It's 19 years of age here in Colorado. Crazy I think. Once you're an adult, at age 18, no one should be paying to support you unless you absolutely cannot support yourself (i.e. mental or medical health issues, etc)

Yup. DH is on the hook until age 21 for $780/month, payable to SD (NOT the school!). All she has to do to keep the gravy train coming is enroll in at least six credits (wow! Two whole classes!!), and pass them. D grades are fine, so minimal, if any, effort will be required. DH also have to pay CS during the summer months, but SD will not be required to attend school during the summer. CS is just party money. BM is NOT required to pay anything to SD even if she's moved out of BM's home. Only DH. Solidifying that indeed, he is just a wallet.

SD does not talk to DH. They have NO relationship. BM and DH conceived SD during a ONS, and were never married. (They really didn't even have a relationship, they co-habitated for a year while BM had relations with other men.)

When speaking to our attorney and expressing the outrage at this development (DH's original CS order stated through 18, BM filed to modify in June of this year, SD is 17.5), attorney said "that's just how it is." I think that we should consult with a different attorney and fight it. Will that do any good? Idk. But I do know that we (and our DD's) will suffer due to this $ going to SD, and will only solidify SD's sense of entitlement. It is absolute BULLSHIT.

We are in NJ and DH is required to pay 65% of SD21's tuition, as well as $118 per week. We are hoping she will be emancipated when she graduates next May. I have heard it is common that the NCP has to continue child support after graduation until the child is "on their feet". Ha! If that's the case, the CS might go back up to $1000 per month like it used to be before SD went to college.

When DH tried to fight the 65% tuition (BM took him to court for $1600 per month CS as well as the 65% tuition when SD started college), the judge said that DH had no say where SD chose to go to school. So instead of going to the $20k per year state school, she decided to go to a $48k per year private university. It's also sad that in the original decree it stated that BM and DH would split tuition 50/50, and that was thrown out.

DH tried to make the tuition based on state schools as there is precedent in NJ, and the judge ignored it. UNBELIEVABLE.

Can't wait for the last tuition bill...CS is chump change compared to the tuition.

There are three types of scrutiny when it comes to constitutional law, strict, legitimate and rational review. Strict applies to the power of a state to regulate how you raise your children. They have to have a compelling interest. Rational applies to how you support your child....they have to a reasonably related interest. The argument goes you make a choice to have a child you have an obligation to support them. States can rationalize extended support because you only pay 33% of your income when you pay support. The argument is that 2 parent homes pay more than that since there is no specific number. If you don't support your child the state may have to, there is your reasonably related interest. Most states have an age of majority law. The argument is that if a child chooses to go to college and both parents income are imputed to financial aid then both parents should support the child. Its been tried that it violates equal protection and that argument has failed because if both parents aren't supporting then the govt picks up the tab because you wouldn't be able to impute non cp income so the deficit goes to pellets grants etc. Most states will only require continuing support if the kid is getting an education. If you don't force non cp to support but still impute their income then you discriminate against kids who have parents who can pay but wont because they wont qualify for federal aid that others do. It may seem illogical but when it comes to rational review the court will break their neck for the state

Indiana just changed their law in july from 21 to 19. Sd turned 21 in Aug. We are still trying to get the papers signed and amended to one kid.

When sd went to college Bm wanted DH to continue to pay full support and half her room/board (her tuition was paid for with a grant). For us it didn't matter the payment structure. But we went after bms wallets, so we decresed support and paid college expenses to the school. Or sd. Bm was not happy!

However I would find the child support code and know it inside out.

We found that the school has to be a state funded school or the price is based off that.
I found that we can mandate full time AND require a specific GPA....we put it at a 2.0.

Bm wanted all money paid to sd but by saying the college if there wasn't a bill we owed no money.

We also had them put the dollar figure we paid.

250.00 for books....
140 for living allowance

If it was more tough Shit.

Know the code and find a way to protect yourself.

The ONLY reason this happens, although some men have attempted to say it is unconstitutional, is because the states make millions every year from every NCP who pays CS...It's NOT because they are helping anyone, it is NOT because they are helping poor families, it is NOT because they are getting people off welfare...heck, welfare rolls continue to go UP, not DOWN...even after CS laws were made...It won't change until someone with lots of money has the time/money to take this to the highest courts...meanwhile, yes, the kids of divorce and the ADULTS benefit greatly on the receiving end. Sick. Just freaking sick.

PS - mind you, my DH and I were NOT married for years and the aholes in Texas would NOT let me put a CS order against him because "we lived together"...funny, so, all it takes is for me to have said we did NOT live together for him to have to support his child...meanwhile, loser got it all...

PS - eventually it ends...yesterday we received the last letter from the AHOLES in Texas saying that he no longer had to pay...now, if they would only close the frea@#ing case!!!