Can I Sue a Judge for Ordering Child Support Through the End of College

Not exactly my point. He's claiming that the court is ordering him to pay college expenses because he is single. I am saying that even if he were married, the court could, and most likely would, hold him responsible for for the same expenses.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I am saying that even if he were married, the court could, and most likely would, hold him responsible for for the same expenses.

---

I know of no state that will, or actually can, demand a parent pay for their child's college expenses when the parent's are married and there is no child support order in place.
(had to add that last bit since I may be misunderstanding your statement to refer to an intact family unit)

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Lehk

---

You would not go about attempting to accomplish your goal by suing the judge.

That will just get thrown out and you will be wasting your money on court fees.

The correct way to waste a ton of money tilting at windmills would be to file appeals on your support order. you can probably find a "fathers rights" lawyer to help you with disposing of your money, provided you pay up front.

---

I believe this is the best advice so far. From what I have been reading, NJ is "ahead of the curve" when it comes to this specific issue. Maybe if enough people fought the issue, it might result in new law.

Quote:

---

in nj , child support continues until emancipation

---

but there is a world of difference between supporting a child and paying for college expenses.

Are we talking about him being married to the child's mother? Or if he were married to someone other than the child's mother?

If he were married to the child's mother, I doubt there'd be a support order of any kind. I thought we were talking about him being married, but not to the child's mother. Why else would support be through the courts in the first place?

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Are we talking about him being married to the child's mother? Or if he were married to someone other than the child's mother?

If he were married to the child's mother, I doubt there'd be a support order of any kind. I thought we were talking about him being married, but not to the child's mother. Why else would support be through the courts in the first place?

---

the OP isn't married to anybody but what I was referring to was:


if there was an intact family (as in mom, dad, and little chilluns all lived as a good ol' nuclear unit), a court cannot require a parent provide for college for their child.

My mistake may be that you were referring to a situation where, whether the parent's are married or not but living apart and there being a child support issue before the courts. In some states, (and apparently NJ is, as a site I visited stated); first, in at least something, the courts can in fact order a parent to cover some of the costs of college of their otherwise adult child. I don't believe it is fair but so far, it is the law. That is where I suggested it be challenged since the OP is correct; he is being required to pay for something that if it not for the child support court being involved, he could not be required to pay those costs.

I was not referring to intact family units as you have described them. I am well aware, and have so counseled many 18 year old posters, that parents are not responsible for paying for their college expenses.

I was referring solely to the poster's belief that the judge's ruling was based on his marital status. If the poster married to Sue but has a child from a previous relationship with Jane, what he is ordered to pay for Jane's child is not going to change because he is or is not married to Sue.

The fairness (or even the legality) of his being order to pay college expenses, or whether Sue's income is considered, are completely separate issues.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I was not referring to intact family units as you have described them. I am well aware, and have so counseled many 18 year old posters, that parents are not responsible for paying for their college expenses.

I was referring solely to the poster's belief that the judge's ruling was based on his marital status. If the poster married to Sue but has a child from a previous relationship with Jane, what he is ordered to pay for Jane's child is not going to change because he is or is not married to Sue.

The fairness (or even the legality) of his being order to pay college expenses, or whether Sue's income is considered, are completely separate issues.

---

understood. I was expanding your statement beyond what you intended.:apologetic: I agree that there is no discrimination due to marital status here.

He's upset that if the parents were still married, they'd be under no obligation to support the child beyond 18.
NJ however allows for continued support of college students as part of the divorce/support orders.
It matters not if he's married to somebody or not. The issue is he is no longer married to the other parent.

What it really boils down to is that in an intact family unit, married or not, whether the parents take on the burden to aid their children (minor or adult) with tuition or not is entirely up to them. What's in the family, stays in the family. Lord knows that we get our share of posters here who are 18 and wanting us to tell them how to force the P's to pay for their college - only to have us give them the reality that (except in Nebraska), at 18 they are adults and responsible for their own tuition if they choose to attend college. Here, with the END or ABSENCE of an intact parenting unit, the courts were brought into the situation, thus giving the (at the time) minor child someone OTHER than an intact family to watch out for their interests in loco parentis - and as part of the interest of the child, the court ordered college tuition. While many states are silent on the issue of tuition being a duty or an allowable inclusion to child support, others specifically recognize duty for college expenses and allow the court to award tuition along with child support (MA, MS, MO, NH, NY, ND, OR, SC, UT, WA, and to OP's woe, NJ). Most of these include a cap or limit in the form of a cut-off of 21 years of age, though some allow further if the child has been continuously enrolled, etc. In PA, the courts have ruled the opposite, that there is NO authority to award college support. It boils down to state-level case law, and in NJ, the courts have seen education as a "necessity" - particularly if the court feels that educational expenses are within financial reach of the parents in question. If the financial situation of parents change and impact ability to pay, then the standard adminition to seek modification comes into play.

Among all states NJ has pretty much led the way on ordering tuition along with support (and NY) - BUT it CAN be successfully challenged IF the NCP can prove the elements laid out in the Gac case (2006). Time for OP to be consulting an attorney if they want to see if the court may find the burden unreasonable under specific circumstance as they might apply in this particular case - but if it's just a general argument that "I shouldn't have to pay tuition", state case law has already decided that issue in favor of the child.

I am also going to add something here...

In an intact family, unless the parents are very poor, they are going to help their children with college costs, one way or another. That may be by co-signing student loans, it may be by providing whatever support they are able to provide, even if minimal, but they are going to help their children, and they are going to do it jointly.

When parents are not together is when it becomes a battle ground that involves the courts, and that is simply fair to the child.

Where it gets complicated, and unfair, is when one parent is required to provide more than they can realistically afford based on the circumstances of their life, at the time.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Where it gets complicated, and unfair, is when one parent is required to provide more than they can realistically afford based on the circumstances of their life, at the time.

---

Exactly. Which is why child support amounts can be challenged for modification - whether tuition is an element or not - and if OPs situation has changed appreciably since the order was put in place, then a challenge may be productive. But it'll be productive within where the NCP falls within state support guidelines and the exact circumstances that have changed -it won't change just on the "I don't want to pay tuition" argument.