Will I have to take out student loans for my kids?

[Baby_nurse]

I think you just have to learn to let it go (aspirations of saving), when you are divorced.

The State will make sure, especially if you are the non-custodial parent, that you NEVER get ahead. You spend on yourself and it's viewed as questionable.

I am not talking about the father (usually the father) collecting unemployment and then working under the table and then goes out and buys a new pick-up truck. . .I live fairly frugally. . .I could cut out cable, TV, internet but then the kids would complain and whine, eh, you know, these decisions are a struggle.

I think you just have to resign yourself a bit and re-prioritize. . .with me, I have learned it's my health. Really being a health nut lately.

I got a Life Coach (yeah, did the hippy dippy thing there). . .we talk, gets my head on straight, learn to let go, and I got a Vitamix. I would have never spent money on such a quality thing before (it's a $400 blender, pulvarizes the food. . .did know someone who works at QVC who got it for me for $300). Life Coaching would have been an "indulgence" before but with my adult ADD, it really helps me. My ex-wife would have freaked if I reached out to receive help and spend like that.

But now, well, I guess - spending. . .it's my destiny. After all. . .you can't take it with you anyway. Right? I never really wanted to cruise the world like DisneySteve anyway when I retired so it's really okay.

My $300 Vitamix? I LOVE IT! I am now getting 9 servings of fruits and veggies per day now. . .weight is coming off. Back exercising, training hard - swimming, walking, running, some weights.

I stay self-employed. I got a good CPA. Run things like Life Coaching and Vitamix through business. These things help in divorce.

Socking away money? Eh, not so much. It can be raided. If you have money to spend, you have money to spend on kids is the philosophy. You financial health is of no concern. It's only about protecting the taxpayers from having to take care of the kids.

I have officially succumbed to the Spending Economy. I am letting it go.

You savers may all send me a thank you note for fueling your savings.

Well, exactly who SHOULD take care of them? I doubt anyone besides you and the ex were involved in their conception, so why should you think it's the public's responsibility to raise them?

[disneysteve]

Well, exactly who SHOULD take care of them? I doubt anyone besides you and the ex were involved in their conception, so why should you think it's the public's responsibility to raise them?

So are you saying parents should be held legally responsible to pay 100% of college tuition? I don't think that's reasonable. I'm happily married and have no intent or expectation that we will pay 100% of our daughter's college costs. We expect her to contribute and take out loans as needed. My parents didn't pay for my whole education.

[Baby_nurse]

I'm questioning the line of thinking that anyone except those directly involved should foot the bill for someone's kids. Please see the section I highlighted.

Whether a family foots the entire bill for their child's education or the student pays part, I am disgusted by the notion that just because the parents divorce one party no longer has any legal or moral obligation to their children after a certain age. Parents who are married make the decision together about how much they will support the college aged child. It might be a full ride, it might be helping out or it might just be letting the young adult live in the home while attending school. The divorced parent, on the other hand, gets to say "see ya later" when the child turns 18. It makes having children seem more like a business transaction than a choice.

I truly don't get the resentment that some divorced parents have about supporting their kids. I suspect that these same people were rather selfish in their marriages, too.

Basically, I'm questioning why someone would think that, just because they are divorced , their legal obligations should be waived (whatever those obligations are in their respective jurisdictions.)

[Scanner]

Well, I guess that's the argument. . .what's "taking care" of your kids?

We provide food, housing, healthcare, entertainment, primary education (via taxes), clothing and the intangibles, discpline, health maintenance, emotional support. Barring some scars from the divorce, they are all happy, healthy, well adjusted children for the most part.

I guess in NJ college is a "necessity" and therefore yes, we should take care of them.

But. . .
don't come crying to me as the taxpayer though if I default on government loans, if the whole thing is compulsory.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/10/federal-student-loans.asp

Filling the Gap with Parent Loans
Each school sets a "cost of attendance", which includes estimates for tuition, fees and expenses, room and board, and textbooks. Parent PLUS loans can fill the gap between financial aid given to the student up to the full cost of attendance.

For instance, if the school your child chooses to attend has a cost of attendance of $20,000 per year, and your child receives $5,500 total in subsidized and unsubsidized loans, you could borrow up to $14,500 to make up the difference.

Applying for Parent PLUS Loans
Contact the university's financial aid office to find out which forms have to be filled out with the university and which can be filled out through Direct Loans, the government program by the Department of Education for federal student loans. Always fill out the FAFSA application first!

[Scanner]

BTW Baby Nurse,

I have made it clear from the beginning post I definitely want to be a benefactor in my child's life and education. During the marriage, I was more the saver/investor and we have maybe $25K put away towards all kids education, not much for 3 kids but there you have it. . .I/we have taken steps beyond what a lot of people have.

As to what extent I am to be responsible or will pledge, well, that remains to be seen.

But I am not sure how a law can compel me to make economic sacrifice for a child but DisneySteve nor You are not compelled at all.

Why don't you take care of YOUR kids, Babynurse?

You rotten married people are just throwing your kids out into the streets as far as I can tell, with no law promising them protection from YOUR cruel ways.

In fact, I think the law needs a legal challenge, an official legal challenge.

I question the line of thinking that laws can be applied to one group of people but not be applicable to other groups of people, esp. when "necessities" in little children (after all, a 26 year old adult in graduate school is a child) aren't being met.

Horrible, horrible people you married people are.

[shaggy]

I've never heard of this NJ law. Sounds like you just have to make a "contribution," but that it can be within your means. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not seeing that you would have to take out loans to make a contribution.

I can speak from the other side of this, as my divorced siblings who were the custodial parents had to scrape and scrimp to help my nieces pay for college, but the non-custodial parent never contributed a dime toward anything after the day the kids turned 18.

[Scanner]

Shaggy,

I get the spirit of the law like I said. I really do. Because I do share the same spirit to some degree. College is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations nowadays. You need it. It costs too much.

What rubs me wrong is the singling out of a group of people on this and yes, that clause that students can spend their money on "entertainment" vs. college while going through. Apparently Spring Break is more important than mom and dad's finances.

DisneySteve lives in NJ and is happily married. He is not required to make economic sacrifice. His daughter could say, "Man, I had real SOB(s) for parents and they never gave me college. I endured hardship."

So, are we to now pass a law requiring ALL parents pay for kids college (based on their ability)? I don't know. . .I mean, I guess that's kind of debatable. We all pay for elementary, middle, and high school,right? And that's the operative word - ALL pay.

I think this law will eventually be challenged, and subsequently defeated/repealed.

[Blessed]

That is kind of crazy law. Now don't get me wrong we have college $ for both our kids so I do believe a parent should contribute if they can. I would be very frightened for a court to decide what I could afford to contribute however.

I always was under the impression legally and financially responsibility for your children ended when they were adults unless you chose otherwise. I don't think college is 100% necessity. My dh has a nice job with great pension and perks and did't go. I did and never made a lot during my full time years. My 20 year old decided to wait and has a sweet job with sweet benefits for a 20 year old as assistant manager in a huge warehouse. He got it by hard work and being a go getter and continually asking his boss what he needed to do to improve. I also have a young adult nephew pulling down more $ than we have ever made with no college. Sadly parents could bankrupt their retirement and have a child with a degree but no great job if they chose or a law dictated they would. So if a parent pays do they get the choice to make sure their child doesn't get a $100K degree that pays $28k a year?


Another law that made me do a double take was the " Filial Responsibility Law"