-custodial parents to pay adult support and pay higher education costs for their adult children is unconstitutional. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children’s education as they deemed fit.
In New Jersey, the Legislature and our courts have long recognized a child's (a young adult’s) need for higher education and that this need is a proper consideration in determining a parent's child (adult’s) support oblation. Writing for the Court in Newburgh, Justice Pollock set forth a non-exhaustive list of twelve factors a court should consider in evaluating a claim for contribution toward the cost of higher education. See Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982). ?
? The enumerated factors are as follows:
(1) whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed?toward the costs of the requested higher education; (2) the effect of the background, values and goals of the parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education; (3) the amount of the contribution sought by the child for the cost of higher education; (4) the ability of the parent to pay that cost; (5) the relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course of study sought by the child; (6) the financial resources of both parents; (7) the commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education; (8) the financial resources of the child, including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust; (9) the ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation; (10) the availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans; (11) the child's relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance; and (12) the relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to the overall long-range goals of the child (adult).

In the aftermath of the Newburgh Decision, the Legislature essentially approved ?those criteria’s when amending the support statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a). Compare N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) (listing factors to consider in determining support) with Newburgh, supra, 88 N.J. at 545, 443 A.2d 1031 (listing factors to?consider in determining payment of education expenses). Kiken v. Kiken, ?149 N.J. 441, 449, 694 A.2d 557 (1997). Thus, a trial court should balance the statutory criteria of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) and the Newburgh factors, as well as any other relevant circumstances, to reach a fair and just decision whether and, if so, in what amount, a parent or parents must contribute to a child's educational expenses. It can be assumed that the law in question is designed to promote the highest good.
The New Jersey Law as it is applied to both statutory and case law, forces a burden upon one class of citizens---divorced, separated parents and non-custodial parents---that cannot in like circumstances be imposed upon married parents residing together flunks the constitutional test. It places citizens into different classes based on a criterion wholly unrelated to the statutory or case law objective, which is to assure that a college student’s need for financial support from parents is fulfilled. The law as applied to a select class of its citizens is unconstitutional. This type of law must be struck down --- even if it is a good law. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (Child Labor Tax Case), 259 U.S. 20, 37, 42 S. Ct. 449, 66 L. Ed. 817 (1922) (reviewing court must strike down unconstitutional law even though that law is “designed to promote the highest good. The good sought in this unconstitutional statutory and case law is an insidious feature, because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it, without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant, or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards.”) The standard in question is the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children’s education as they deemed fit.
The plight of an adult child of divorced parents, attending
college and in need of parental support, is in no way different from the plight of an adult child of married parents, also attending college and in need of parental support. Young adults who need parental support for college and whose parents are divorced are not more needy, simply because their parents are divorced, in contrast to adult children in like circumstances whose parents happen to be married.

The young adults in the same situation whose parents are married are not less needy, simply because their parents are married. Need is need; it should not be contingent on the marital status of the needy students parents. By limiting its application to only one class of parents and young adults attending college, based not on the financial need of the adult student alone but also on the marital status of the adult students parents, New Jersey statutory and case law establishes distinctions that are wholly unrelated to the legitimate state interest that the law seeks to advance.

The New Jersey Family Court system imposes a legal obligat-
ion on certain class of parents of college age young adults in need of support while effectively granting an immunity from such liability to intact married families of college age young adults equally in need of support, based simply on the marital status of the parents, irrespective of the actual financial needs of the student or the financial abilities of the parents. Put simply, that just doesn’t make sense. New Jersey Law egregiously placing different burdens and benefits placed on persons similarly situated violates the guarantees of equal protection. Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 101 S. Ct. 2434 (4,5) (1981), South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Alabama, 526 U.S. 160, 119 S. Ct. 1180 (1999), Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996).

A Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a similar provision mandating post-majority support as a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. It reasoned that since married parents do not have to support their adult children,( as with intact families in New Jersey) it was discriminatory to force divorced parents to do so. See Curtis v. Kline, 666 A.2d 265 (Pa. 1995).

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the Amendment's Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, "guarantees more than fair process." The Clause also includes a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests."
The liberty interest at issue in this case -- the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children -- is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Supreme Court. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Court held that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." In New Jersey however, this right only applies to intact families in which they can not be forced to pay for their adult children higher educational expenses.
A few years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the Court again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." The Court explained in Pierce that "the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
In subsequent cases also, the Court have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'comes to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'"); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205(1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition".)
In light of this extensive precedent, there can be no doubt that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children’s education as they deemed fit. I respectfully submit that since married parents can not be forced to support their adult children with higher education and adult support, it is discriminatory and unconstitutional to force divorced parents or noncustodial parents to do so. In this State, upon attaining the age of 18, you are considered legally an adult. Adult support must end as well as forcing divorced and non-custodial parents to pay for higher education.