Canada: Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill

[Dusty]

Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill

Last Updated Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:59:20 EST
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/12/adult-support050112.html
SURREY, B.C. - British Columbia's highest court has ruled that a doctor must
pay 50 per cent of the cost of putting his 23-year-old daughter through
medical school, referring to the money as "child support."

The decision by the province's Court of Appeal could set a precedent because
previous decisions have decreed that parents with sufficient means are
responsible only for seeing their children through undergraduate degree
programs.

As far as the courts were concerned, adult children have been on their own
when it came to paying for postgraduate education in most circumstances.

The doctor at the centre of the case, William Neufeld, is angry that he must
shell out as much as $22,000 a year to see his daughter Jennifer through at
least three years of medical school at the University of Calgary.

"It's just very wrong to teach the children of this province that if they
happen to be the children of a person who makes more than an average amount
of money, they can just sit on their ass and do absolutely nothing and
expect to be paid for it, as long as they're making good marks," he told the
Vancouver Province Tuesday.

In making the ruling, one judge referred to Jennifer as "an exemplary
student."

The appeals court based its ruling on the fact that a separation agreement
Neufeld signed after splitting with Jennifer's mother Barbara in 1999 did
not set a cap on his educational support for either Jennifer or her younger
brother.

Barbara Neufeld's only income is from spousal support, the ruling noted.

The ruling also took into account William Neufeld's income of $170,000 a
year, and said it might have come to a different conclusion for a child
"simply going to college because there is nothing better to do."

A lawyer acting for Barbara Neufeld said adult children would be unlikely to
receive such support in future court rulings if they took a long break
between degrees or went back to school to pursue a second career at some
point later in life.


--
"The most terrifying words in the English language are:
I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
--- Ronald Reagan

[Claim Guy]

"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
>
> Last Updated Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:59:20 EST
>
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/12/adult-support050112.html
> SURREY, B.C. - British Columbia's highest court has ruled that a doctor
must
> pay 50 per cent of the cost of putting his 23-year-old daughter through
> medical school, referring to the money as "child support."
>
> The decision by the province's Court of Appeal could set a precedent
because
> previous decisions have decreed that parents with sufficient means are
> responsible only for seeing their children through undergraduate degree
> programs.
>
> As far as the courts were concerned, adult children have been on their own
> when it came to paying for postgraduate education in most circumstances.
>
> The doctor at the centre of the case, William Neufeld, is angry that he
must
> shell out as much as $22,000 a year to see his daughter Jennifer through
at
> least three years of medical school at the University of Calgary.
>
> "It's just very wrong to teach the children of this province that if they
> happen to be the children of a person who makes more than an average
amount
> of money, they can just sit on their ass and do absolutely nothing and
> expect to be paid for it, as long as they're making good marks," he told
the
> Vancouver Province Tuesday.
>
> In making the ruling, one judge referred to Jennifer as "an exemplary
> student."
>
> The appeals court based its ruling on the fact that a separation agreement
> Neufeld signed after splitting with Jennifer's mother Barbara in 1999 did
> not set a cap on his educational support for either Jennifer or her
younger
> brother.
>
> Barbara Neufeld's only income is from spousal support, the ruling noted.
>
> The ruling also took into account William Neufeld's income of $170,000 a
> year, and said it might have come to a different conclusion for a child
> "simply going to college because there is nothing better to do."
>
> A lawyer acting for Barbara Neufeld said adult children would be unlikely
to
> receive such support in future court rulings if they took a long break
> between degrees or went back to school to pursue a second career at some
> point later in life.
>
>
> --
> "The most terrifying words in the English language are:
> I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
> --- Ronald Reagan


Bad ruling

[ewitte@hotmail.com]

>
> Bad ruling

Really. Both of my parents were married and they just did not have the
money to even help after the first semester. So if they divorced I
could have had the court force my father to pay for my undergraduate
degree? Get real. I believe he was retired at that point. Even when
he did work it was probably $30k/yr.

Eric

[Cloaked]

No ****!

If she is that good of a student, she should qualify for scholarships
and bursaries, yes?

Or perhaps she should get off her butt and earn the money like the
rest of us.

Just because daddy has deep pockets, the courts dip into them. What a
bad ruling. Now every poor schloc will have to fight in court with the
ex over what constitutes the line between being "of sufficient means"
to put their children through higher education. Vendictive ex's
everywhere will drag them throught he courts.... again....

How depressing. Then again, it is the BC courts we are talking about.
Been there, done that. :(

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:54:10 -0500, "Claim Guy"
> wrote:

>
>"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
>> Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
>>
>> Last Updated Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:59:20 EST
>>
>http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/12/adult-support050112.html
>> SURREY, B.C. - British Columbia's highest court has ruled that a doctor
>must
>> pay 50 per cent of the cost of putting his 23-year-old daughter through
>> medical school, referring to the money as "child support."
>>
>> The decision by the province's Court of Appeal could set a precedent
>because
>> previous decisions have decreed that parents with sufficient means are
>> responsible only for seeing their children through undergraduate degree
>> programs.
>>
>> As far as the courts were concerned, adult children have been on their own
>> when it came to paying for postgraduate education in most circumstances.
>>
>> The doctor at the centre of the case, William Neufeld, is angry that he
>must
>> shell out as much as $22,000 a year to see his daughter Jennifer through
>at
>> least three years of medical school at the University of Calgary.
>>
>> "It's just very wrong to teach the children of this province that if they
>> happen to be the children of a person who makes more than an average
>amount
>> of money, they can just sit on their ass and do absolutely nothing and
>> expect to be paid for it, as long as they're making good marks," he told
>the
>> Vancouver Province Tuesday.
>>
>> In making the ruling, one judge referred to Jennifer as "an exemplary
>> student."
>>
>> The appeals court based its ruling on the fact that a separation agreement
>> Neufeld signed after splitting with Jennifer's mother Barbara in 1999 did
>> not set a cap on his educational support for either Jennifer or her
>younger
>> brother.
>>
>> Barbara Neufeld's only income is from spousal support, the ruling noted.
>>
>> The ruling also took into account William Neufeld's income of $170,000 a
>> year, and said it might have come to a different conclusion for a child
>> "simply going to college because there is nothing better to do."
>>
>> A lawyer acting for Barbara Neufeld said adult children would be unlikely
>to
>> receive such support in future court rulings if they took a long break
>> between degrees or went back to school to pursue a second career at some
>> point later in life.
>>
>>
>> --
>> "The most terrifying words in the English language are:
>> I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
>> --- Ronald Reagan
>
>
>Bad ruling
>
>

[Claim Guy]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> >
> > Bad ruling
>
> Really. Both of my parents were married and they just did not have the
> money to even help after the first semester. So if they divorced I
> could have had the court force my father to pay for my undergraduate
> degree? Get real. I believe he was retired at that point. Even when
> he did work it was probably $30k/yr.


Yeah, really - my comment means I disagree with the court forcing the father
to pay. So do you from the context of your message. So we agree, right?


??????

[LoriMc]

Claim Guy wrote:
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
>>
>> Last Updated Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:59:20 EST
>>
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/12/adult-support050112.html
>> SURREY, B.C. - British Columbia's highest court has ruled that a
>> doctor must pay 50 per cent of the cost of putting his 23-year-old
>> daughter through medical school, referring to the money as "child
>> support."
>>
>> The decision by the province's Court of Appeal could set a precedent
>> because previous decisions have decreed that parents with sufficient
>> means are responsible only for seeing their children through
>> undergraduate degree programs.
>>
>> As far as the courts were concerned, adult children have been on
>> their own when it came to paying for postgraduate education in most
>> circumstances.
>>
>> The doctor at the centre of the case, William Neufeld, is angry that
>> he must shell out as much as $22,000 a year to see his daughter
>> Jennifer through at least three years of medical school at the
>> University of Calgary.
>>
>> "It's just very wrong to teach the children of this province that if
>> they happen to be the children of a person who makes more than an
>> average amount of money, they can just sit on their ass and do
>> absolutely nothing and expect to be paid for it, as long as they're
>> making good marks," he told the Vancouver Province Tuesday.
>>
>> In making the ruling, one judge referred to Jennifer as "an exemplary
>> student."
>>
>> The appeals court based its ruling on the fact that a separation
>> agreement Neufeld signed after splitting with Jennifer's mother
>> Barbara in 1999 did not set a cap on his educational support for
>> either Jennifer or her younger brother.
>>
>> Barbara Neufeld's only income is from spousal support, the ruling
>> noted.
>>
>> The ruling also took into account William Neufeld's income of
>> $170,000 a year, and said it might have come to a different
>> conclusion for a child "simply going to college because there is
>> nothing better to do."
>>
>> A lawyer acting for Barbara Neufeld said adult children would be
>> unlikely to receive such support in future court rulings if they
>> took a long break between degrees or went back to school to pursue a
>> second career at some point later in life.
>>
>>
>> --
>> "The most terrifying words in the English language are:
>> I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
>> --- Ronald Reagan
>
>
> Bad ruling

Just another side you may not be aware of.

I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the States a
person has to include their parents income on the application that is used
to evaluate need for financial assistance in order to receive state/federal
grants and funding for a college education until the person reaches the age
of 24.

This is just nuts for the students between the ages of 18 and 23 who have
entry level and minimum wage jobs. I can't count how many kids I've had to
tell this to that pay all their own bills and have been totally on their own
for years yet cannot receive any type of assistance because the parents puts
the student into a high income bracket yet the parents are totally unwilling
to help with the students education in any way.

Just last week I sent out suspension letters to students, some where ones
who couldn't keep their grades up due to working a full time job to pay for
their education.

Why is it that some parents who have the income to help their kids out
don't? I'm not talking about supporting them fully or giving them a free
ride, but just helping them a bit so they can make something of themselves
in life. Isn't that what it is supposed to be all about? What's the matter
with some people don't they want what is best for their kids?

Who is ranting because she saw the tears and defeat in a students eyes this
week who was turned down for assistance for this very reason.

Lori Mc

[LoriMc]

*Calinda* wrote:
> On Fri 14 Jan 2005 07:02:01p, LoriMc wrote:
>
>> Who is ranting because she saw the tears and defeat in a students
>> eyes this week who was turned down for assistance for this very
>> reason.
>
> My family falls into this 'crack' that is financial aid.
>
> DS doesn't qualify because the income level is 'too high'...
> unfortunately, so is the living expenses staying in MA so DD can
> finish high school here.
>
> They still haven't ruled on the 'special circumstances' request that
> was filled out months ago, due to the various things that lowered our
> family income.

Check into it Cal. Call the Director of financial aid at the school and
have them pull your sons file. You should have heard something about the
decision within a week, two if it is peek time.

There is something not right here? It could be as simple as they need a
certain document to verify some of the information provided (govt rule) and
the letter asking your son for additional information was misdirected. Any
time you have questions about something at the school call as there are so
many students and files to keep track of they cant always call each student.

Lori Mc

[Bob Whiteside]

"LoriMc" > wrote in message
...
> Claim Guy wrote:
> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
> >>
> >> Last Updated Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:59:20 EST
> >>
> >
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/12/adult-support050112.html
> >> SURREY, B.C. - British Columbia's highest court has ruled that a
> >> doctor must pay 50 per cent of the cost of putting his 23-year-old
> >> daughter through medical school, referring to the money as "child
> >> support."
> >>
> >> The decision by the province's Court of Appeal could set a precedent
> >> because previous decisions have decreed that parents with sufficient
> >> means are responsible only for seeing their children through
> >> undergraduate degree programs.
> >>
> >> As far as the courts were concerned, adult children have been on
> >> their own when it came to paying for postgraduate education in most
> >> circumstances.
> >>
> >> The doctor at the centre of the case, William Neufeld, is angry that
> >> he must shell out as much as $22,000 a year to see his daughter
> >> Jennifer through at least three years of medical school at the
> >> University of Calgary.
> >>
> >> "It's just very wrong to teach the children of this province that if
> >> they happen to be the children of a person who makes more than an
> >> average amount of money, they can just sit on their ass and do
> >> absolutely nothing and expect to be paid for it, as long as they're
> >> making good marks," he told the Vancouver Province Tuesday.
> >>
> >> In making the ruling, one judge referred to Jennifer as "an exemplary
> >> student."
> >>
> >> The appeals court based its ruling on the fact that a separation
> >> agreement Neufeld signed after splitting with Jennifer's mother
> >> Barbara in 1999 did not set a cap on his educational support for
> >> either Jennifer or her younger brother.
> >>
> >> Barbara Neufeld's only income is from spousal support, the ruling
> >> noted.
> >>
> >> The ruling also took into account William Neufeld's income of
> >> $170,000 a year, and said it might have come to a different
> >> conclusion for a child "simply going to college because there is
> >> nothing better to do."
> >>
> >> A lawyer acting for Barbara Neufeld said adult children would be
> >> unlikely to receive such support in future court rulings if they
> >> took a long break between degrees or went back to school to pursue a
> >> second career at some point later in life.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> "The most terrifying words in the English language are:
> >> I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
> >> --- Ronald Reagan
> >
> >
> > Bad ruling
>
> Just another side you may not be aware of.
>
> I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the States a
> person has to include their parents income on the application that is used
> to evaluate need for financial assistance in order to receive
state/federal
> grants and funding for a college education until the person reaches the
age
> of 24.

One of the exceptions to this rule is when a student has already earned an
undergraduate degree. The student is considered "independent" when they are
enrolling in a postgraduate or professional degree program.

[LoriMc]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
> "LoriMc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Claim Guy wrote:
>>> "Dusty" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
>>>>
>>>> Last Updated Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:59:20 EST
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/12/adult-support050112.html
>>>> SURREY, B.C. - British Columbia's highest court has ruled that a
>>>> doctor must pay 50 per cent of the cost of putting his 23-year-old
>>>> daughter through medical school, referring to the money as "child
>>>> support."
>>>>
>>>> The decision by the province's Court of Appeal could set a
>>>> precedent because previous decisions have decreed that parents
>>>> with sufficient means are responsible only for seeing their
>>>> children through undergraduate degree programs.
>>>>
>>>> As far as the courts were concerned, adult children have been on
>>>> their own when it came to paying for postgraduate education in most
>>>> circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> The doctor at the centre of the case, William Neufeld, is angry
>>>> that he must shell out as much as $22,000 a year to see his
>>>> daughter Jennifer through at least three years of medical school
>>>> at the University of Calgary.
>>>>
>>>> "It's just very wrong to teach the children of this province that
>>>> if they happen to be the children of a person who makes more than
>>>> an average amount of money, they can just sit on their ass and do
>>>> absolutely nothing and expect to be paid for it, as long as they're
>>>> making good marks," he told the Vancouver Province Tuesday.
>>>>
>>>> In making the ruling, one judge referred to Jennifer as "an
>>>> exemplary student."
>>>>
>>>> The appeals court based its ruling on the fact that a separation
>>>> agreement Neufeld signed after splitting with Jennifer's mother
>>>> Barbara in 1999 did not set a cap on his educational support for
>>>> either Jennifer or her younger brother.
>>>>
>>>> Barbara Neufeld's only income is from spousal support, the ruling
>>>> noted.
>>>>
>>>> The ruling also took into account William Neufeld's income of
>>>> $170,000 a year, and said it might have come to a different
>>>> conclusion for a child "simply going to college because there is
>>>> nothing better to do."
>>>>
>>>> A lawyer acting for Barbara Neufeld said adult children would be
>>>> unlikely to receive such support in future court rulings if they
>>>> took a long break between degrees or went back to school to pursue
>>>> a second career at some point later in life.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "The most terrifying words in the English language are:
>>>> I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
>>>> --- Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>>
>>> Bad ruling
>>
>> Just another side you may not be aware of.
>>
>> I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the
>> States a person has to include their parents income on the
>> application that is used to evaluate need for financial assistance
>> in order to receive
> state/federal
>> grants and funding for a college education until the person reaches
>> the
> age
>> of 24.
>
> One of the exceptions to this rule is when a student has already
> earned an undergraduate degree. The student is considered
> "independent" when they are enrolling in a postgraduate or
> professional degree program.


If a student has earned a bachelor's degree they are no longer eligible to
receive federal assistance independent or not.

[HopefullyGrace@aol.com]

Well, I think the key point was that the daughter was bing eduated to
pursue the same profession as her father and he was able to afford it.

I'm hot on this topic because both my parents have MS/MA's and neither
paid a time towards the college education of their 5 chilodren. My
mother really couldn't afford it on her salary and the $50 per month
per child that my father sent until the child in question graduated
from HS.

My Dad was a very senior man at THE big multinational Civil Engineering
firm and was absolutely roll in money.

I think that a child should be able to resonably expect to attain the
same level of education the parents have, especially in cases where the
parents can clearly afford it. Apparently the judge in this case
thought so, too.

Grace

[Phil #3]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Well, I think the key point was that the daughter was bing eduated to
> pursue the same profession as her father and he was able to afford it.
>
> I'm hot on this topic because both my parents have MS/MA's and neither
> paid a time towards the college education of their 5 chilodren. My
> mother really couldn't afford it on her salary and the $50 per month
> per child that my father sent until the child in question graduated
> from HS.
>
> My Dad was a very senior man at THE big multinational Civil Engineering
> firm and was absolutely roll in money.
>
> I think that a child should be able to resonably expect to attain the
> same level of education the parents have, especially in cases where the
> parents can clearly afford it. Apparently the judge in this case
> thought so, too.
>
> Grace
>

The problem with the entitlement, or socialist way of thinking is that those
who think something is "owed" to them, rarely are worth a bucket of warm
spit.
If one has to work toward something, it is more likely they will actually
want to achieve it, will treasure it more highly and make the time spend
attaining it more useful.
Those forcing decisions on others should be ready, willing and able to
finance those decisions as well, not to even go into the little problem of
individual rights and personal freedom.
Phil #3

[HopefullyGrace@aol.com]

The problem with the entitlement, or socialist way of thinking is that
those
who think something is "owed" to them, rarely are worth a bucket of
warm
spit.
If one has to work toward something, it is more likely they will
actually
want to achieve it, will treasure it more highly and make the time
spend
attaining it more useful.
Those forcing decisions on others should be ready, willing and able to
finance those decisions as well, not to even go into the little problem
of
individual rights and personal freedom.
Phil #3

Trust me, Phil, i'm no where near being a socialist. I'm a
consertvative Republican. And I view "entitlements" as a code word for
welfare.

However, as you can see from my post I am very recentful about having
been assigned to the ranks of the EXchildren after my parent's divorce.

The one thing I agree about is that those who force things on others
should be ready, wiling and able to finance those decisionsas well, not
even to go into the little problem of individual rights and personal
freedoms.

Trust me when I tell you that when my father left our family he forced
maximum inconvenience on those he left behind. If he decided that his
individual rights and freedoms preimpted his
obligations.responsibiiltes to the chilodren he sired in his first
marriage he should have thought twice about how morally reprehenable
that is.

As I said, he was rolling in doe, had a ful household staff including
chauffer, gardner,, house boys, cook, etc. and tought sending $50 per
month per minor child, no extras, no orthodontist, no college....not
even birthday gifts was fine just fine with him.
Do you find that odd, or just him being a sefish skunk.

Grace

[Bill in Co.]

LoriMc wrote:
> Claim Guy wrote:
>> "Dusty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
>>>
>>> Last Updated Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:59:20 EST
>>>
>>
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/12/adult-support050112.html
>>> SURREY, B.C. - British Columbia's highest court has ruled that a
>>> doctor must pay 50 per cent of the cost of putting his 23-year-old
>>> daughter through medical school, referring to the money as "child
>>> support."
>>>
>>> The decision by the province's Court of Appeal could set a precedent
>>> because previous decisions have decreed that parents with sufficient
>>> means are responsible only for seeing their children through
>>> undergraduate degree programs.
>>>
>>> As far as the courts were concerned, adult children have been on
>>> their own when it came to paying for postgraduate education in most
>>> circumstances.
>>>
>>> The doctor at the centre of the case, William Neufeld, is angry that
>>> he must shell out as much as $22,000 a year to see his daughter
>>> Jennifer through at least three years of medical school at the
>>> University of Calgary.
>>>
>>> "It's just very wrong to teach the children of this province that if
>>> they happen to be the children of a person who makes more than an
>>> average amount of money, they can just sit on their ass and do
>>> absolutely nothing and expect to be paid for it, as long as they're
>>> making good marks," he told the Vancouver Province Tuesday.
>>>
>>> In making the ruling, one judge referred to Jennifer as "an exemplary
>>> student."
>>>
>>> The appeals court based its ruling on the fact that a separation
>>> agreement Neufeld signed after splitting with Jennifer's mother
>>> Barbara in 1999 did not set a cap on his educational support for
>>> either Jennifer or her younger brother.
>>>
>>> Barbara Neufeld's only income is from spousal support, the ruling
>>> noted.
>>>
>>> The ruling also took into account William Neufeld's income of
>>> $170,000 a year, and said it might have come to a different
>>> conclusion for a child "simply going to college because there is
>>> nothing better to do."
>>>
>>> A lawyer acting for Barbara Neufeld said adult children would be
>>> unlikely to receive such support in future court rulings if they
>>> took a long break between degrees or went back to school to pursue a
>>> second career at some point later in life.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "The most terrifying words in the English language are:
>>> I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
>>> --- Ronald Reagan
>>
>>
>> Bad ruling
>
> Just another side you may not be aware of.
>
> I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the States a
> person has to include their parents income on the application that is used
> to evaluate need for financial assistance in order to receive
state/federal
> grants and funding for a college education until the person reaches the
age
> of 24.
>
> This is just nuts for the students between the ages of 18 and 23 who have
> entry level and minimum wage jobs. I can't count how many kids I've had
to
> tell this to that pay all their own bills and have been totally on their
own
> for years yet cannot receive any type of assistance because the parents
puts
> the student into a high income bracket yet the parents are totally
unwilling
> to help with the students education in any way.
>
> Just last week I sent out suspension letters to students, some where ones
> who couldn't keep their grades up due to working a full time job to pay
for
> their education.
>
> Why is it that some parents who have the income to help their kids out
> don't? I'm not talking about supporting them fully or giving them a free
> ride, but just helping them a bit so they can make something of
themselves
> in life. Isn't that what it is supposed to be all about? What's the
matter
> with some people don't they want what is best for their kids?

I could answer what's the matter, but I don't think you will want to hear
it. Actually, for even asking the question, you and me both know perfectly
well what the answer is.
"The times are a changin....." Yup, they sure are.

> Who is ranting because she saw the tears and defeat in a students eyes
this
> week who was turned down for assistance for this very reason.
>
> Lori Mc

[Bob Whiteside]

"LoriMc" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> > "LoriMc" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Claim Guy wrote:
> >>> "Dusty" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
> >>>>
> >>>> Last Updated Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:59:20 EST
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/12/adult-support050112.html
> >>>> SURREY, B.C. - British Columbia's highest court has ruled that a
> >>>> doctor must pay 50 per cent of the cost of putting his 23-year-old
> >>>> daughter through medical school, referring to the money as "child
> >>>> support."
> >>>>
> >>>> The decision by the province's Court of Appeal could set a
> >>>> precedent because previous decisions have decreed that parents
> >>>> with sufficient means are responsible only for seeing their
> >>>> children through undergraduate degree programs.
> >>>>
> >>>> As far as the courts were concerned, adult children have been on
> >>>> their own when it came to paying for postgraduate education in most
> >>>> circumstances.
> >>>>
> >>>> The doctor at the centre of the case, William Neufeld, is angry
> >>>> that he must shell out as much as $22,000 a year to see his
> >>>> daughter Jennifer through at least three years of medical school
> >>>> at the University of Calgary.
> >>>>
> >>>> "It's just very wrong to teach the children of this province that
> >>>> if they happen to be the children of a person who makes more than
> >>>> an average amount of money, they can just sit on their ass and do
> >>>> absolutely nothing and expect to be paid for it, as long as they're
> >>>> making good marks," he told the Vancouver Province Tuesday.
> >>>>
> >>>> In making the ruling, one judge referred to Jennifer as "an
> >>>> exemplary student."
> >>>>
> >>>> The appeals court based its ruling on the fact that a separation
> >>>> agreement Neufeld signed after splitting with Jennifer's mother
> >>>> Barbara in 1999 did not set a cap on his educational support for
> >>>> either Jennifer or her younger brother.
> >>>>
> >>>> Barbara Neufeld's only income is from spousal support, the ruling
> >>>> noted.
> >>>>
> >>>> The ruling also took into account William Neufeld's income of
> >>>> $170,000 a year, and said it might have come to a different
> >>>> conclusion for a child "simply going to college because there is
> >>>> nothing better to do."
> >>>>
> >>>> A lawyer acting for Barbara Neufeld said adult children would be
> >>>> unlikely to receive such support in future court rulings if they
> >>>> took a long break between degrees or went back to school to pursue
> >>>> a second career at some point later in life.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> "The most terrifying words in the English language are:
> >>>> I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
> >>>> --- Ronald Reagan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bad ruling
> >>
> >> Just another side you may not be aware of.
> >>
> >> I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the
> >> States a person has to include their parents income on the
> >> application that is used to evaluate need for financial assistance
> >> in order to receive
> > state/federal
> >> grants and funding for a college education until the person reaches
> >> the
> > age
> >> of 24.
> >
> > One of the exceptions to this rule is when a student has already
> > earned an undergraduate degree. The student is considered
> > "independent" when they are enrolling in a postgraduate or
> > professional degree program.
>
>
> If a student has earned a bachelor's degree they are no longer eligible to
> receive federal assistance independent or not.

That is not consistent with information you can confirm by contacting the
Department of Education. Here is a quote from the U.S. Department of
Education website section on "Graduate School" financial aid.

"Funding Your Graduate Education:

Federal Student Aid

…from the U.S. Department of Education (ED)

For information about types of federal student aid, eligibility criteria,
and repaying student loans, visit
www.studentaid.ed.gov

Federal student aid accounts for the largest percentage of aid received by
graduate and professional students, so be
sure to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) at
www.fafsa.ed.gov"

The details are - Graduate and professional students are considered
"independent." They are eligible for Stafford Loans, unsubsidized and
subsidized. The maximum loan per year is $18,500 with a lifetime maximum of
$138,500.

If the already graduated student takes additional undergrad courses, they
fall under the undergrad rules if they were born after 1/1/81 for the
2004-05 school year.

Related to the original post - the father is being asked to pay $22,000 per
year in CS to put his daughter through medical school. In the U.S. system
that amount of CS exceeds the average student's ability to borrow Federal
funds to finance their ongoing education. Perhaps the court in its wisdom
should order the medical student to pay her father back the CS amount out of
future profits similar to how the wife of a medical student gets alimony
from future income for supporting her husband's medical school education
pursuits.

[Bill in Co.]

wrote:
> The problem with the entitlement, or socialist way of thinking is that
those
> who think something is "owed" to them, rarely are worth a bucket of warm
spit.
> If one has to work toward something, it is more likely they will actually
> want to achieve it, will treasure it more highly and make the time spend
> attaining it more useful.
>
> Those forcing decisions on others should be ready, willing and able to
> finance those decisions as well, not to even go into the little problem of
> individual rights and personal freedom.
> Phil #3
>
> Trust me, Phil, i'm no where near being a socialist. I'm a
> consertvative Republican. And I view "entitlements" as a code word for
> welfare.
>
> However, as you can see from my post I am very recentful about having
> been assigned to the ranks of the EXchildren after my parent's divorce.
>
> The one thing I agree about is that those who force things on others
> should be ready, wiling and able to finance those decisionsas well, not
> even to go into the little problem of individual rights and personal
> freedoms.
>
> Trust me when I tell you that when my father left our family he forced
> maximum inconvenience on those he left behind. If he decided that his
> individual rights and freedoms preimpted his
> obligations.responsibiiltes to the chilodren he sired in his first
> marriage he should have thought twice about how morally reprehenable
> that is.
>
> As I said, he was rolling in doe, had a full household staff including
> chauffer, gardner,, house boys, cook, etc. and the thought sending $50 per
> month per minor child, no extras, no orthodontist, no college....not
> even birthday gifts was fine just fine with him.
> Do you find that odd, or just him being a sefish skunk.
>
> Grace

I just think it kinda reflects the times. Not totally, but in large part.
And yes, it is a sad state.

[LoriMc]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
> "LoriMc" > wrote in message

>>>>> Bad ruling
>>>>
>>>> Just another side you may not be aware of.
>>>>
>>>> I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the
>>>> States a person has to include their parents income on the
>>>> application that is used to evaluate need for financial assistance
>>>> in order to receive
>>> state/federal
>>>> grants and funding for a college education until the person reaches
>>>> the
>>> age
>>>> of 24.
>>>
>>> One of the exceptions to this rule is when a student has already
>>> earned an undergraduate degree. The student is considered
>>> "independent" when they are enrolling in a postgraduate or
>>> professional degree program.
>>
>>
>> If a student has earned a bachelor's degree they are no longer
>> eligible to receive federal assistance independent or not.
>
> That is not consistent with information you can confirm by contacting
> the Department of Education. Here is a quote from the U.S.
> Department of Education website section on "Graduate School"
> financial aid.

I don't have to contact them Bob I process Pell for a living. :)

>
> "Funding Your Graduate Education:
>
> Federal Student Aid
>
> .from the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
>
> For information about types of federal student aid, eligibility
> criteria, and repaying student loans, visit
> www.studentaid.ed.gov
>
> Federal student aid accounts for the largest percentage of aid
> received by graduate and professional students, so be
> sure to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)
> at www.fafsa.ed.gov"
>
> The details are - Graduate and professional students are considered
> "independent." They are eligible for **Stafford Loans, unsubsidized and
> subsidized. The maximum loan per year is $18,500 with a lifetime
> maximum of $138,500**

Note the word loan here. Pell isn't a loan, it is a grant. Loans have to
be repaid Pell doesn't.

>
> If the already graduated student takes additional undergrad courses,
> they fall under the undergrad rules if they were born after 1/1/81
> for the 2004-05 school year.

Note the Date of birth criteria...if a person is born in 1981 they are 24
years of age.
As I stated earlier once a person is 24 they are considered independent.

What about the ones 18-23. Students have to include the parents income on
the FASFA (pell) until they are 24 years of age. So the kids 18-23 are SOOL
if the parent knocks them into a greater income bracket and then refuses to
help in any way.

The student can be granted an appeal to go into a different program if they
can show the current degree they have isn't enough to financially support
them. Most people with an associates degree seeking this type of appeal are
not under the age of 24 a few may be but not many. If a person has a
bachelors degree all bets are off for Pell assistance.

>
> Related to the original post - the father is being asked to pay
> $22,000 per year in CS to put his daughter through medical school.
> In the U.S. system that amount of CS exceeds the average student's
> ability to borrow Federal funds to finance their ongoing education.
> Perhaps the court in its wisdom should order the medical student to
> pay her father back the CS amount out of future profits similar to
> how the wife of a medical student gets alimony from future income for
> supporting her husband's medical school education pursuits.

Sad, my child's father nor I were in no way financially able to totally pay
our daughters way through University. We are divorced and have been for 20
years. He voluntarily continued to pay CS on her from 18 until she
graduated at 21 with her bachelors. I gave every dime of it and the moneys
he sent for her younger brother to her for school expenses. She worked 30
hours a week and went to classes full time. We all 3 worked together to give
her the best. Is this so much to ask of a parent?

[teachrmama]

"LoriMc" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
>> "LoriMc" > wrote in message
>
>>>>>> Bad ruling
>>>>>
>>>>> Just another side you may not be aware of.
>>>>>
>>>>> I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the
>>>>> States a person has to include their parents income on the
>>>>> application that is used to evaluate need for financial assistance
>>>>> in order to receive
>>>> state/federal
>>>>> grants and funding for a college education until the person reaches
>>>>> the
>>>> age
>>>>> of 24.
>>>>
>>>> One of the exceptions to this rule is when a student has already
>>>> earned an undergraduate degree. The student is considered
>>>> "independent" when they are enrolling in a postgraduate or
>>>> professional degree program.
>>>
>>>
>>> If a student has earned a bachelor's degree they are no longer
>>> eligible to receive federal assistance independent or not.
>>
>> That is not consistent with information you can confirm by contacting
>> the Department of Education. Here is a quote from the U.S.
>> Department of Education website section on "Graduate School"
>> financial aid.
>
> I don't have to contact them Bob I process Pell for a living. :)
>
>>
>> "Funding Your Graduate Education:
>>
>> Federal Student Aid
>>
>> .from the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
>>
>> For information about types of federal student aid, eligibility
>> criteria, and repaying student loans, visit
>> www.studentaid.ed.gov
>>
>> Federal student aid accounts for the largest percentage of aid
>> received by graduate and professional students, so be
>> sure to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)
>> at www.fafsa.ed.gov"
>>
>> The details are - Graduate and professional students are considered
>> "independent." They are eligible for **Stafford Loans, unsubsidized and
>> subsidized. The maximum loan per year is $18,500 with a lifetime
>> maximum of $138,500**
>
> Note the word loan here. Pell isn't a loan, it is a grant. Loans have to
> be repaid Pell doesn't.
>
>>
>> If the already graduated student takes additional undergrad courses,
>> they fall under the undergrad rules if they were born after 1/1/81
>> for the 2004-05 school year.
>
> Note the Date of birth criteria...if a person is born in 1981 they are 24
> years of age.
> As I stated earlier once a person is 24 they are considered independent.
>
> What about the ones 18-23. Students have to include the parents income on
> the FASFA (pell) until they are 24 years of age. So the kids 18-23 are
> SOOL if the parent knocks them into a greater income bracket and then
> refuses to help in any way.
>
> The student can be granted an appeal to go into a different program if
> they can show the current degree they have isn't enough to financially
> support them. Most people with an associates degree seeking this type of
> appeal are not under the age of 24 a few may be but not many. If a person
> has a bachelors degree all bets are off for Pell assistance.
>
>>
>> Related to the original post - the father is being asked to pay
>> $22,000 per year in CS to put his daughter through medical school.
>> In the U.S. system that amount of CS exceeds the average student's
>> ability to borrow Federal funds to finance their ongoing education.
>> Perhaps the court in its wisdom should order the medical student to
>> pay her father back the CS amount out of future profits similar to
>> how the wife of a medical student gets alimony from future income for
>> supporting her husband's medical school education pursuits.
>
> Sad, my child's father nor I were in no way financially able to totally
> pay our daughters way through University. We are divorced and have been
> for 20 years. He voluntarily continued to pay CS on her from 18 until she
> graduated at 21 with her bachelors. I gave every dime of it and the
> moneys he sent for her younger brother to her for school expenses. She
> worked 30 hours a week and went to classes full time. We all 3 worked
> together to give her the best. Is this so much to ask of a parent?

Ah, but YOU made the decision to do that. YOU didn't have it forced on you.
The objection I have on this issue is when noncustodial parents aer FORCED
to give this type of support. Married parents aren't forced to do so.
Custodial parents aren't forced to do so. But noncustodial parents can be
forced to provide their children with a college education. Now it looks as
if they may be forced to pay for graduate degrees, too. That's just wrong.

[Phil #3]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> The problem with the entitlement, or socialist way of thinking is that
> those
> who think something is "owed" to them, rarely are worth a bucket of
> warm
> spit.
> If one has to work toward something, it is more likely they will
> actually
> want to achieve it, will treasure it more highly and make the time
> spend
> attaining it more useful.
> Those forcing decisions on others should be ready, willing and able to
> finance those decisions as well, not to even go into the little problem
> of
> individual rights and personal freedom.
> Phil #3
>
> Trust me, Phil, i'm no where near being a socialist. I'm a
> consertvative Republican. And I view "entitlements" as a code word for
> welfare.
>
> However, as you can see from my post I am very recentful about having
> been assigned to the ranks of the EXchildren after my parent's divorce.

So if your parents hadn't been divorced, it would be ok for them to decide
not to fund your education?
Is it that you feel, as the courts sometimes do, that divorced parents are
not capable of making their own decisions in regard to their children?

>
> The one thing I agree about is that those who force things on others
> should be ready, wiling and able to finance those decisionsas well, not
> even to go into the little problem of individual rights and personal
> freedoms.
>
> Trust me when I tell you that when my father left our family he forced
> maximum inconvenience on those he left behind. If he decided that his
> individual rights and freedoms preimpted his
> obligations.responsibiiltes to the chilodren he sired in his first
> marriage he should have thought twice about how morally reprehenable
> that is.

Not knowing, I can't, and won't comment on your specific case. Empirical
evidence is of little value in establishing rules for the many.

>
> As I said, he was rolling in doe, had a ful household staff including
> chauffer, gardner,, house boys, cook, etc. and tought sending $50 per
> month per minor child, no extras, no orthodontist, no college....not
> even birthday gifts was fine just fine with him.
> Do you find that odd, or just him being a sefish skunk.

What I think is that if they were divorced and he was paying support as
ordered, what he did with the remainder of his money is his business. If
what you say is true, it doesn't seem that I agreed with his choices but who
rightfully posesses the ability to decide for any adult on what they should
spend their money?
The only way I see that one can support the idea of forcing *some* parents
to finance their adult children's choices is also to force *all* parents to
do the same, whether they can afford it or not. That means that all
education, to whatever degree and for whatever reason the "children" want,
should be supplied free of charge. This can only come at the expense of the
taxpayer or the parents and since many parents cannot afford it, that leaves
a welfare type of arrangement in the form of taxes, to support those adults
who seek entitlement for their choice.
Phil #3

>
> Grace
>

[LoriMc]

teachrmama wrote:
<snipped as this is getting way to long>

>>
>> Sad, my child's father nor I were in no way financially able to
>> totally pay our daughters way through University. We are divorced
>> and have been for 20 years. He voluntarily continued to pay CS on
>> her from 18 until she graduated at 21 with her bachelors. I gave
>> every dime of it and the moneys he sent for her younger brother to
>> her for school expenses. She worked 30 hours a week and went to
>> classes full time. We all 3 worked together to give her the best. Is this
>> so much to ask of a parent?
>
> Ah, but YOU made the decision to do that. YOU didn't have it forced
> on you. The objection I have on this issue is when noncustodial
> parents aer FORCED to give this type of support. Married parents
> aren't forced to do so. Custodial parents aren't forced to do so. But
> noncustodial parents can be forced to provide their children with
> a college education. Now it looks as if they may be forced to pay
> for graduate degrees, too. That's just wrong.

Your correct that was a choice we both made. And one I can't understand any
parent not wanting to make as long as the student was giving it their best.

Lori Mc

[teachrmama]

"LoriMc" > wrote in message
...
> teachrmama wrote:
> <snipped as this is getting way to long>
>
>>>
>>> Sad, my child's father nor I were in no way financially able to
>>> totally pay our daughters way through University. We are divorced
>>> and have been for 20 years. He voluntarily continued to pay CS on
>>> her from 18 until she graduated at 21 with her bachelors. I gave
>>> every dime of it and the moneys he sent for her younger brother to
>>> her for school expenses. She worked 30 hours a week and went to
>>> classes full time. We all 3 worked together to give her the best. Is
>>> this so much to ask of a parent?
>>
>> Ah, but YOU made the decision to do that. YOU didn't have it forced
>> on you. The objection I have on this issue is when noncustodial
>> parents aer FORCED to give this type of support. Married parents
>> aren't forced to do so. Custodial parents aren't forced to do so. But
>> noncustodial parents can be forced to provide their children with
>> a college education. Now it looks as if they may be forced to pay
>> for graduate degrees, too. That's just wrong.
>
> Your correct that was a choice we both made. And one I can't understand
> any parent not wanting to make as long as the student was giving it their
> best.

But the fact that you can't understand it does not mean that those who
choose not to do so should be forced to anyway. If everyone were so forced,
at least the system would be equal for all. But when it is only one segment
of the population that is forced, then there is something wrong with the
system.

[Lanark]

"teachrmama" > wrote in

> But the fact that you can't understand it does not mean that those who
> choose not to do so should be forced to anyway.

Makes you really wonder what America has become and what freedom really
means in America.
Seems we go out of our way to fight for freedom all over the world except
in out own country.

[Gini]

In article et>, Lanark
says...
>
>
>"teachrmama" > wrote in
>
>> But the fact that you can't understand it does not mean that those who
>> choose not to do so should be forced to anyway.
>
>Makes you really wonder what America has become and what freedom really
>means in America.
>Seems we go out of our way to fight for freedom all over the world except
>in out own country.
====
Our "democracy" needs only the *illusion* of freedom. This is not something that
"America has become." It is as old as our nation. Our laws, federal/state/local,
are some of the most liberty limiting on the planet.
====
====

[LoriMc]

teachrmama wrote:
> "LoriMc" > wrote in message
>> Your correct that was a choice we both made. And one I can't
>> understand any parent not wanting to make as long as the student was
>> giving it their best.
>
> But the fact that you can't understand it does not mean that those who
> choose not to do so should be forced to anyway. If everyone were so
> forced, at least the system would be equal for all. But when it is
> only one segment of the population that is forced, then there is
> something wrong with the system.

I do understand this fact, and no a person shouldn't be forced to pay for
their child's college education. What I don't understand as long is as the
child is maintaining their grades and going about this seriously why a
parent wouldn't want to help as much as they could if they are financially
able?

I'd be interested in knowing why this particular situation had to come down
to a court battle. Obviously, if his child is entering medical school,
brains and determination are something the student possesses, the father is
a Dr. himself so financially he should be able to help? I'd like to know
the real story behind the matter not just the outcome.

Lori Mc

[LoriMc]

Lanark wrote:
> "teachrmama" > wrote in
>
>> But the fact that you can't understand it does not mean that those
>> who choose not to do so should be forced to anyway.
>
> Makes you really wonder what America has become and what freedom
> really means in America.
> Seems we go out of our way to fight for freedom all over the world
> except in out own country.

I don't think I stated anyone should be forced? And this incident happened
in Canada not the States.

LoriMc

[shinypenny]

LoriMc wrote:


> Why is it that some parents who have the income to help their kids
out
> don't? I'm not talking about supporting them fully or giving them a
free
> ride, but just helping them a bit so they can make something of
themselves
> in life. Isn't that what it is supposed to be all about? What's the
matter
> with some people don't they want what is best for their kids?

Some parents may feel that by not paying for college, they are doing
what is best for their kids. Perhaps they feel that putting that money
into a 401K or other retirement fund is better. That way, the parents
have the means when they are older and disabled to fend for themselves,
instead of being a burden on their children who by then will have
families and other financial commitments of their own.

My DF's folks paid his way through college and graduate school. Today,
he views that as a big mistake, because it was at the cost of their
retirement savings. They have no money now, and it is quite a mess
because they both have health issues. He feels it would have been wiser
and better for him, in the long run, had they let him take out loans,
pay his own way, and taken the money and funded their own retirement.
Just another perspective to consider.

jen

[Joy]

"LoriMc" > wrote in message
...
> Claim Guy wrote:
>> "Dusty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
> Just another side you may not be aware of.
>
> I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the States a
> person has to include their parents income on the application that is used
> to evaluate need for financial assistance in order to receive
> state/federal grants and funding for a college education until the person
> reaches the age of 24.

Yep. The presumption built into the financial aid system is that parents
will help pay for their children's educations in proportion to their
financial ability to do so. The state's attitude seems to be that taxpayers
shouldn't pay (because this is referring to the Pell GRANT system, not
loans) if the parents are able to do so.

>
> This is just nuts for the students between the ages of 18 and 23 who have
> entry level and minimum wage jobs. I can't count how many kids I've had
> to tell this to that pay all their own bills and have been totally on
> their own for years yet cannot receive any type of assistance because the
> parents puts the student into a high income bracket yet the parents are
> totally unwilling to help with the students education in any way.
>
> Just last week I sent out suspension letters to students, some where ones
> who couldn't keep their grades up due to working a full time job to pay
> for their education.
>
> Why is it that some parents who have the income to help their kids out
> don't? I'm not talking about supporting them fully or giving them a free
> ride, but just helping them a bit so they can make something of
> themselves in life. Isn't that what it is supposed to be all about?
> What's the matter with some people don't they want what is best for their
> kids?

In the case of the people mentioned in the original article, I wonder if the
guy would have paid if they had still been married. Could be that he is
using the refusal to help his daughter to get back at the ex-wife. If so,
while there may be no law against it I think it is morally wrong. It sounds
like he can *afford* it, but is choosing the money over his daughter - and
what kind of relationship will they have in the future on account of it?
I'm not seeing a happy family with grandchildren, etc over Thanksgiving
Dinner and Christmas for this guy. His loss.

[Bob Whiteside]

"LoriMc" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> > "LoriMc" > wrote in message
>
> >>>>> Bad ruling
> >>>>
> >>>> Just another side you may not be aware of.
> >>>>
> >>>> I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the
> >>>> States a person has to include their parents income on the
> >>>> application that is used to evaluate need for financial assistance
> >>>> in order to receive
> >>> state/federal
> >>>> grants and funding for a college education until the person reaches
> >>>> the
> >>> age
> >>>> of 24.
> >>>
> >>> One of the exceptions to this rule is when a student has already
> >>> earned an undergraduate degree. The student is considered
> >>> "independent" when they are enrolling in a postgraduate or
> >>> professional degree program.
> >>
> >>
> >> If a student has earned a bachelor's degree they are no longer
> >> eligible to receive federal assistance independent or not.
> >
> > That is not consistent with information you can confirm by contacting
> > the Department of Education. Here is a quote from the U.S.
> > Department of Education website section on "Graduate School"
> > financial aid.
>
> I don't have to contact them Bob I process Pell for a living. :)
>
> >
> > "Funding Your Graduate Education:
> >
> > Federal Student Aid
> >
> > .from the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
> >
> > For information about types of federal student aid, eligibility
> > criteria, and repaying student loans, visit
> > www.studentaid.ed.gov
> >
> > Federal student aid accounts for the largest percentage of aid
> > received by graduate and professional students, so be
> > sure to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)
> > at www.fafsa.ed.gov"
> >
> > The details are - Graduate and professional students are considered
> > "independent." They are eligible for **Stafford Loans, unsubsidized and
> > subsidized. The maximum loan per year is $18,500 with a lifetime
> > maximum of $138,500**
>
> Note the word loan here. Pell isn't a loan, it is a grant. Loans have to
> be repaid Pell doesn't.

If you process Pell Grants for a living you will certainly know Pell Grants
are needs-based, and under some circumstances must be repaid. You should
also know that many students do not qualify for Pell Grants because the
combination of parent income, student income, and child support received put
them over the income threshold for qualifying for the minimum amount.

For someone who claims to work in the education funding area you should also
know that Pell Grants are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to
student financial aid. Aid is aid, whether it's loans, grants,
scholarships, parental support, or from any other source.

[LoriMc]

shinypenny wrote:
> LoriMc wrote:
>
>
>> Why is it that some parents who have the income to help their kids
> out
>> don't? I'm not talking about supporting them fully or giving them a
>> free ride, but just helping them a bit so they can make something
>> of themselves in life. Isn't that what it is supposed to be all
>> about? What's the matter with some people don't they want what is
>> best for their kids?
>
> Some parents may feel that by not paying for college, they are doing
> what is best for their kids. Perhaps they feel that putting that money
> into a 401K or other retirement fund is better. That way, the parents
> have the means when they are older and disabled to fend for
> themselves, instead of being a burden on their children who by then
> will have families and other financial commitments of their own.

I wasn't meaning a parent should pay totally for a child's education, and
especially if it will cause financial hardship for the parents. All three
(parents and child) should work out the best solution for each individual
situation.

Lori Mc

[Indyguy1]

teach wrote:

>"LoriMc" > wrote in message
...
>> Bob Whiteside wrote:
>>> "LoriMc" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>> Bad ruling
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just another side you may not be aware of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the
>>>>>> States a person has to include their parents income on the
>>>>>> application that is used to evaluate need for financial assistance
>>>>>> in order to receive
>>>>> state/federal
>>>>>> grants and funding for a college education until the person reaches
>>>>>> the
>>>>> age
>>>>>> of 24.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the exceptions to this rule is when a student has already
>>>>> earned an undergraduate degree. The student is considered
>>>>> "independent" when they are enrolling in a postgraduate or
>>>>> professional degree program.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If a student has earned a bachelor's degree they are no longer
>>>> eligible to receive federal assistance independent or not.
>>>
>>> That is not consistent with information you can confirm by contacting
>>> the Department of Education. Here is a quote from the U.S.
>>> Department of Education website section on "Graduate School"
>>> financial aid.
>>
>> I don't have to contact them Bob I process Pell for a living. :)
>>
>>>
>>> "Funding Your Graduate Education:
>>>
>>> Federal Student Aid
>>>
>>> .from the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
>>>
>>> For information about types of federal student aid, eligibility
>>> criteria, and repaying student loans, visit
>>> www.studentaid.ed.gov
>>>
>>> Federal student aid accounts for the largest percentage of aid
>>> received by graduate and professional students, so be
>>> sure to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)
>>> at www.fafsa.ed.gov"
>>>
>>> The details are - Graduate and professional students are considered
>>> "independent." They are eligible for **Stafford Loans, unsubsidized and
>>> subsidized. The maximum loan per year is $18,500 with a lifetime
>>> maximum of $138,500**
>>
>> Note the word loan here. Pell isn't a loan, it is a grant. Loans have to
>> be repaid Pell doesn't.
>>
>>>
>>> If the already graduated student takes additional undergrad courses,
>>> they fall under the undergrad rules if they were born after 1/1/81
>>> for the 2004-05 school year.
>>
>> Note the Date of birth criteria...if a person is born in 1981 they are 24
>> years of age.
>> As I stated earlier once a person is 24 they are considered independent.
>>
>> What about the ones 18-23. Students have to include the parents income on
>> the FASFA (pell) until they are 24 years of age. So the kids 18-23 are
>> SOOL if the parent knocks them into a greater income bracket and then
>> refuses to help in any way.
>>
>> The student can be granted an appeal to go into a different program if
>> they can show the current degree they have isn't enough to financially
>> support them. Most people with an associates degree seeking this type of
>> appeal are not under the age of 24 a few may be but not many. If a person
>> has a bachelors degree all bets are off for Pell assistance.
>>
>>>
>>> Related to the original post - the father is being asked to pay
>>> $22,000 per year in CS to put his daughter through medical school.
>>> In the U.S. system that amount of CS exceeds the average student's
>>> ability to borrow Federal funds to finance their ongoing education.
>>> Perhaps the court in its wisdom should order the medical student to
>>> pay her father back the CS amount out of future profits similar to
>>> how the wife of a medical student gets alimony from future income for
>>> supporting her husband's medical school education pursuits.
>>
>> Sad, my child's father nor I were in no way financially able to totally
>> pay our daughters way through University. We are divorced and have been
>> for 20 years. He voluntarily continued to pay CS on her from 18 until she
>> graduated at 21 with her bachelors. I gave every dime of it and the
>> moneys he sent for her younger brother to her for school expenses. She
>> worked 30 hours a week and went to classes full time. We all 3 worked
>> together to give her the best. Is this so much to ask of a parent?
>
>Ah, but YOU made the decision to do that. YOU didn't have it forced on you.
>The objection I have on this issue is when noncustodial parents aer FORCED
>to give this type of support. Married parents aren't forced to do so.
>Custodial parents aren't forced to do so. But noncustodial parents can be
>forced to provide their children with a college education. Now it looks as
>if they may be forced to pay for graduate degrees, too. That's just wrong.

Well _for the most_ part CPs and married parents *don't* have to be forced to
help with college, they just do it. I'd love to see a breakdown by marital and
custody status of Parental Plus loans. I'd also love to see a child from an
intact family sue their married parents for colege help, my bet is the child
would win.

Maybe CPs and intact parents are more willing because they are living with the
child and see things that the NCP can't see. Maybe living with the child gives
them a greater desire to help them. Maybe living with them gives them a
stronger bond. Maybe living with them make them feel it is their
responsibility. Who knows.

What I do know is some of my college aged children's friends who come from
intact families, with low income levels, help their kids out WAY MORE than some
that have well to do NCPs.

And if you want to talk about being FORCED to do something vs others who aren't
forced.....Then we can talk about the IRS. Why do *I* have to pay full taxes
but those that earn within the EIC range not only get their paid in taxes back
but get anywhere from a couple of dollars to thousands of dollars sent to them
when they didn't even pay in that money? Or let's talk about the low income
folks whose children get their tutition, room and board, books and even living
expenses paid by for my the feds, yet others have to do it themselves.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[LoriMc]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
> "LoriMc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bob Whiteside wrote:
>>> "LoriMc" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>> Bad ruling
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just another side you may not be aware of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the
>>>>>> States a person has to include their parents income on the
>>>>>> application that is used to evaluate need for financial
>>>>>> assistance in order to receive
>>>>> state/federal
>>>>>> grants and funding for a college education until the person
>>>>>> reaches the
>>>>> age
>>>>>> of 24.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the exceptions to this rule is when a student has already
>>>>> earned an undergraduate degree. The student is considered
>>>>> "independent" when they are enrolling in a postgraduate or
>>>>> professional degree program.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If a student has earned a bachelor's degree they are no longer
>>>> eligible to receive federal assistance independent or not.
>>>
>>> That is not consistent with information you can confirm by
>>> contacting the Department of Education. Here is a quote from the
>>> U.S. Department of Education website section on "Graduate School"
>>> financial aid.
>>
>> I don't have to contact them Bob I process Pell for a living. :)
>>
>>>
>>> "Funding Your Graduate Education:
>>>
>>> Federal Student Aid
>>>
>>> .from the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
>>>
>>> For information about types of federal student aid, eligibility
>>> criteria, and repaying student loans, visit
>>> www.studentaid.ed.gov
>>>
>>> Federal student aid accounts for the largest percentage of aid
>>> received by graduate and professional students, so be
>>> sure to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid
>>> (FAFSA) at www.fafsa.ed.gov"
>>>
>>> The details are - Graduate and professional students are considered
>>> "independent." They are eligible for **Stafford Loans,
>>> unsubsidized and subsidized. The maximum loan per year is $18,500
>>> with a lifetime maximum of $138,500**
>>
>> Note the word loan here. Pell isn't a loan, it is a grant. Loans
>> have to be repaid Pell doesn't.
>
> If you process Pell Grants for a living you will certainly know Pell
> Grants are needs-based, and under some circumstances must be repaid.

Need based yes. The only circumstances I have witnessed where pell must be
repaid is if a student receives the funding and doesn't complete the courses
the funding was credited for, is found to have submitted false information
or is unintentionally overpaid? There may be other circumstances I'm unaware
of.


> You should also know that many students do not qualify for Pell
> Grants because the combination of parent income, student income, and
> child support received put them over the income threshold for
> qualifying for the minimum amount.

I understand this totally and was commenting on the parents that do not help
their child in any way even though the parents income is required to be
reported for the FASFA and is the reason the student doesn't qualify to
receive any grants, and it would not be a financial hardship for the parent
to help the student yet they don't.

>
> For someone who claims to work in the education funding area you
> should also know that Pell Grants are just the tip of the iceberg
> when it comes to student financial aid. Aid is aid, whether it's
> loans, grants, scholarships, parental support, or from any other
> source.

Yes and I explain to each student all of the available avenues that they may
take. First thing a student wants to do is see if they qualify for any Pell
or State funding, also check into all scholarships they may qualify for, if
this route doesn't pan out student loans are available. Some community
colleges no longer use the Stafford program because of the loan default rate
but there are many others to choose from.

Lori Mc

[teachrmama]

"LoriMc" > wrote in message
...
> teachrmama wrote:
>> "LoriMc" > wrote in message
>>> Your correct that was a choice we both made. And one I can't
>>> understand any parent not wanting to make as long as the student was
>>> giving it their best.
>>
>> But the fact that you can't understand it does not mean that those who
>> choose not to do so should be forced to anyway. If everyone were so
>> forced, at least the system would be equal for all. But when it is
>> only one segment of the population that is forced, then there is
>> something wrong with the system.
>
> I do understand this fact, and no a person shouldn't be forced to pay for
> their child's college education. What I don't understand as long is as
> the child is maintaining their grades and going about this seriously why a
> parent wouldn't want to help as much as they could if they are financially
> able?

There are situations where it might seem, on paper, as if the father could
afford to help but, in reality, it just isn't possible. For example, in our
situation, my husband found out 3 years ago that he was the father of an
almost-13-year old girl, the result of a one night stand. When we married,
he didn't know about the child. We chose to have 2 children, and were
knocked for a loop financially when we found out about this other child.
The courts consider her to be his first child, so she gets all the gravy.
Our 2 children are considered to be irrelevant. Now, on paper, it looks as
if he could help provide a college education for this child. But, in
reality, if he is forced to do so, our lifestyle will be lowered even more,
and we will be unable to provide anything for the educations of our 2
duaghters. So the paperwork might look as if he should be able to
provide--but the reality is far different.

>
> I'd be interested in knowing why this particular situation had to come
> down to a court battle. Obviously, if his child is entering medical
> school, brains and determination are something the student possesses, the
> father is a Dr. himself so financially he should be able to help? I'd
> like to know the real story behind the matter not just the outcome.

It would be interesting to know this.

[Lanark]

"Joy" > wrote in

> using the refusal to help his daughter to get back at the ex-wife. If so,
> while there may be no law against it I think it is morally wrong. It
> sounds like he can *afford* it, but is choosing the money over his
> daughter - and what kind of relationship will they have in the future on
> account of it?

Yes, the guy could be an asshole or a jerk or he could have limited funds
due to other debts, but that is the family's business.
When courts start to make orders because society has judged that it is the
moral thing to do, then how soon will it be before other moral laws are
enacted because of this case.

There is approximately 400,00 laws in print now that could send anyone to
jail!!!!!

They were all developed one case at a time and morphed into the system we
have now where judges make any ruling they please because they know it takes
money to defend and go thru the appeal process. It's an industy out of
control!!!!!

[teachrmama]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> teach wrote:
>
>>"LoriMc" > wrote in message

<snip>

>>> Sad, my child's father nor I were in no way financially able to totally
>>> pay our daughters way through University. We are divorced and have been
>>> for 20 years. He voluntarily continued to pay CS on her from 18 until
>>> she
>>> graduated at 21 with her bachelors. I gave every dime of it and the
>>> moneys he sent for her younger brother to her for school expenses. She
>>> worked 30 hours a week and went to classes full time. We all 3 worked
>>> together to give her the best. Is this so much to ask of a parent?
>>
>>Ah, but YOU made the decision to do that. YOU didn't have it forced on
>>you.
>>The objection I have on this issue is when noncustodial parents aer FORCED
>>to give this type of support. Married parents aren't forced to do so.
>>Custodial parents aren't forced to do so. But noncustodial parents can be
>>forced to provide their children with a college education. Now it looks
>>as
>>if they may be forced to pay for graduate degrees, too. That's just
>>wrong.
>
> Well _for the most_ part CPs and married parents *don't* have to be
> forced to
> help with college, they just do it. I'd love to see a breakdown by marital
> and
> custody status of Parental Plus loans. I'd also love to see a child from
> an
> intact family sue their married parents for colege help, my bet is the
> child
> would win.

I think you are wrong on this one, Indy. I think there would be a cry of
outrage from sea to shining sea if the courts tried to force this on
everyone.

>
> Maybe CPs and intact parents are more willing because they are living with
> the
> child and see things that the NCP can't see. Maybe living with the child
> gives
> them a greater desire to help them. Maybe living with them gives them a
> stronger bond. Maybe living with them make them feel it is their
> responsibility. Who knows.

It could be that the closeness of the relationship is what makes the
difference--all the more reason to make sure that divorced dads are not just
visitors in their childrens lives during their growing-up years, but are
full fledged parents, just like the moms. Gee, isn't this what the studies
have said all along--that children need both parents?

>
> What I do know is some of my college aged children's friends who come from
> intact families, with low income levels, help their kids out WAY MORE than
> some
> that have well to do NCPs.
>
> And if you want to talk about being FORCED to do something vs others who
> aren't
> forced.....Then we can talk about the IRS. Why do *I* have to pay full
> taxes
> but those that earn within the EIC range not only get their paid in taxes
> back
> but get anywhere from a couple of dollars to thousands of dollars sent to
> them
> when they didn't even pay in that money? Or let's talk about the low
> income
> folks whose children get their tutition, room and board, books and even
> living
> expenses paid by for my the feds, yet others have to do it themselves.

Ah, but Indy--the monies you are talking about are taken from all the
taxpayers and distributed back to those who "need" it. When you are
assigned a personal "EIC partner" and forced to pay that person the amount
the government says they are "owed," then you will have reason to complain.
<chuckle>

[shinypenny]

LoriMc wrote:
> I understand this totally and was commenting on the parents that do
not help
> their child in any way even though the parents income is required to
be
> reported for the FASFA and is the reason the student doesn't qualify
to
> receive any grants, and it would not be a financial hardship for the
parent
> to help the student yet they don't.

To my knowledge, aid is determined based on income and assets. Formulas
do not take into account a parent's expenses. I don't believe colleges
even get access to that information.

Therefore, two families both making, say $100K, may have totally
different expenses. One may have a higher mortgage, outstanding loans,
healthcare-related expenses, younger child in private school, a small
business they are kick-starting, elderly parents they are footing the
bill for, etc. Another may have gone through a period, such as after a
divorce, where he/she couldn't put any money away for retirement, and
now wants to rapidly make up for that fact before it's too late.

While one might argue, "Well the person who took out a large mortgage
and bought an SUV and a boat, and now has a kid going to college,
should've thought about that," and I'd agree. I'm just trying to point
out that it is hard to judge how much a person can afford, based on
income and assets alone. Should afford, maybe... but *can* afford? Not
unless you know their expenses. Therefore, I personally wouldn't
presume to judge.

And then you have Suzie Orzman going around advising parents to pay
themselves first - to save for their own retirements - and let the
children go ahead and take out loans.


jen

[shinypenny]

LoriMc wrote:
> I wasn't meaning a parent should pay totally for a child's education,
and
> especially if it will cause financial hardship for the parents. All
three
> (parents and child) should work out the best solution for each
individual
> situation.

Preferably without dragging the issue to court. :-)

jen

[teachrmama]

"Joy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "LoriMc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Claim Guy wrote:
>>> "Dusty" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
>> Just another side you may not be aware of.
>>
>> I realize this is Canada we are talking about, but here in the States a
>> person has to include their parents income on the application that is
>> used to evaluate need for financial assistance in order to receive
>> state/federal grants and funding for a college education until the person
>> reaches the age of 24.
>
> Yep. The presumption built into the financial aid system is that parents
> will help pay for their children's educations in proportion to their
> financial ability to do so. The state's attitude seems to be that
> taxpayers shouldn't pay (because this is referring to the Pell GRANT
> system, not loans) if the parents are able to do so.
>
>>
>> This is just nuts for the students between the ages of 18 and 23 who have
>> entry level and minimum wage jobs. I can't count how many kids I've had
>> to tell this to that pay all their own bills and have been totally on
>> their own for years yet cannot receive any type of assistance because the
>> parents puts the student into a high income bracket yet the parents are
>> totally unwilling to help with the students education in any way.
>>
>> Just last week I sent out suspension letters to students, some where ones
>> who couldn't keep their grades up due to working a full time job to pay
>> for their education.
>>
>> Why is it that some parents who have the income to help their kids out
>> don't? I'm not talking about supporting them fully or giving them a free
>> ride, but just helping them a bit so they can make something of
>> themselves in life. Isn't that what it is supposed to be all about?
>> What's the matter with some people don't they want what is best for
>> their kids?
>
> In the case of the people mentioned in the original article, I wonder if
> the guy would have paid if they had still been married. Could be that he
> is using the refusal to help his daughter to get back at the ex-wife. If
> so, while there may be no law against it I think it is morally wrong. It
> sounds like he can *afford* it, but is choosing the money over his
> daughter - and what kind of relationship will they have in the future on
> account of it? I'm not seeing a happy family with grandchildren, etc over
> Thanksgiving Dinner and Christmas for this guy. His loss.

And a part of the problem could be that, more than 5 years after their
divorce, Mom is still not working, but is living off spousal support.
Perhaps he is just tired of paying 100% of everyone's expenses, including
nonworking exwife's. It would be interesting to know the whole story.

[LoriMc]

shinypenny wrote:
> LoriMc wrote:
>> I understand this totally and was commenting on the parents that do
>> not help their child in any way even though the parents income is
>> required to be reported for the FASFA and is the reason the student
>> doesn't qualify to receive any grants, and it would not be a
>> financial hardship for the parent to help the student yet they don't.
>
> To my knowledge, aid is determined based on income and assets.
> Formulas do not take into account a parent's expenses. I don't
> believe colleges even get access to that information.
>
> Therefore, two families both making, say $100K, may have totally
> different expenses. One may have a higher mortgage, outstanding loans,
> healthcare-related expenses, younger child in private school, a small
> business they are kick-starting, elderly parents they are footing the
> bill for, etc. Another may have gone through a period, such as after a
> divorce, where he/she couldn't put any money away for retirement, and
> now wants to rapidly make up for that fact before it's too late.
>
> While one might argue, "Well the person who took out a large mortgage
> and bought an SUV and a boat, and now has a kid going to college,
> should've thought about that," and I'd agree. I'm just trying to point
> out that it is hard to judge how much a person can afford, based on
> income and assets alone. Should afford, maybe... but *can* afford? Not
> unless you know their expenses. Therefore, I personally wouldn't
> presume to judge.

I'm not presuming to judge anyone I did state in an different post that each
situation is different and all three (parents and student) should try to
work out a way that is best for their particular situation. I also stated
where it would not be a financial hardship for a parent to *help* and they
choose not to.


> And then you have Suzie Orzman going around advising parents to pay
> themselves first - to save for their own retirements - and let the
> children go ahead and take out loans.

Imp sure there are plenty of people with differing opinions on this topic as
with every other topic.

Lori Mc

[The Dave©]

> Joy wrote:
> In the case of the people mentioned in the original article, I wonder
> if the guy would have paid if they had still been married.

To me, this is the crux of the issue. As far as I know, there is no
law or court that would or could *force* a still-married couple that
they had to pay for their kid's college education against their will.
At least not as a matter of standard policy. It would be considered an
intrusion into an individual family's decisions. I fail to see why the
parents being divorced changes that.

> Could be
> that he is using the refusal to help his daughter to get back at the
> ex-wife. If so, while there may be no law against it I think it is
> morally wrong. It sounds like he can afford it, but is choosing the
> money over his daughter - and what kind of relationship will they
> have in the future on account of it? I'm not seeing a happy family
> with grandchildren, etc over Thanksgiving Dinner and Christmas for
> this guy. His loss.

--
"Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution
yet." ~ Mae West

[Bill in Co.]

shinypenny wrote:
> LoriMc wrote:
>> I understand this totally and was commenting on the parents that do not
help
>> their child in any way even though the parents income is required to be
>> reported for the FASFA and is the reason the student doesn't qualify to
>> receive any grants, and it would not be a financial hardship for the
parent
>> to help the student yet they don't.
>
> To my knowledge, aid is determined based on income and assets. Formulas
> do not take into account a parent's expenses. I don't believe colleges
> even get access to that information.
>
> Therefore, two families both making, say $100K, may have totally
> different expenses. One may have a higher mortgage, outstanding loans,
> healthcare-related expenses, younger child in private school, a small
> business they are kick-starting, elderly parents they are footing the
> bill for, etc. Another may have gone through a period, such as after a
> divorce, where he/she couldn't put any money away for retirement, and
> now wants to rapidly make up for that fact before it's too late.
>
> While one might argue, "Well the person who took out a large mortgage
> and bought an SUV and a boat, and now has a kid going to college,
> should've thought about that," and I'd agree. I'm just trying to point
> out that it is hard to judge how much a person can afford, based on
> income and assets alone. Should afford, maybe... but *can* afford? Not
> unless you know their expenses.

They can downscale. That is an option. Why do they have to have the SUV
and boat? Or is that more important than helping their child?
(rhetorical)

> Therefore, I personally wouldn't presume to judge.
>
> And then you have Suzie Orzman going around advising parents to pay
> themselves first - to save for their own retirements - and let the
> children go ahead and take out loans.
>
>
> jen

[shinypenny]

Bill in Co. wrote:
> They can downscale. That is an option. Why do they have to have
the SUV
> and boat? Or is that more important than helping their child?
> (rhetorical)
>

Because they paid their own dues, and earned it? And the child in
question is no longer a child; she's 24. Tons of people take out loans,
get an education, and pay them off later. It's called personal
responsibility, isn't it, Bill?

What's more, in many cases and from what I've been reading, it can be a
better strategy to let your kid take the loan interest free for the
years in school, then help them pay it off quickly upon graduation (vs
pay as you go). This buys some time during which the money is set aside
and earns interest. It also allows you to spread out the impact of the
expense over many more years. It can help delay necessitating the sale
of a house during a down market, or the cashing of investments in a
down market.

There are sound financial reasons why someone might have their child
take out the loan. One cannot conclude that they intend the child to
pay it all back on their own. I recently met with a financial planner
myself, and this is exactly the strategy he recommended to me, when it
comes time to pay for my kids' educations: delay the expense and spread
out its impact by relying on loans.

The doctor in question doesn't have the luxury of making these
financial decisions for himself. The court has interfered and mandated
he hand over $22K a year, just like that. I agree with the others who
said this would never happen in a marriage.

jen

[Phil #3]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> teach wrote:
>
>>"LoriMc" > wrote in message
...

[snip]

>>Ah, but YOU made the decision to do that. YOU didn't have it forced on
>>you.
>>The objection I have on this issue is when noncustodial parents aer FORCED
>>to give this type of support. Married parents aren't forced to do so.
>>Custodial parents aren't forced to do so. But noncustodial parents can be
>>forced to provide their children with a college education. Now it looks
>>as
>>if they may be forced to pay for graduate degrees, too. That's just
>>wrong.
>
> Well _for the most_ part CPs and married parents *don't* have to be
> forced to
> help with college, they just do it. I'd love to see a breakdown by marital
> and
> custody status of Parental Plus loans. I'd also love to see a child from
> an
> intact family sue their married parents for colege help, my bet is the
> child
> would win.

First you make a claim (most CPs and married parents don't have to be
forced), then you admit you don't know how true your claim is because you
need to see a breakdown.

>
> Maybe CPs and intact parents are more willing because they are living with
> the
> child and see things that the NCP can't see. Maybe living with the child
> gives
> them a greater desire to help them. Maybe living with them gives them a
> stronger bond. Maybe living with them make them feel it is their
> responsibility. Who knows.

Maybe, maybe, maybe... pure conjecture.
"Maybe" it's because NCPs don't have the finances to help after giving too
much money to the CP and you've now started using the idea of your claim
that CPs (and intact families) are more willing to help as if it were fact.
FYI, "willing" is not the same as "able".

>
> What I do know is some of my college aged children's friends who come from
> intact families, with low income levels, help their kids out WAY MORE than
> some
> that have well to do NCPs.

For every case *I* know, this is not at all true. Neither of our empirical
evidences proves anything.

>
> And if you want to talk about being FORCED to do something vs others who
> aren't
> forced.....Then we can talk about the IRS. Why do *I* have to pay full
> taxes
> but those that earn within the EIC range not only get their paid in taxes
> back
> but get anywhere from a couple of dollars to thousands of dollars sent to
> them
> when they didn't even pay in that money? Or let's talk about the low
> income
> folks whose children get their tutition, room and board, books and even
> living
> expenses paid by for my the feds, yet others have to do it themselves.
>

Don't get me started on taxes...
Phil #3


> Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Gothpiper]

"The Dave©" > wrote in

> To me, this is the crux of the issue. As far as I know, there is no
> law or court that would or could *force* a still-married couple that
> they had to pay for their kid's college education against their will.
> At least not as a matter of standard policy. It would be considered an
> intrusion into an individual family's decisions. I fail to see why the
> parents being divorced changes that.



Spot on!

When I was growing up in our full family, I received no allowance or extra
handouts!
I doubt very highly that my father spent $1400 a month on us kids, so why
does the government step in and force us to pay this extorionate amount when
we are not present?

[Bob Whiteside]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Joy wrote:
> > In the case of the people mentioned in the original article, I wonder
> > if the guy would have paid if they had still been married.
>
> To me, this is the crux of the issue. As far as I know, there is no
> law or court that would or could *force* a still-married couple that
> they had to pay for their kid's college education against their will.
> At least not as a matter of standard policy. It would be considered an
> intrusion into an individual family's decisions. I fail to see why the
> parents being divorced changes that.

Still married parents can be forced to pay CS for college expenses. If they
are separated, but not divorced, the states with CS for adult children
attending school also have provisions for married, separated parents to be
governed by the same type of support law provisions.

[Bbmaxwell]

>Subject: Re: Canada: Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
>From: "teachrmama"
>Date: 1/15/2005 9:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>> teach wrote:
>>
>>>"LoriMc" > wrote in message
>
><snip>
>
>>>> Sad, my child's father nor I were in no way financially able to totally
>>>> pay our daughters way through University. We are divorced and have been
>>>> for 20 years. He voluntarily continued to pay CS on her from 18 until
>>>> she
>>>> graduated at 21 with her bachelors. I gave every dime of it and the
>>>> moneys he sent for her younger brother to her for school expenses. She
>>>> worked 30 hours a week and went to classes full time. We all 3 worked
>>>> together to give her the best. Is this so much to ask of a parent?
>>>
>>>Ah, but YOU made the decision to do that. YOU didn't have it forced on
>>>you.
>>>The objection I have on this issue is when noncustodial parents aer FORCED
>>>to give this type of support. Married parents aren't forced to do so.
>>>Custodial parents aren't forced to do so. But noncustodial parents can be
>>>forced to provide their children with a college education. Now it looks
>>>as
>>>if they may be forced to pay for graduate degrees, too. That's just
>>>wrong.
>>
>> Well _for the most_ part CPs and married parents *don't* have to be
>> forced to
>> help with college, they just do it. I'd love to see a breakdown by marital
>> and
>> custody status of Parental Plus loans. I'd also love to see a child from
>> an
>> intact family sue their married parents for colege help, my bet is the
>> child
>> would win.
>
>I think you are wrong on this one, Indy. I think there would be a cry of
>outrage from sea to shining sea if the courts tried to force this on
>everyone.
>
>>
>> Maybe CPs and intact parents are more willing because they are living with
>> the
>> child and see things that the NCP can't see. Maybe living with the child
>> gives
>> them a greater desire to help them. Maybe living with them gives them a
>> stronger bond. Maybe living with them make them feel it is their
>> responsibility. Who knows.
>
>It could be that the closeness of the relationship is what makes the
>difference--all the more reason to make sure that divorced dads are not just
>visitors in their childrens lives during their growing-up years, but are
>full fledged parents, just like the moms. Gee, isn't this what the studies
>have said all along--that children need both parents?
>
>>
>> What I do know is some of my college aged children's friends who come from
>> intact families, with low income levels, help their kids out WAY MORE than
>> some
>> that have well to do NCPs.
>>
>> And if you want to talk about being FORCED to do something vs others who
>> aren't
>> forced.....Then we can talk about the IRS. Why do *I* have to pay full
>> taxes
>> but those that earn within the EIC range not only get their paid in taxes
>> back
>> but get anywhere from a couple of dollars to thousands of dollars sent to
>> them
>> when they didn't even pay in that money? Or let's talk about the low
>> income
>> folks whose children get their tutition, room and board, books and even
>> living
>> expenses paid by for my the feds, yet others have to do it themselves.
>
>Ah, but Indy--the monies you are talking about are taken from all the
>taxpayers and distributed back to those who "need" it. When you are
>assigned a personal "EIC partner" and forced to pay that person the amount
>the government says they are "owed," then you will have reason to complain.
><chuckle>

Maybe Indy should be complaining about being "forced" - as a taxpayer - to pay
the downpayment on my daughter's mommy's house (about $15) and about half of
the monthly payments; and the "down payment" on her Jeep; and to take her own
mother shopping for groceries (her "job")....all those entitlements she gets
because she owns the kids.

Mel Gamble

[PBu7434922]

>I think that a child should be able to resonably expect to attain the
>same level of education the parents have, especially in cases where the
>parents can clearly afford it. Apparently the judge in this case
>thought so, too

This is where I have a problem, she isnt a child a woman of 23 should be
standing on her own 2 feet. Get a loan or a scolarship. She is an adult and
should behave like one.

Paula

[Kenneth S.]

"PBu7434922" > wrote in message
...
> >I think that a child should be able to resonably expect to attain the
> >same level of education the parents have, especially in cases where the
> >parents can clearly afford it. Apparently the judge in this case
> >thought so, too
>
> This is where I have a problem, she isnt a child a woman of 23 should be
> standing on her own 2 feet. Get a loan or a scolarship. She is an adult
and
> should behave like one.
>
> Paula

In my opinion, it's a mistake to try and discover any principle in these
decisions about post-majority support, or indeed in most other decisions in
the "child support" field. It's far easier to understand the decisions --
although not to defend them -- on the basis of one simple fact: "child
support" is nearly all paid by fathers, and fathers (and indeed men
generally) have no effective political organization to defend them in
matters where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict.

I don't know about the situation in Canada. However, in the U.S., this
issue has been litigated over in several states. The question has been
raised as to why divorced parents (or essentially fathers) have an
obligation to pay the expenses of adult children, when those children have
reached the age of majority, and when there is no similar obligation on
parents in an intact family. So far as I know, most court decisions in the
U.S. have upheld this discrimination against divorced parents.

The justification that judges have used is that children in divorced
families are at greater risk of being unable to get a college education, and
the policy of state X is to favor provision of educational opportunities.
However, that's a totally spurious justification. I cannot believe that
even the judges who use it actually believe it. If that were the principle,
then the post-majority support obligation would be applied to ALL parents.
On the reasoning of the judges, a universal obligation would have no effect
on married parents, because they would support their children anyway.

However, legislators and judges know very well that married parents
wouldn't stand for being told that they had an obligation to support their
adult children. But the obligation can safely be imposed on divorced
fathers, who are a scapegoat group without effective political power.

[HopefullyGrace@aol.com]

Bob Whiteside has posted excellent information regarding the funding of
graduate education.

I take issue with the final paragraph which said:

Perhaps the court in its wisdom
should order the medical student to pay her father back the CS amount
out of
future profits similar to how the wife of a medical student gets
alimony
from future income for supporting her husband's medical school
education
pursuits.


Bob:

The point is that this is not a relationship between 2 people who ae
divorced, it is a relatioship between a father and his daughter.

I am offended in my own life when the issue of and ex-spouce's dealings
with an ex-spoiuce are seen to be similar to a divorced parent's
relationship to his own flesh and blood children.

Too often those kids, after a divorce effectively become the EX-Kids,
the way a divorced spouce becomes the ex-spouce.

I find the whole concept of EX-Kids really really
repugnant......probably because I am one of them.

Spouces divorcing each ofhter is bad enough, but something we've all
come to believe is something that often happens.

Divorced parents not honoring their relationships with their
biochildren after a divorce making them the EXKids, is in my opinion
beyond the pale.

Grace.

[HopefullyGrace@aol.com]

Lanak wrote.


Yes, the guy could be an asshole or a jerk or he could have limited
funds
due to other debts, but that is the family's business.
When courts start to make orders because society has judged that it is
the
moral thing to do, then how soon will it be before other moral laws are

enacted because of this case.


In this case the MD respondent in the case makes $170K. He was
required to pay $22K, 50% of the tuition and costs to put his
legitimate bio daughter through Med school so that she could enter
herfather's profession.

I don't think that was a particular hardship for the father in this
case.

Also.....how many MD's who are married to a child's mother would
begrudge doing this for their bio-child?

My issue is that the daughter should not be penalized becuase of the
parents divorce., making her an EX_Kid.

Grace
Ex-kid

[teachrmama]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Bob Whiteside has posted excellent information regarding the funding of
> graduate education.
>
> I take issue with the final paragraph which said:
>
> Perhaps the court in its wisdom
> should order the medical student to pay her father back the CS amount
> out of
> future profits similar to how the wife of a medical student gets
> alimony
> from future income for supporting her husband's medical school
> education
> pursuits.
>
>
> Bob:
>
> The point is that this is not a relationship between 2 people who ae
> divorced, it is a relatioship between a father and his daughter.
>
> I am offended in my own life when the issue of and ex-spouce's dealings
> with an ex-spoiuce are seen to be similar to a divorced parent's
> relationship to his own flesh and blood children.
>
> Too often those kids, after a divorce effectively become the EX-Kids,
> the way a divorced spouce becomes the ex-spouce.
>
> I find the whole concept of EX-Kids really really
> repugnant......probably because I am one of them.
>
> Spouces divorcing each ofhter is bad enough, but something we've all
> come to believe is something that often happens.
>
> Divorced parents not honoring their relationships with their
> biochildren after a divorce making them the EXKids, is in my opinion
> beyond the pale.

As true your statements may be, do you really believe that the noncustodial
parent should be forced to pay for graduate school for his children just
because there is a blood relationship? At what age should bio children
become independent?

I know custodial parents who do everything in their power to keep the bio
dad out of the children's lives, BTW. Maybe sometimes the "Ex-children"
thing is not the choice of the noncustodial parent. But, even if the dad
decides that, since he has an ex-wife, he also has ex-kids (a very poor
attitude indeed), do you think it is right for him to be forced to pay for
graduate school for them?

[Rambler]

wrote:
> Bob Whiteside has posted excellent information regarding the funding of
> graduate education.
>
> I take issue with the final paragraph which said:
>
> Perhaps the court in its wisdom
> should order the medical student to pay her father back the CS amount
> out of
> future profits similar to how the wife of a medical student gets
> alimony
> from future income for supporting her husband's medical school
> education
> pursuits.
>
>
> Bob:
>
> The point is that this is not a relationship between 2 people who ae
> divorced, it is a relatioship between a father and his daughter.
>
> I am offended in my own life when the issue of and ex-spouce's dealings
> with an ex-spoiuce are seen to be similar to a divorced parent's
> relationship to his own flesh and blood children.
>
> Too often those kids, after a divorce effectively become the EX-Kids,
> the way a divorced spouce becomes the ex-spouce.
>
> I find the whole concept of EX-Kids really really
> repugnant......probably because I am one of them.
>
> Spouces divorcing each ofhter is bad enough, but something we've all
> come to believe is something that often happens.
>
> Divorced parents not honoring their relationships with their
> biochildren after a divorce making them the EXKids, is in my opinion
> beyond the pale.
>
> Grace.

I'm going to tag in here a touch.

This has always been an interesting point for me, and have discussed it
with other people in ASD a bit (cross-posted at times to some of the
other groups). It is typically the concept of 'The State' stepping into
what is fundamentally a private matter between two individuals, and the
concept that 'The State' doesn't intervene in a family in this manner,
but rather only with the non-custodial parent in a divorce/seperation.

I typically come down on the side that corut intervention is necessary
because sometimes a parent would use the children and withholding
education payments, higher child support etc. etc. etc. as a tool
against their ex spouse. But I could see the logic of some of the posts
here, especially about the double standard of how it is applied.

I chatted with my SO about this, and her question was, "Is it really
'The State' that is intervening? Isn't it that one party has decided
that they want some form of redress, and that 'The State' vis the Court
is merely deciding between what the parties put forward?" Interesting
thought that.

Rambler

[Bob Whiteside]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Bob Whiteside has posted excellent information regarding the funding of
> graduate education.
>
> I take issue with the final paragraph which said:
>
> Perhaps the court in its wisdom
> should order the medical student to pay her father back the CS amount
> out of
> future profits similar to how the wife of a medical student gets
> alimony
> from future income for supporting her husband's medical school
> education
> pursuits.
>
>
> Bob:
>
> The point is that this is not a relationship between 2 people who ae
> divorced, it is a relatioship between a father and his daughter.

So why is the court getting involved in the father/daughter relationship?
The adult daughter is using the courts to force her father to pay for her
medical school tuition, and the daughter will benefit twice - come out of
medical school with no debt to pay off and get to retain 100% of her future
earnings. What is so offensive about suggesting the daughter pay her father
back for those two benefits? If the father loaned his adult daughter money
to start a business, he would get an equity position in the business.
Likewise, giving the daughter money to complete medical school should result
in a similar equity position in her medical practice.

[HopefullyGrace@aol.com]

Bill wrote:

They can downscale. That is an option. Why do they have to have the
SUV
and boat? Or is that more important than helping their child?
(rhetorical)

Bill,

As you know, I am a Certified Financial Planner.

This is the way I see money:

The bottom line, we are all going to die at somepoint and it is
customary that when both parents are dead the children
inherit......bottom line.

In the case of my children my husband, thier stepfather and I believed
that it made most sense to invest money in their education and even
partial downpayments on their homes, early in thier lives where the
money would make the most impact on their lives.

That meant that they would inherit less at 50, but through having
received a good education and establishing themselves in careers they
would have less need for money at 50 thanthey would have had if they
hadn't been educated and established in specific careers.

For the same reason, I contribute money, through Uniform Gifts to
minor's accounts for my 3 granddaughters.

I own a nice home with a motgage that is about 50% paid for. The
house has appreciated to over 3 times what I paid for it 15 years ago.
I also have participated in 401K type plans for the last 25-30 years
and that will be there for me, ikn my own right. I have disability and
LTC insurance in place for fututre illness as well as long standing
term life insurance.

I'm tight with a buck and always have been. I like nice things and
generally buy the bulk of them on sale. IE. When the youngeest
graduated from Law School I treaded myself to a lovely new livingroom
set....Drexel Heritage, top of the line from a store that was having
it's anual 40% off sale. The transaction came with the free services
of the store's interior decoragtor who did a fabulous yob. That was
quite a while 12 years ago and it still looks great and gives me lots
of pleasure when I entertain.

i like clothes and the high end ones. Ellen tracy is my favorite.
Their classic, very well made and last forever. I have been know to
hit the Ellen Tracy outlets so well that I am on thier mailing list and
they send me the preferred customer's early invitation to their 2 big
annual sales. I have suits that are 5 or six years old and still look
just fabulous, as does the expensive Coach briefcasee that I paid about
$300 for at the Coach outlet 10 years ago.

I frive a full loaded, expensive sports car that I bought 2 years old
in 1994. It's a 1992. I now has 107K miles on it and looks great
thanks to a paint job when it was years old, dealer recommended
routine maintainence and detailing once or tewice a year. It occurs to
me that I'll have to start thinking about replacing it in the next 2
years. (smile.)

I take several vacations a year, often to visit relatives and the long
term b/f. How? did you know that both American and United send me
weekely e-mails every tuesday listing their "last minute email fairs
for the coming weekends. The unsold seats go for about 50% off and
still give frequent flier miles. They also list overseas flights a
week in advance.....also at about 50% off.

I don't have a boat or a vacation home, but I have house guest credits
with many friends who stop ovedr in my city to visit with me on the way
to or from where ever their going.

You know, if you put somethought into what you want and keep your eyes
open for discount opportunities to help you get what you want you can
have a preety nice life.

And yes, the kids came through with some merit scholarshiops and even a
few student loans but they are very well set up and if and when I need
their financial assitance in my not so far away old age I'm pretty
confident they'll be there when I need them.

A little financial planning goes a long, long way. And the youger you
are when you start the more impact it can have on your life and the
impact can be significant......extreemly significant.

Grace

[Gypsy0005]

>Custodial parents aren't forced to do so. But noncustodial parents can be
>>>>forced to provide their children with a college education

One thing I don't think I've ever seen anyone mention here in regards to
college tuition is that intact families and custodial parents have the luxury
of managing their finances without interference. For the past 15 years my
husbands ex has had free reign with the substantial amount of support she has
received. She was free to put some of it away for the kids college. We on the
other hand have had her and the courts snooping in our finances and each and
every time we had two extra nickles she was in court trying to get 8 cents. We
could not possibly put away money towards college for these kids.
Perhaps if the NCP's had some money left over after they pay their support they
would be more than willing to put some away for that college tuition.
Tuition for grad school or medical school is obscene no matter how you look at
it.

[HopefullyGrace@aol.com]

Shinnypenny wrote:

Some parents may feel that by not paying for college, they are doing
what is best for their kids. Perhaps they feel that putting that money
into a 401K or other retirement fund is better. That way, the parents
have the means when they are older and disabled to fend for themselves,
instead of being a burden on their children who by then will have
families and other financial commitments of their own.

Please talk to you planner about disability insurance as well as long
term care insurance for yourself. Did you knkow that a persona age 35
is SIX times more likely to become disabled before retirment than to
die? Most don't and most don't have disability insurance. Long term
care is alos most people need to consider. As I believe that you are
only about 40, you'll find it relaviely cheap at your age. This will
alleviate much of your worries about beicoming ill and being unable to
aford it without becomeing a burden on your children.


>From shinnypenny:

My DF's folks paid his way through college and graduate school. Today,
he views that as a big mistake, because it was at the cost of their
retirement savings. They have no money now, and it is quite a mess
because they both have health issues. He feels it would have been wiser
and better for him, in the long run, had they let him take out loans,
pay his own way, and taken the money and funded their own retirement.
Just another perspective to consider.

I din't realize your DF had a graduate degree. However, didn't you
indicate on alt.support marriage that your DF has opted to work less
and at less strenuous jobs as a life style choice? Perhaps that wasn't
quite what his parents foresaw when they put him through collge.

Just a thought...even though I have to admist that it sounds like an
abmonistion. I guess it is, after all.

Grace

[HopefullyGrace@aol.com]

Shinnypenny wrote:

Some parents may feel that by not paying for college, they are doing
what is best for their kids. Perhaps they feel that putting that money
into a 401K or other retirement fund is better. That way, the parents
have the means when they are older and disabled to fend for themselves,
instead of being a burden on their children who by then will have
families and other financial commitments of their own.

Please talk to you planner about disability insurance as well as long
term care insurance for yourself. Did you knkow that a persona age 35
is SIX times more likely to become disabled before retirment than to
die? Most don't and most don't have disability insurance. Long term
care is alos most people need to consider. As I believe that you are
only about 40, you'll find it relaviely cheap at your age. This will
alleviate much of your worries about beicoming ill and being unable to
aford it without becomeing a burden on your children.


>From shinnypenny:

My DF's folks paid his way through college and graduate school. Today,
he views that as a big mistake, because it was at the cost of their
retirement savings. They have no money now, and it is quite a mess
because they both have health issues. He feels it would have been wiser
and better for him, in the long run, had they let him take out loans,
pay his own way, and taken the money and funded their own retirement.
Just another perspective to consider.

I din't realize your DF had a graduate degree. However, didn't you
indicate on alt.support marriage that your DF has opted to work less
and at less strenuous jobs as a life style choice? Perhaps that wasn't
quite what his parents foresaw when they put him through collge.

Just a thought...even though I have to admist that it sounds like an
abmonistion. I guess it is, after all.

Grace

[teachrmama]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Lanak wrote.
>
>
> Yes, the guy could be an asshole or a jerk or he could have limited
> funds
> due to other debts, but that is the family's business.
> When courts start to make orders because society has judged that it is
> the
> moral thing to do, then how soon will it be before other moral laws are
>
> enacted because of this case.
>
>
> In this case the MD respondent in the case makes $170K. He was
> required to pay $22K, 50% of the tuition and costs to put his
> legitimate bio daughter through Med school so that she could enter
> herfather's profession.
>
> I don't think that was a particular hardship for the father in this
> case.
>
> Also.....how many MD's who are married to a child's mother would
> begrudge doing this for their bio-child?
>
> My issue is that the daughter should not be penalized becuase of the
> parents divorce., making her an EX_Kid.

But you do not know that he would have paid it had the parents remained
married. And you do not know how much he is paying his ex-wife in
alimony--the article says that his payments are her only income, even 5+
years after the divorce. And you do not know that he can easily afford it,
since you do not know his other expenses, or how much he is paying in child
support for his other child. You look at the amount he is making and
*assume* he can afford it. You also do not address the issue of this young
lady's age. She has long since become an adult. For how long should daddy
be forced to foot the bill just because he and mom are divorced? Obviously,
mom not contributing to her daughter's education, since she, too, lives off
dad's earnings.

[Gothpiper]

"PBu7434922" > wrote in

> This is where I have a problem, she isnt a child a woman of 23 should be
> standing on her own 2 feet.

In Britain, most kids get the boot from the house when they are 21, some
even at 18!

[Bbmaxwell]

The *C*H*I*L*D* was already penalized...

>Subject: Re: Canada: Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
>From:
>Date: 1/16/2005 5:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: om>
>
>Lanak wrote.
>
>
>Yes, the guy could be an asshole or a jerk or he could have limited
>funds
>due to other debts, but that is the family's business.
>When courts start to make orders because society has judged that it is
>the
>moral thing to do, then how soon will it be before other moral laws are
>
>enacted because of this case.
>
>
>In this case the MD respondent in the case makes $170K. He was
>required to pay $22K, 50% of the tuition and costs to put his
>legitimate bio daughter through Med school so that she could enter
>herfather's profession.
>
>I don't think that was a particular hardship for the father in this
>case.
>
>Also.....how many MD's who are married to a child's mother would
>begrudge doing this for their bio-child?
>
>My issue is that the daughter should not be penalized becuase of the
>parents divorce., making her an EX_Kid.
>
>Grace
>Ex-kid

because the child - not this adult woman - was forced to grow up in a home
without her father. Let's do something to reverse this first "penalty" before
we worry about subsequent ones...shall we?

Mel Gamble

[Gothpiper]

> wrote in

> In this case the MD respondent in the case makes $170K. He was
> required to pay $22K, 50% of the tuition and costs to put his
> legitimate bio daughter through Med school so that she could enter
> herfather's profession.
>
> I don't think that was a particular hardship for the father in this
> case.

You're a financial planner?

170k minus taxes = 90k

90k minus morgage or rent = 60k

60k minus living expenses (Food, Gas, Car Lease, Travel, Entertainment) =
30k

So if the good doctor is lucky, he gets to spend his disposible dollars on
his Daughter's education.
What business is it of ours or the Government what he does with his money?

Are we not over regulated and controlled enough for you?

[The Dave©]

> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> > > In the case of the people mentioned in the original article, I
> > > wonder if the guy would have paid if they had still been married.
> >
> > To me, this is the crux of the issue. As far as I know, there is no
> > law or court that would or could force a still-married couple that
> > they had to pay for their kid's college education against their
> > will. At least not as a matter of standard policy. It would be
> > considered an intrusion into an individual family's decisions. I
> > fail to see why the parents being divorced changes that.
>
> Still married parents can be forced to pay CS for college expenses.
> If they are separated, but not divorced, the states with CS for adult
> children attending school also have provisions for married, separated
> parents to be governed by the same type of support law provisions.

I'm sure you have me on a technicality, but keep in mind that
"still-married" meant "still-married and together". My point, as
intended, still stands... even without disclaimers for every possible
minor or odd exception.

Having said that, does that mean legally separated, or just separated?
I believe California, for example, treats legally separated as divorced
in at least some CS issues. For that reason, many people advise to
just go ahead and get the divorce, so you don't do double the paperwork
and pay double the attorney and court fees.

--
"Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution
yet." ~ Mae West

[shinypenny]

wrote:
> I din't realize your DF had a graduate degree. However, didn't you
> indicate on alt.support marriage that your DF has opted to work less
> and at less strenuous jobs as a life style choice? Perhaps that
wasn't
> quite what his parents foresaw when they put him through collge.

He was in a fast-track job with long hours, but it was never a
profession that would pay more than about $40K a year anyway. He's
still a hard worker, but now he is in a field he loves, and he can
leave at 6 pm without repercussions.

> Just a thought...even though I have to admist that it sounds like an
> abmonistion. I guess it is, after all.

They don't want a dime from any of their children, which is part of the
current frustration. It appears DF's father, when making his financial
decisions early on, thought that he would work right up to his death
and would need no help later in life.

jen

[shinypenny]

Gothpiper wrote:
> > wrote in
>
> > In this case the MD respondent in the case makes $170K. He was
> > required to pay $22K, 50% of the tuition and costs to put his
> > legitimate bio daughter through Med school so that she could enter
> > herfather's profession.
> >
> > I don't think that was a particular hardship for the father in this
> > case.
>
> You're a financial planner?
>
> 170k minus taxes = 90k
>
> 90k minus morgage or rent = 60k
>
> 60k minus living expenses (Food, Gas, Car Lease, Travel,
Entertainment) =
> 30k

Minus malpractice insurance. You forgot that one. He's a doctor.
Malpractice insurance is a huge expense.

If he is remarried and has kids from the second marriage also entering
college, most schools don't take that into account either. They just
look at mom and dad, as if they had remained married.

jen

[shinypenny]

Rambler wrote:
> I chatted with my SO about this, and her question was, "Is it really
> 'The State' that is intervening? Isn't it that one party has decided

> that they want some form of redress, and that 'The State' vis the
Court
> is merely deciding between what the parties put forward?"
Interesting
> thought that.

I had the same thought as your SO (bright women, she is!). :0

Something doesn't sit well with me on this. It bothers me that this
young woman had to take her father to court over this issue. Either
because her father is a total jerk, or because she grew up with a sense
of entitlement, I don't know which, and without more details, we can't
judge. I would guess the truth is somewhere in the middle, and we can
only say that there is something seriously wrong with the
father/daughter relationship in this case.

jen

[Cloaked]

AMEN

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 07:51:14 GMT, "Lanark" >
wrote:

>
>"teachrmama" > wrote in
>
>> But the fact that you can't understand it does not mean that those who
>> choose not to do so should be forced to anyway.
>
>Makes you really wonder what America has become and what freedom really
>means in America.
>Seems we go out of our way to fight for freedom all over the world except
>in out own country.
>
>
>

[Kenneth S.]

"Bbmaxwell" > wrote in message
...
> The *C*H*I*L*D* was already penalized...
>
> >Subject: Re: Canada: Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school
bill
> >From:
> >Date: 1/16/2005 5:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: om>
> >
> >Lanak wrote.
> >
> >
> >Yes, the guy could be an asshole or a jerk or he could have limited
> >funds
> >due to other debts, but that is the family's business.
> >When courts start to make orders because society has judged that it is
> >the
> >moral thing to do, then how soon will it be before other moral laws are
> >
> >enacted because of this case.
> >
> >
> >In this case the MD respondent in the case makes $170K. He was
> >required to pay $22K, 50% of the tuition and costs to put his
> >legitimate bio daughter through Med school so that she could enter
> >herfather's profession.
> >
> >I don't think that was a particular hardship for the father in this
> >case.
> >
> >Also.....how many MD's who are married to a child's mother would
> >begrudge doing this for their bio-child?
> >
> >My issue is that the daughter should not be penalized becuase of the
> >parents divorce., making her an EX_Kid.
> >
> >Grace
> >Ex-kid
>
> because the child - not this adult woman - was forced to grow up in a home
> without her father. Let's do something to reverse this first "penalty"
before
> we worry about subsequent ones...shall we?
>
> Mel Gamble

and in any event the argument that measures must be
adopted to prevent adult children being penalized by their parents' divorce
is preposterous. Why not also protect the children of intact families from
being penalized educationally -- by, say, their parents' wish to spend money
on expensive vacations, instead of the education of their adult children?
It would be perfectly possible for Canada to have a rule imposing a requirem
ent for ALL parents to pay for the education of their adult children.
Perhaps only divorced parents would be affected by such a law, and the other
parents would do it anyway, but there would be no discrimination.

In fact, of course, legislators in Canada -- just like legislators
in the U.S. -- wouldn't dare to impose such a requirement on all parents.
However, legislators and judges WILL go along with something that, as a
practical matter, binds only on divorced fathers. They are a scapegoat
group that can safely be treated any way the legislators and judges please.
Take away their money, stick 'em in debtors' prison, make 'em pay money for
adult "children" . . . whatever. I fully anticipate that some judge will
discover soon that a divorced father must pay for the wedding of his adult
daughter, on the basis that this is what is traditional in intact families.

[Casey]

Lanark said
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in
>
> > But the fact that you can't understand it does not mean that those who
> > choose not to do so should be forced to anyway.
>
> Makes you really wonder what America has become and what freedom really
> means in America.
> Seems we go out of our way to fight for freedom all over the world except
> in out own country.

Freedom really means we can sit here and argue about this all day
without worrying about being suddenly dragged out of our house by the
secret police for "treason".




Casey

[Cloaked]

The problem I see in this is not for your situation. Due to your
fathers stated wealth, he should have paid.

The problem is when you get down to the "average" wage. The government
has a real problem drawing the line properly between who can aford to
pay and who cannot. And more often than not, the government just looks
at the situation "on paper" and in isolation for the sake of time
saving they do not evaluate every situation on its own merrits.

As such, many people are impoverished at the hands of the government
when, had they stayed married, they would have had no such government
interference in their lives.

I am sorry for your situation. But there are a great many who suffer
who should not - on both sides of the fence. Why you should suffer
when your father could aford to pay is a mystery - but no more so that
the fathers ordered to pay who cannot aford to pay! :(

On 14 Jan 2005 20:43:49 -0800, wrote:

>The problem with the entitlement, or socialist way of thinking is that
>those
>who think something is "owed" to them, rarely are worth a bucket of
>warm
>spit.
>If one has to work toward something, it is more likely they will
>actually
>want to achieve it, will treasure it more highly and make the time
>spend
>attaining it more useful.
>Those forcing decisions on others should be ready, willing and able to
>finance those decisions as well, not to even go into the little problem
>of
>individual rights and personal freedom.
>Phil #3
>
>Trust me, Phil, i'm no where near being a socialist. I'm a
>consertvative Republican. And I view "entitlements" as a code word for
>welfare.
>
>However, as you can see from my post I am very recentful about having
>been assigned to the ranks of the EXchildren after my parent's divorce.
>
>The one thing I agree about is that those who force things on others
>should be ready, wiling and able to finance those decisionsas well, not
>even to go into the little problem of individual rights and personal
>freedoms.
>
>Trust me when I tell you that when my father left our family he forced
>maximum inconvenience on those he left behind. If he decided that his
>individual rights and freedoms preimpted his
>obligations.responsibiiltes to the chilodren he sired in his first
>marriage he should have thought twice about how morally reprehenable
>that is.
>
>As I said, he was rolling in doe, had a ful household staff including
>chauffer, gardner,, house boys, cook, etc. and tought sending $50 per
>month per minor child, no extras, no orthodontist, no college....not
>even birthday gifts was fine just fine with him.
>Do you find that odd, or just him being a sefish skunk.
>
>Grace
>

[Cloaked]

I agree with this 100%.

It is not like the "old days" when you could count on your children to
support you in old age - or even on some level of assistance from the
"state".

This is where I sit also - I have no children, and ALL of my savings
(and then some) were consumed by my divorce! I have NO CHOICE but to
rebuild for my reitrement! My new lady has children and I have made it
clear, unless I win the lottery, I cannot contribute to thier
education at all. Not one dime. Period. To do so would virtually
guarantee poverty in my retirement. In fact, despite my best efforts
to save for retirement, I may still wind up living an impoverished
lifestyle. I have no house, and I am not likely to own one in my
lifetime now. Things are NOT looking that good in the long term.

All I can say is THANK GOD my ex and I never had children!



On 15 Jan 2005 07:55:50 -0800, "shinypenny" >
wrote:

>
>LoriMc wrote:
>
>
>> Why is it that some parents who have the income to help their kids
>out
>> don't? I'm not talking about supporting them fully or giving them a
>free
>> ride, but just helping them a bit so they can make something of
>themselves
>> in life. Isn't that what it is supposed to be all about? What's the
>matter
>> with some people don't they want what is best for their kids?
>
>Some parents may feel that by not paying for college, they are doing
>what is best for their kids. Perhaps they feel that putting that money
>into a 401K or other retirement fund is better. That way, the parents
>have the means when they are older and disabled to fend for themselves,
>instead of being a burden on their children who by then will have
>families and other financial commitments of their own.
>
>My DF's folks paid his way through college and graduate school. Today,
>he views that as a big mistake, because it was at the cost of their
>retirement savings. They have no money now, and it is quite a mess
>because they both have health issues. He feels it would have been wiser
>and better for him, in the long run, had they let him take out loans,
>pay his own way, and taken the money and funded their own retirement.
>Just another perspective to consider.
>
>jen
>

[shinypenny]

Cloaked wrote:
> I agree with this 100%.
>
> It is not like the "old days" when you could count on your children
to
> support you in old age - or even on some level of assistance from the
> "state".
>
> This is where I sit also - I have no children, and ALL of my savings
> (and then some) were consumed by my divorce! I have NO CHOICE but to
> rebuild for my reitrement! My new lady has children and I have made
it
> clear, unless I win the lottery, I cannot contribute to thier
> education at all. Not one dime. Period. To do so would virtually
> guarantee poverty in my retirement. In fact, despite my best efforts
> to save for retirement, I may still wind up living an impoverished
> lifestyle. I have no house, and I am not likely to own one in my
> lifetime now. Things are NOT looking that good in the long term.
>
> All I can say is THANK GOD my ex and I never had children!


It's not only that, but the cost of college tuition is outrageous,
compared to times past.

So it's twofold, really: 1) Cost of tuition has skyrocketed; and 2)
cost to retire has skyrocketed (folks can no longer rely on SS or
pensions; people live longer requiring more $ saved; folks no longer
can depend on working for same company for their entire career -
layoffs are quite common and do take a huge hit on even the best of
savings plans).

Divorce certainly has a big impact and can set a family way back, but
it is not the only factor at work here. Even intact families are having
to struggle with these issues.

When I am retired, I don't want my kids to have to worry about my
financial needs. Not at a time when they should be saving for their own
retirements. Especially since there will be no such thing as SS when
they are adults.

jen

[shinypenny]

wrote:

> Bill,
>
> As you know, I am a Certified Financial Planner.
>


> For the same reason, I contribute money, through Uniform Gifts to
> minor's accounts for my 3 granddaughters.

As a financial planner, surely you should know that uniform gifts to
minor accounts do a big disservice to your grandchildren when they are
ready to apply for aid, no?

Any money in the child's name is assessed at a much higher percent than
that in the parents' or grandparents' name. This is the number one
biggest mistakes parents make when saving for their children's college
expenses.

Grace, the times have changed a lot since your own kids went to
college. You sound about my parent's age. When I went to college, there
was no reason my folks had to choose between their own retirement
savings, and college. They could comfortably do *both.*

That's not typically the case anymore. Cost of tuition is out of
control, and cost to retire is likewise much higher.

jen

[HopefullyGrace@aol.com]

Shinnypenny wrote:

As a financial planner, surely you should know that uniform gifts to
minor accounts do a big disservice to your grandchildren when they are
ready to apply for aid, no?

Yes, however for my oldest granddaughter financial aid other than merit
and affilliation scholarship is probably going to be out of the
questian. Her Dad's and attorney and her mother is a pediatrician.

And, unlike the Canadian MD, they have already started a college fund
for her and she is only years old.

Grace

[HopefullyGrace@aol.com]

shinnypenny wrote:

Grace, the times have changed a lot since your own kids went to
college. You sound about my parent's age.

I think I probably am, too.

My older son is will be 36 this year and my yonger one just turned 34.
Probably your generation.

Best wishes,

Grace

[Bill in Co.]

shinypenny wrote:
> Gothpiper wrote:
>> > wrote in
>>
>>> In this case the MD respondent in the case makes $170K. He was
>>> required to pay $22K, 50% of the tuition and costs to put his
>>> legitimate bio daughter through Med school so that she could enter
>>> herfather's profession.
>>>
>>> I don't think that was a particular hardship for the father in this
>>> case.
>>
>> You're a financial planner?
>>
>> 170k minus taxes = 90k
>>
>> 90k minus morgage or rent = 60k
>>
>> 60k minus living expenses (Food, Gas, Car Lease, Travel, Entertainment) =
>> 30k
>
> Minus malpractice insurance. You forgot that one. He's a doctor.
> Malpractice insurance is a huge expense.

yea, TODAY it is. But it wasn't always this way. And just why is that?
(I'll leave you to contemplate that one....)

> If he is remarried and has kids from the second marriage also entering
> college, most schools don't take that into account either. They just
> look at mom and dad, as if they had remained married.
>
> jen

[HopefullyGrace@aol.com]

shinnypenny wrote:

They don't want a dime from any of their children, which is part of the
current frustration. It appears DF's father, when making his financial
decisions early on, thought that he would work right up to his death
and would need no help later in life.

jen

******
He sound's a lot like my fathers. Dad retired this month, at the age
of 82 1/2. He's worked his entire adult life as a civil engineer. He
said the first week of retirement wasn't that bad but he's beginning to
get a little bored with it already.

WW2 generation?

Grace......
who very happily shifted out of the fast track into a self employed
slower pace in the same profession just before turning 45. It is
very, very, very much more comfortable for me. Highly recommed it to
those who can.

[shinypenny]

wrote:
> shinnypenny wrote:
>
> Grace, the times have changed a lot since your own kids went to
> college. You sound about my parent's age.
>
> I think I probably am, too.
>
> My older son is will be 36 this year and my yonger one just turned
34.
> Probably your generation.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Grace
Close - My siblings and I are a 4-7 years older than your oldest.

jen

[HopefullyGrace@aol.com]

Cloaked wrote:


The problem I see in this is not for your situation. Due to your
fathers stated wealth, he should have paid.

Thanks for your kind reply, Cloaked. I think I've posted on this
thread more than I posted anywhere last month. I think that the
Canadian case cited fits the relationship I had with my father to a
tee, and that probably explains why it's such a hot button for me!


The problem is when you get down to the "average" wage. The government
has a real problem drawing the line properly between who can aford to
pay and who cannot. And more often than not, the government just looks
at the situation "on paper" and in isolation for the sake of time
saving they do not evaluate every situation on its own merrits.

Absolutely true in my opinon and experience. My first clue was that a
single person who makes over $25K per year doesn't get the tax wirte of
on a $2K IRA ecause the govt. considers them "to rich" to qualify for
the deduction. Now assuming a 15% tax rate, that refusal benifits the
gov't thed losft sum of $300!

What's wrong with this picture. One would think that encoraging
people,with tax benifits to plan for their own retirement would be in
everyone's best interests, especially with the current state of the
Social Security Systembut nooooooo!

BTW: Stay tuned......Bush is pusing for legislation that wolud
encourage exactly this......and I think it will benifit many, many
people.


As such, many people are impoverished at the hands of the government
when, had they stayed married, they would have had no such government
interference in their lives.

When it comes to this and the income caps on parent's income vs
financial aide I am constantly amazed at what the government considers
"too rich to qualify! It's not that month.

I have a friend on another n/g who is totally disabled at age 45, no
dependent chilldren, living on SSI disability benifits of about $670
per month. She is just barely over the income range to qualify for her
state's medical benifits insurance with the recent cost of living rasie
that pushed her about $40 per month over that limit. The medications
that allowher to stay stableize her condition sufficently to keep her
out of the hopital cost her about $400 per month. I am not sure but I
think that if she had to be hospitalized the government would most
likely have to pay for that because she is totally disabled, near
indigent and totally judgement proof (no assests. The ultimate false
economy on our gobt.'s part.


I am sorry for your situation. But there are a great many who suffer
who should not - on both sides of the fence. Why you should suffer
when your father could aford to pay is a mystery - but no more so that
the fathers ordered to pay who cannot aford to pay! :(

Yep. Life just keeps getting stranger and stranger. Oh, no! i'm
begining to sound just like my bud, Bill in Co.
Thanks again, Cloaked, and all best wishes.

Grace

[shinypenny]

wrote:
> Shinnypenny wrote:
>
> As a financial planner, surely you should know that uniform gifts to
> minor accounts do a big disservice to your grandchildren when they
are
> ready to apply for aid, no?
>
> Yes, however for my oldest granddaughter financial aid other than
merit
> and affilliation scholarship is probably going to be out of the
> questian. Her Dad's and attorney and her mother is a pediatrician.
>
> And, unlike the Canadian MD, they have already started a college fund
> for her and she is only years old.
>
> Grace


Well, like you, I'm the ultimate contingency planner. :-)

Have you considered what might happen should something happen to one or
the other's job? If for some reason they were cut down to only one
income, even if it is a professional's salary, that would likely put
them right on the "cusp." I.e., a level that makes too much for grants
but not quite enough to afford a college education without some
assistance.

In which case, your granddaughter might need to put herself at the
mercy of the financial aid system in order to make up the shortfall in
loans. What happens then is the calculations look at all assets in her
name and she gets penalized compared to other students who have the
same amount of college savings, but in their parent's name and not
their own.

Chances are, she'll probably be fine, but you just never know. I am
exploring all these angles myself right now. Being in high tech, I know
that it is realistic that I could be laid off again, so I'm trying to
cover all the bases just in case. My ex and I combined make enough to
be on that cusp of being expected to afford without grants, but
probably not enough to do it all without some loans.

Graduate school is another story. The way I look at it, my obligation
is to help as much as I can to get them through undergrad. After that,
they're on their own. I may help out if I'm in the position to do so,
but I think at that point they should be able to figure out how to
swing it themselves. Even if that means working for a few years and
then going back full or part-time.

Of course, it'll depend on the situation and who can say? I suppose if
my DD's had a plan, had thought through all the ramifications, were
studying hard, and were making their best effort to handle what they
could, I'd be more inclined to help them out. But grad school is not a
given, and the girls know that.

That's what strikes me odd about the Canadian situation - what was this
young woman's plan other than "Daddy has money - so he should foot the
entire bill." While I can understand not wanting to work too much while
in a demanding med school program, what is wrong with taking a few
years off to save at least part of the money herself? Or working over
the summer to offset some of the costs? Or am I missing something here?


When DF went to grad school, it was after a few years working. He saved
up his money, applied for loans, and put himself through school while
living at home to offset living expenses. Living at home wasn't the
ideal situation, especially after being on his own for awhile, but to
him it was worth the temporary trade-off.

jen

[LoriMc]

shinypenny wrote:
> Graduate school is another story. The way I look at it, my obligation
> is to help as much as I can to get them through undergrad. After that,
> they're on their own. I may help out if I'm in the position to do so,
> but I think at that point they should be able to figure out how to
> swing it themselves. Even if that means working for a few years and
> then going back full or part-time.

This is the same situation I was in with my daughter. Maybe if I was in a
financially better place I would have felt about this matter, because I so
wanted her to continue on to grad school.

Four years is all I can feasibly help her with. She has a good job, is on
her own and planning how she is going to get to grad school. It is tough
for her but I have no doubt she will get there. She is one wise little
cookie.

Lori Mc

[Cloaked]

As far as I am concerned this is a clear cut case of "the State"
intervening where they have no damn business being. The "entitlement"
I see is that THE STATE seems to feel it is entitled to even make such
a decision. This is pompous and arrogant - if not unconstitutional!

Unless the state is prepared to intervene into the familys which are
NOT divorced and make similare rulings and laws then the entire idea
that the law is applied in an unequitable fashion flies in the very
face of the constitution which is supposed to guarantee equal
treatment before the law!


On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:40:25 +0800, Rambler
> wrote:

wrote:
>> Bob Whiteside has posted excellent information regarding the funding of
>> graduate education.
>>
>> I take issue with the final paragraph which said:
>>
>> Perhaps the court in its wisdom
>> should order the medical student to pay her father back the CS amount
>> out of
>> future profits similar to how the wife of a medical student gets
>> alimony
>> from future income for supporting her husband's medical school
>> education
>> pursuits.
>>
>>
>> Bob:
>>
>> The point is that this is not a relationship between 2 people who ae
>> divorced, it is a relatioship between a father and his daughter.
>>
>> I am offended in my own life when the issue of and ex-spouce's dealings
>> with an ex-spoiuce are seen to be similar to a divorced parent's
>> relationship to his own flesh and blood children.
>>
>> Too often those kids, after a divorce effectively become the EX-Kids,
>> the way a divorced spouce becomes the ex-spouce.
>>
>> I find the whole concept of EX-Kids really really
>> repugnant......probably because I am one of them.
>>
>> Spouces divorcing each ofhter is bad enough, but something we've all
>> come to believe is something that often happens.
>>
>> Divorced parents not honoring their relationships with their
>> biochildren after a divorce making them the EXKids, is in my opinion
>> beyond the pale.
>>
>> Grace.
>
>I'm going to tag in here a touch.
>
>This has always been an interesting point for me, and have discussed it
>with other people in ASD a bit (cross-posted at times to some of the
>other groups). It is typically the concept of 'The State' stepping into
>what is fundamentally a private matter between two individuals, and the
>concept that 'The State' doesn't intervene in a family in this manner,
>but rather only with the non-custodial parent in a divorce/seperation.
>
>I typically come down on the side that corut intervention is necessary
>because sometimes a parent would use the children and withholding
>education payments, higher child support etc. etc. etc. as a tool
>against their ex spouse. But I could see the logic of some of the posts
>here, especially about the double standard of how it is applied.
>
>I chatted with my SO about this, and her question was, "Is it really
>'The State' that is intervening? Isn't it that one party has decided
>that they want some form of redress, and that 'The State' vis the Court
>is merely deciding between what the parties put forward?" Interesting
>thought that.
>
>Rambler

[GL Fowler]

On 17 Jan 2005 08:52:59 -0800, "shinypenny" >
wrote:

>
>Cloaked wrote:
>> I agree with this 100%.
>>
>> It is not like the "old days" when you could count on your children
>to
>> support you in old age - or even on some level of assistance from the
>> "state".
>>
>> This is where I sit also - I have no children, and ALL of my savings
>> (and then some) were consumed by my divorce! I have NO CHOICE but to
>> rebuild for my reitrement! My new lady has children and I have made
>it
>> clear, unless I win the lottery, I cannot contribute to thier
>> education at all. Not one dime. Period. To do so would virtually
>> guarantee poverty in my retirement. In fact, despite my best efforts
>> to save for retirement, I may still wind up living an impoverished
>> lifestyle. I have no house, and I am not likely to own one in my
>> lifetime now. Things are NOT looking that good in the long term.
>>
>> All I can say is THANK GOD my ex and I never had children!
>
>
>It's not only that, but the cost of college tuition is outrageous,
>compared to times past.
>
>So it's twofold, really: 1) Cost of tuition has skyrocketed; and 2)
>cost to retire has skyrocketed (folks can no longer rely on SS or
>pensions; people live longer requiring more $ saved; folks no longer
>can depend on working for same company for their entire career -
>layoffs are quite common and do take a huge hit on even the best of
>savings plans).
>
>Divorce certainly has a big impact and can set a family way back, but
>it is not the only factor at work here. Even intact families are having
>to struggle with these issues.
>
>When I am retired, I don't want my kids to have to worry about my
>financial needs. Not at a time when they should be saving for their own
>retirements. Especially since there will be no such thing as SS when
>they are adults.
>
>jen

During a discussion about contributing to adult children's welfare
(note adjective preceding children) that while they could seek out
their loan institution of choice and probably acquire a loan for
house, car, schooling, etc. But if I should try the same thing asking
for a loan for my retirement the laughing would go on for a
significant time.

Made sense to me.


"The best proof of intelligent life in space is that it hasn't come here."
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

[Bill in Co.]

Well, it really wasn't THAT difficult to get.

> shinypenny wrote:
>> Gothpiper wrote:
>>> > wrote in
>>>
>>>> In this case the MD respondent in the case makes $170K. He was
>>>> required to pay $22K, 50% of the tuition and costs to put his
>>>> legitimate bio daughter through Med school so that she could enter
>>>> herfather's profession.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that was a particular hardship for the father in this
>>>> case.
>>>
>>> You're a financial planner?
>>>
>>> 170k minus taxes = 90k
>>>
>>> 90k minus morgage or rent = 60k
>>>
>>> 60k minus living expenses (Food, Gas, Car Lease, Travel, Entertainment)
=
>>> 30k
>>
>> Minus malpractice insurance. You forgot that one. He's a doctor.
>> Malpractice insurance is a huge expense.

yea, TODAY it is. But it wasn't always this way. And just WHY is
that?
(I'll leave you to contemplate that one....)

>> If he is remarried and has kids from the second marriage also entering
>> college, most schools don't take that into account either. They just
>> look at mom and dad, as if they had remained married.
>>
>> jen

[Rambler]

Cloaked wrote:
> As far as I am concerned this is a clear cut case of "the State"
> intervening where they have no damn business being. The "entitlement"
> I see is that THE STATE seems to feel it is entitled to even make such
> a decision. This is pompous and arrogant - if not unconstitutional!

But the point is, somebody has to bring a suit in order for "the State"
to make a determination. "The State" does not and cannot intervene
without a moving party (and in this case, by "the State" I mean the
court). Sometimes the moving party is the government, but I have yet to
see a case where the government (CS, whomever) moved to have graduate
school paid for.

> Unless the state is prepared to intervene into the familys which are
> NOT divorced and make similare rulings and laws then the entire idea
> that the law is applied in an unequitable fashion flies in the very
> face of the constitution which is supposed to guarantee equal
> treatment before the law!

But don't they all the time? You have a business dispute with your
business partner, you determine whether it is worth redress through the
courts and bing! they make a decision based upon the facts that are put
forward to them.

As I've read the child support laws, they are equally (here) applicable
to married and non-married people. If a married parent refuses to pay
for their children, then the other parent can get a court order to order
support payments. It is the protection of the children's welfare.

I am *NOT* saying that it is right to move to force somebody to pay for
graduate school, but it certainly isn't "the State" that is doing it ...
it is the other party (either t he other parent or the daughter - sorry,
didn't even read the article but I presume that it wasn't the daughter
that was able to move for this.

Remember, *you* chose to marry her.

Rambler

[Rambler]

The Dave© wrote:
>>Bob Whiteside wrote:
>>
>>>>In the case of the people mentioned in the original article, I
>>>>wonder if the guy would have paid if they had still been married.
>>>
>>>To me, this is the crux of the issue. As far as I know, there is no
>>>law or court that would or could force a still-married couple that
>>>they had to pay for their kid's college education against their
>>>will. At least not as a matter of standard policy. It would be
>>>considered an intrusion into an individual family's decisions. I
>>>fail to see why the parents being divorced changes that.
>>
>>Still married parents can be forced to pay CS for college expenses.
>>If they are separated, but not divorced, the states with CS for adult
>>children attending school also have provisions for married, separated
>>parents to be governed by the same type of support law provisions.
>
>
> I'm sure you have me on a technicality, but keep in mind that
> "still-married" meant "still-married and together". My point, as
> intended, still stands... even without disclaimers for every possible
> minor or odd exception.
>
> Having said that, does that mean legally separated, or just separated?
> I believe California, for example, treats legally separated as divorced
> in at least some CS issues. For that reason, many people advise to
> just go ahead and get the divorce, so you don't do double the paperwork
> and pay double the attorney and court fees.

All I can tell you Dave is that out here the law covers children
regardless of whether the parents are married, married but not living
together or divorced.

Rambler

[teachrmama]

"Rambler" > wrote in message
...
> The Dave© wrote:
>>>Bob Whiteside wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In the case of the people mentioned in the original article, I
>>>>>wonder if the guy would have paid if they had still been married.
>>>>
>>>>To me, this is the crux of the issue. As far as I know, there is no
>>>>law or court that would or could force a still-married couple that
>>>>they had to pay for their kid's college education against their
>>>>will. At least not as a matter of standard policy. It would be
>>>>considered an intrusion into an individual family's decisions. I
>>>>fail to see why the parents being divorced changes that.
>>>
>>>Still married parents can be forced to pay CS for college expenses.
>>>If they are separated, but not divorced, the states with CS for adult
>>>children attending school also have provisions for married, separated
>>>parents to be governed by the same type of support law provisions.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure you have me on a technicality, but keep in mind that
>> "still-married" meant "still-married and together". My point, as
>> intended, still stands... even without disclaimers for every possible
>> minor or odd exception.
>>
>> Having said that, does that mean legally separated, or just separated?
>> I believe California, for example, treats legally separated as divorced
>> in at least some CS issues. For that reason, many people advise to
>> just go ahead and get the divorce, so you don't do double the paperwork
>> and pay double the attorney and court fees.
>
> All I can tell you Dave is that out here the law covers children
> regardless of whether the parents are married, married but not living
> together or divorced.

Are you from Canada, Rambler? If not, where are you from. It's kind of
scary that the state can tell parents how much they must spend on their
children beyond their basic needs, and beyond their childhood years.

[Gini]

In article >, Rambler says...
>
>Cloaked wrote:
>> As far as I am concerned this is a clear cut case of "the State"
>> intervening where they have no damn business being. The "entitlement"
>> I see is that THE STATE seems to feel it is entitled to even make such
>> a decision. This is pompous and arrogant - if not unconstitutional!
>
>But the point is, somebody has to bring a suit in order for "the State"
>to make a determination. "The State" does not and cannot intervene
>without a moving party (and in this case, by "the State" I mean the
>court). Sometimes the moving party is the government, but I have yet to
>see a case where the government (CS, whomever) moved to have graduate
>school paid for.
====
In the US, the state legislates or does not legislate college support. It is not
left to the court. (More Below)
====

>
>> Unless the state is prepared to intervene into the familys which are
>> NOT divorced and make similare rulings and laws then the entire idea
>> that the law is applied in an unequitable fashion flies in the very
>> face of the constitution which is supposed to guarantee equal
>> treatment before the law!
>
>But don't they all the time? You have a business dispute with your
>business partner, you determine whether it is worth redress through the
>courts and bing! they make a decision based upon the facts that are put
>forward to them.
====
This has what to do with the application of family law for divorced parents and
parents in intact relationships?
(More)
====
>
>As I've read the child support laws, they are equally (here) applicable
>to married and non-married people. If a married parent refuses to pay
>for their children, then the other parent can get a court order to order
>support payments.
====
Where is this legislated? Parents in intact families are required to keep their
kids from starving. Have you any case law where one parent in an intact family
has successfully sued the other parent for not providing a "lifestyle" to the
children? Noncustodial dads are required to fund a "lifestyle." That goes well
beyond what is required of intact relationships.
(More)
====
>It is the protection of the children's welfare.
====
Hardly. If it were, the custodial parent would be required to account for the
use of the CS. The state does not care what the CP does with the support money.
The CP is only required to keep the kid from starving--just like in intact
families. No other parent aside from noncustodials (dads) is required to do any
more for the children than keep them from starving.
(More)
====
>
>I am *NOT* saying that it is right to move to force somebody to pay for
>graduate school, but it certainly isn't "the State" that is doing it ...
>it is the other party (either t he other parent or the daughter
====
Anyone can "move" anything they wish. But, in the US, a judge cannot award
college support unless the legistature has legislated that NCPs must pay for
college support. The judge does not have the authority to do that. If he ordered
college support, absent statute, it would be abuse of discretion (appealable
error).
=====
=====

[Gini]

In article >, Rambler says...
>
>The Dave© wrote:
>>>Bob Whiteside wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In the case of the people mentioned in the original article, I
>>>>>wonder if the guy would have paid if they had still been married.
>>>>
>>>>To me, this is the crux of the issue. As far as I know, there is no
>>>>law or court that would or could force a still-married couple that
>>>>they had to pay for their kid's college education against their
>>>>will. At least not as a matter of standard policy. It would be
>>>>considered an intrusion into an individual family's decisions. I
>>>>fail to see why the parents being divorced changes that.
>>>
>>>Still married parents can be forced to pay CS for college expenses.
>>>If they are separated, but not divorced, the states with CS for adult
>>>children attending school also have provisions for married, separated
>>>parents to be governed by the same type of support law provisions.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure you have me on a technicality, but keep in mind that
>> "still-married" meant "still-married and together". My point, as
>> intended, still stands... even without disclaimers for every possible
>> minor or odd exception.
>>
>> Having said that, does that mean legally separated, or just separated?
>> I believe California, for example, treats legally separated as divorced
>> in at least some CS issues. For that reason, many people advise to
>> just go ahead and get the divorce, so you don't do double the paperwork
>> and pay double the attorney and court fees.
>
>All I can tell you Dave is that out here the law covers children
>regardless of whether the parents are married, married but not living
>together or divorced.
>
>Rambler

=====
Where is "out here?"
=====

[Rambler]

teachrmama wrote:


>
> Are you from Canada, Rambler? If not, where are you from. It's kind of
> scary that the state can tell parents how much they must spend on their
> children beyond their basic needs, and beyond their childhood years.

US citizen living in a common law country. Seeing as it is common law,
I would be surprised if the same statutes are not present in the US code.

Rambler

[Gini]

In article >, Rambler says...
>
>teachrmama wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Are you from Canada, Rambler? If not, where are you from. It's kind of
>> scary that the state can tell parents how much they must spend on their
>> children beyond their basic needs, and beyond their childhood years.
>
>US citizen living in a common law country. Seeing as it is common law,
> I would be surprised if the same statutes are not present in the US code.
====
Surprise. They're not.
====
>
>Rambler

[teachrmama]

"Gini" > wrote in message ...
> In article >, Rambler says...
>>
>>teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Are you from Canada, Rambler? If not, where are you from. It's kind of
>>> scary that the state can tell parents how much they must spend on their
>>> children beyond their basic needs, and beyond their childhood years.
>>
>>US citizen living in a common law country. Seeing as it is common law,
>> I would be surprised if the same statutes are not present in the US
>> code.
> ====
> Surprise. They're not.
> ====
To your knowledge, Gini, are there any states that require the NCP to pay
for graduate school? That whole article really bothered me. Especially
since Dad is already paying enough spousal support that his ex doesn't have
to work at all.

[Gini]

In article >, teachrmama says...
>
>
>"Gini" > wrote in message ...
>> In article >, Rambler says...
>>>
>>>teachrmama wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you from Canada, Rambler? If not, where are you from. It's kind of
>>>> scary that the state can tell parents how much they must spend on their
>>>> children beyond their basic needs, and beyond their childhood years.
>>>
>>>US citizen living in a common law country. Seeing as it is common law,
>>> I would be surprised if the same statutes are not present in the US
>>> code.
>> ====
>> Surprise. They're not.
>> ====
>To your knowledge, Gini, are there any states that require the NCP to pay
>for graduate school?
=====
I am not aware of any--which isn't the same as, there are none. However, I have
not heard of any state in the US requiring college support for grad school.
=====
That whole article really bothered me. Especially
>since Dad is already paying enough spousal support that his ex doesn't have
>to work at all.
=====
It's hideous.
=====
=====

[Bob Whiteside]

"Gini" > wrote in message ...

> ====
> Anyone can "move" anything they wish. But, in the US, a judge cannot award
> college support unless the legistature has legislated that NCPs must pay
for
> college support. The judge does not have the authority to do that. If he
ordered
> college support, absent statute, it would be abuse of discretion
(appealable
> error).
> =====
> =====

As I understand it, most states without a specific post-secondary education
CS law, have a provision that allows a judge to sign a divorce decree
containing language about education support if both parties agree. But Gini
is correct - a judge cannot force CS for an adult child attending school
without statutory authority.

[Bob Whiteside]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gini" > wrote in message
...
> > In article >, Rambler says...
> >>
> >>teachrmama wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Are you from Canada, Rambler? If not, where are you from. It's kind
of
> >>> scary that the state can tell parents how much they must spend on
their
> >>> children beyond their basic needs, and beyond their childhood years.
> >>
> >>US citizen living in a common law country. Seeing as it is common law,
> >> I would be surprised if the same statutes are not present in the US
> >> code.
> > ====
> > Surprise. They're not.
> > ====
> To your knowledge, Gini, are there any states that require the NCP to pay
> for graduate school? That whole article really bothered me. Especially
> since Dad is already paying enough spousal support that his ex doesn't
have
> to work at all.

Two points. The post-secondary education CS statutes cover any type of
advanced educational pursuit including community colleges, colleges and
universities, and any course of study providing professional or technical
training for the child's employment. And, since the level and type of study
is fairly broad scoped, the statutes are age cap by the child's age not the
level of study. Another cap exists in the requirement that there be no
breaks in study except for normal Summer breaks.

Since most adult child attending school statutes cap out at age 21, that age
is reached before an average child gets their bachelors degree and is ready
to move on the graduate school.

[Lanark]

"Casey" > wrote in

> Freedom really means we can sit here and argue about this all day
> without worrying about being suddenly dragged out of our house by the
> secret police for "treason".

Hmmm, they do that all over the world too, what's the big deal?

[Rambler]

Lanark wrote:
> "Casey" > wrote in
>
>
>>Freedom really means we can sit here and argue about this all day
>>without worrying about being suddenly dragged out of our house by the
>>secret police for "treason".
>
>
> Hmmm, they do that all over the world too, what's the big deal?

What? Get dragged out of their homes for saying something. You're
right, they do, and they don't have freedom.

Rambler

[Cloaked]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:54:22 +0800, Rambler
> wrote:

>Cloaked wrote:
>> As far as I am concerned this is a clear cut case of "the State"
>> intervening where they have no damn business being. The "entitlement"
>> I see is that THE STATE seems to feel it is entitled to even make such
>> a decision. This is pompous and arrogant - if not unconstitutional!
>
>But the point is, somebody has to bring a suit in order for "the State"
>to make a determination. "The State" does not and cannot intervene
>without a moving party (and in this case, by "the State" I mean the
>court). Sometimes the moving party is the government, but I have yet to
>see a case where the government (CS, whomever) moved to have graduate
>school paid for.
>
>> Unless the state is prepared to intervene into the familys which are
>> NOT divorced and make similare rulings and laws then the entire idea
>> that the law is applied in an unequitable fashion flies in the very
>> face of the constitution which is supposed to guarantee equal
>> treatment before the law!
>
>But don't they all the time? You have a business dispute with your
>business partner, you determine whether it is worth redress through the
>courts and bing! they make a decision based upon the facts that are put
>forward to them.
>
>As I've read the child support laws, they are equally (here) applicable
>to married and non-married people. If a married parent refuses to pay
>for their children, then the other parent can get a court order to order
>support payments. It is the protection of the children's welfare.
>

I had no idea! I have never heard of this. If this is how the law
reads - as crazy as it is - then I suppose it is equal treatment.
However, I do not ever recall hearing about the law being applied to
married people.

I wonder if this is a case of the law being written to appear
constitutional and fair on paper, but being applied inequitably in
practice?

If a law is written to appear fair, but applied inequitably, can the
government be taken to task on it?


>I am *NOT* saying that it is right to move to force somebody to pay for
>graduate school, but it certainly isn't "the State" that is doing it ...
>it is the other party (either t he other parent or the daughter - sorry,
>didn't even read the article but I presume that it wasn't the daughter
>that was able to move for this.
>
>Remember, *you* chose to marry her.
>
>Rambler

[Gini]

In article >, Cloaked says...
>
>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:54:22 +0800, Rambler
> wrote:
....................

>>
>>As I've read the child support laws, they are equally (here) applicable
>>to married and non-married people. If a married parent refuses to pay
>>for their children, then the other parent can get a court order to order
>>support payments. It is the protection of the children's welfare.
>>
>
>I had no idea! I have never heard of this. If this is how the law
>reads - as crazy as it is - then I suppose it is equal treatment.
>However, I do not ever recall hearing about the law being applied to
>married people.
..................
====
The statutes have no such requirement of intact parents/marriages. Rambler is
simply wrong in his assertion so don't get your hopes up. Imagine the government
monitoring how much money all parents spend on their kids to make sure it is in
relation to their income. The government's *only interest* in the welfare of
children (of CPs and those in intact relationships) is that the children aren't
starving or dangerously cold. There are statutes that require parents to provide
the basic necessities, very basic necessities, of their children. In PA,
according to my very old PA code books, the statutes require only *husbands* to
do this. The state views a wife's income contribution as a gift. She can toss it
in the family pot or not. Her choice. Now, there are statutes addressing the
matter of a CPs spending of the CS money on her personal expenses but it is
rarely rarely enforced with the exception of extremely high CS awards such as
those of professional athletes and Beverly Hills folks. The courts simply do not
care what the CP uses the money for outside the basic needs test.
====
====

[Lanark]

"Rambler" > wrote in

> What? Get dragged out of their homes for saying something. You're right,
> they do, and they don't have freedom.


Bull****, there are many counties that have more freedoms than the average
American!

Don't buy into the propaganda that America is free, every day more and more
rights and freedoms have been depleted in the name of some politically
correct agenda.

[DaKitty]

"Lanark" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Rambler" > wrote in
>
> > What? Get dragged out of their homes for saying something. You're
right,
> > they do, and they don't have freedom.
>
>
> Bull****, there are many counties that have more freedoms than the average
> American!

bwaaahahahaha, you never set yur foot outside the us, have you????

>Don't buy into the propaganda that America is free, every day more and more
>rights and freedoms have been depleted in the name of some politically
>correct agenda.

Now you're confusing political freedoms with socially acceptable behavior.
That's like mixing apples and rocks - If you could be just close enough to
mix apples and oranges would be a plus.

[Phil #3]

"DaKitty" > wrote in message
news:69JHd.6137$Nu.771@fed1read04...
>
> "Lanark" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Rambler" > wrote in
>>
>> > What? Get dragged out of their homes for saying something. You're
> right,
>> > they do, and they don't have freedom.
>>
>>
>> Bull****, there are many counties that have more freedoms than the
>> average
>> American!
>
> bwaaahahahaha, you never set yur foot outside the us, have you????

I'll bite. What freedoms do Americans have that Canadians and Mexicans
don't?
Of the three, Mexico, Canada and the US, it seems that Mexico has more
freedom than the others. At least they don't seem to be ruled by politically
correct speech and pro-feminist laws. I haven't really checked but that's my
impression. BTW, I've been to all three but no further.
Is it true that only the US has mandatory discrimination or the laws that
protect only the politically correct segments of the population?
Phil #3

>
>>Don't buy into the propaganda that America is free, every day more and
>>more
>>rights and freedoms have been depleted in the name of some politically
>>correct agenda.
>
> Now you're confusing political freedoms with socially acceptable behavior.
> That's like mixing apples and rocks - If you could be just close enough to
> mix apples and oranges would be a plus.
>
>

[The Dave©]

> Cloaked wrote:
> Guiness is OK. Other than that Canada has - without question - some of
> the finest beer I have ever tasted, and is home to the only beer I
> will even drink on a repeat basis! Rickards Red!

I agree on the Canada beer thing, in general. Moosehead is my personal
beer of choice. I also have an affinity for German beers, but that's
neither here nor there.

--
It has been determined that research causes cancer in lab rats.

[Casey]

Cloaked said

> Well, I have never liked beer very much. Having said that, I am not
> sure what all the fuss is about "imported beer" here in Canada.
>
> Guiness is OK. Other than that Canada has - without question - some of
> the finest beer I have ever tasted, and is home to the only beer I
> will even drink on a repeat basis! Rickards Red!
>
> Just lemme know when your coming and I'll put a 2-4 on ice.
>
> Good Day, eh.

I like beer (huge understatement) but I'm not really a Guinness fan at
all.

I agree - so far I haven't met a Canadian beer that I didn't like.

One of these days, I'm going to meet John (Lone_Wolf) for a Kokanee
beer-drinking marathon.



Casey

[Gini]

In article >, Cloaked says...
>
>Yeah, well Canada is following the US right down the path to hell. Oh
>the politicians was to brown nose and surrender Canada to the US, but
>the people are taking a lot of time to convince - we are not quite as
>gullible as our sourthern cousins - CLOSE, but not quite - so it will
>take them a little longer to sell us down the river.
>
>In my estimation, it will take some major problem - natural
>catastrophe, infrastructure disaster, civil uprising, terrorist
>attack, even a war perhaps... the US Government is good at engineering
>such things - just look at WWII and Pearl Harbour!
>
>When this event happens, then the Canadian Government will "ask our US
>Neighbours for assistance". Of course, the US will happily send lots
>of assistance! Their military will roll into Canada, and we will
>welcome them with open arms (no pun intended).
======
Not to worry. You're under no threat from the US. The president thinks you're
already part of Alaska and our CIA and FBI have an extremely difficult time
finding things (such as Olympic Park bombers, WMDs, certain members of the bin
Laden family). All you guys need to do is set up some kind of decoys, shift them
about every year or so, and they'll never even be able to locate your border.
======

[Grace]

"Gini" > wrote in

>. The government's *only interest* in the welfare of children (of CPs and
>those in intact relationships) is that the children aren't
> starving or dangerously cold. There are statutes that require parents to
> provide
> the basic necessities, very basic necessities, of their children.

So if a child is living comfortably in a 4 bedroom home and doing well, why
is the government involved in getting extorsionate amounts of money from
NCP's that can't afford these high rates?

[Gini]

In article et>, Grace says...
>
>
>"Gini" > wrote in
>
>>. The government's *only interest* in the welfare of children (of CPs and
>>those in intact relationships) is that the children aren't
>> starving or dangerously cold. There are statutes that require parents to
>> provide
>> the basic necessities, very basic necessities, of their children.
>
>So if a child is living comfortably in a 4 bedroom home and doing well, why
>is the government involved in getting extorsionate amounts of money from
>NCP's that can't afford these high rates?
=====
Federal funds to states based on CS collections.
=====
>
>

[Rambler]

Lanark wrote:
> "Rambler" > wrote in
>
>
>>What? Get dragged out of their homes for saying something. You're right,
>>they do, and they don't have freedom.
>
>
>
> Bull****, there are many counties that have more freedoms than the average
> American!
>
> Don't buy into the propaganda that America is free, every day more and more
> rights and freedoms have been depleted in the name of some politically
> correct agenda.

You don't get out much, do you?

Havng lived in different places around the world all my life, I can
pretty muh guarantee you that you are wrong. It may not be perfect, bu
tiis a damn sigh tcloser than the rest out there.

Rambler

[Phil #3]

"Rambler" > wrote in message
...
> Lanark wrote:
>> "Rambler" > wrote in
>>
>>
>>>What? Get dragged out of their homes for saying something. You're right,
>>>they do, and they don't have freedom.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bull****, there are many counties that have more freedoms than the
>> average American!
>>
>> Don't buy into the propaganda that America is free, every day more and
>> more rights and freedoms have been depleted in the name of some
>> politically correct agenda.
>
> You don't get out much, do you?
>
> Havng lived in different places around the world all my life, I can pretty
> muh guarantee you that you are wrong. It may not be perfect, bu tiis a
> damn sigh tcloser than the rest out there.
>
> Rambler

Can you perhaps explain why American's freedoms are superior to say, Mexico?
Phil #3

[Rambler]

Phil #3 wrote:
> "Rambler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Lanark wrote:
>>
>>>"Rambler" > wrote in
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What? Get dragged out of their homes for saying something. You're right,
>>>>they do, and they don't have freedom.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bull****, there are many counties that have more freedoms than the
>>>average American!
>>>
>>>Don't buy into the propaganda that America is free, every day more and
>>>more rights and freedoms have been depleted in the name of some
>>>politically correct agenda.
>>
>>You don't get out much, do you?
>>
>>Havng lived in different places around the world all my life, I can pretty
>>muh guarantee you that you are wrong. It may not be perfect, bu tiis a
>>damn sigh tcloser than the rest out there.
>>
>>Rambler
>
>
> Can you perhaps explain why American's freedoms are superior to say, Mexico?
> Phil #3

Phil,

I read your previous post and the question has kind of been answered for
you. I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to do an exhaustive
study for you, and I understand that you have never lived in either
Mexico or Canada, but besides the "spending time in a Mexican jail"
thing, consider:

- That the PRI controlled both regional and national elections for I
think it was over 80 years;
- That there is significantly less seperation of Church and State
- That business conglomerates have overwhemling influence (at least the
families I know);
- That the legal system has long been believed to not be independent.

Those four pieces might give you a good start. Now, Mexico is a far cry
from Indonesia, which is a far cry from Zimbabwe, and I won't even get
into where I live, but perhaps youget the picture.

Rambler

[YooperBoyka]

"Rambler" > wrote in message
...
> Phil #3 wrote:
>> "Rambler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Lanark wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Rambler" > wrote in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What? Get dragged out of their homes for saying something. You're
>>>>>right, they do, and they don't have freedom.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bull****, there are many counties that have more freedoms than the
>>>>average American!
>>>>
>>>>Don't buy into the propaganda that America is free, every day more and
>>>>more rights and freedoms have been depleted in the name of some
>>>>politically correct agenda.
>>>
>>>You don't get out much, do you?
>>>
>>>Havng lived in different places around the world all my life, I can
>>>pretty muh guarantee you that you are wrong. It may not be perfect, bu
>>>tiis a damn sigh tcloser than the rest out there.
>>>
>>>Rambler
>>
>>
>> Can you perhaps explain why American's freedoms are superior to say,
>> Mexico?
>> Phil #3
>
> Phil,
>
> I read your previous post and the question has kind of been answered for
> you. I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to do an exhaustive
> study for you, and I understand that you have never lived in either Mexico
> or Canada, but besides the "spending time in a Mexican jail" thing,
> consider:
>
> - That the PRI controlled both regional and national elections for I think
> it was over 80 years;
> - That there is significantly less seperation of Church and State
> - That business conglomerates have overwhemling influence (at least the
> families I know);
> - That the legal system has long been believed to not be independent.
>


....not to mention the genocide that has been occuring in the south
for quite some time.
Seems that the Mexicans continued to wipe out indigeonous peoples
long after the US stopped.

[Phil #3]

"Rambler" > wrote in message
...
> Phil #3 wrote:
>> "Rambler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Lanark wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Rambler" > wrote in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What? Get dragged out of their homes for saying something. You're
>>>>>right, they do, and they don't have freedom.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bull****, there are many counties that have more freedoms than the
>>>>average American!
>>>>
>>>>Don't buy into the propaganda that America is free, every day more and
>>>>more rights and freedoms have been depleted in the name of some
>>>>politically correct agenda.
>>>
>>>You don't get out much, do you?
>>>
>>>Havng lived in different places around the world all my life, I can
>>>pretty muh guarantee you that you are wrong. It may not be perfect, bu
>>>tiis a damn sigh tcloser than the rest out there.
>>>
>>>Rambler
>>
>>
>> Can you perhaps explain why American's freedoms are superior to say,
>> Mexico?
>> Phil #3
>
> Phil,
>
> I read your previous post and the question has kind of been answered for
> you. I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to do an exhaustive
> study for you, and I understand that you have never lived in either Mexico
> or Canada, but besides the "spending time in a Mexican jail" thing,
> consider:

No, the previous post was certainly not answered except with rhetoric.
>
> - That the PRI controlled both regional and national elections for I think
> it was over 80 years;

And that compares to the current situation in the US how? The electorial
college, a group of politicians elect our president; in fact, above the city
or county level, no on seems to be able to even run without the approval of
those in power who also hold the purse strings for election costs. Perhaps I
should be more knowledgeable but my time has been spent in trying to
maintain what little freedom I have as a parent, which is little other than
monitary.

> - That there is significantly less seperation of Church and State

I think this depends on how one views "significantly". For instance, atheism
in the US is met with derision, we say we have freedom of religion while
restricting specific groups who differ in other's understanding of what the
Bible says.
Religion, while not one specific group, has a heavy hand in politics. IMO,
all religions should be taxed like any business instead of granting them use
of our infrastructure free of charge, in effect making everyone pay for
religion's fare share of taxation.
As long as religions use the pulpit to denounce or support political goals
and situations and the government allows them to do so without paying a fair
share of taxes, there is no separation.

> - That business conglomerates have overwhemling influence (at least the
> families I know);

And the US is different? I disagree. The military/industrial complex is more
powerful than the president.
When was the last time the US was allowed to vote for Senator's salary
increases and perks?
Do the American citizens even know, much less get to decide how much is
spent on welfare or warfare?
Who decides the regulations for any of the agencies of the US government
such as the park service, child support or any of the myriad of other
agencies, many of which have questionable need of even being?
I thought the purpose of the US government was to protect the rights of the
individual, not restrict them. As I understood it, the states themselves
were supposed to be the supreme government, telling the federal government
what to do and when instead of the feds telling the states that they won't
get their grants and tax rebates if they don't support federal ideas such as
the 55 mph national speed limit in years past and child support collections
in the present, for example.

> - That the legal system has long been believed to not be independent.
>

Judging by the way men are treated in "family court", and the rules of
agencies that should be of assistance to both parents, I'd say ours is far
less than independent. Judgements are not based on right or wrong; they are
based on popularity and special interests. Laws are created and passed
according to special interest far more than what is necessary or for the
people.

> Those four pieces might give you a good start. Now, Mexico is a far cry
> from Indonesia, which is a far cry from Zimbabwe, and I won't even get
> into where I live, but perhaps youget the picture.

No, sorry, I still don't see how the US system as it is today is superior to
all others. As you say, I've never lived in any other but I do know that
Mexican law is less one of civil suits over someone sipping coffee being
unaware it would be hot or the huge amount of other similar lawsuits. I am
sure the Mexican government is far less concerned with protecting their
people against themselves to the point that every facet of their life is
regimented, such as laws governing bicycle, or even motorcycle helmets, seat
belts in autos and on airplanes, smoking.... the US has a very, very long
list of "don'ts" that are intrusive, unwanted and primarily unneeded.
When a government dictates how it's citizens live their everyday life, there
is no free society. I'm sure this includes all forms of government but
certainly the US system.
Phil #3


>
> Rambler

[DaKitty]

Phil #3 wrote:

> > Mexico?"
> > Keyword and the topic of this branch of the thread was about
freedoms of
> > people within the country.
> >
>
> Bye :)
> Phil #3

You said that before. Are you actually going to follow through this
time, or just act like a tantruming two year old and say bye 67 more
times, as if I'm supposed to care whether you'r here or not?

[Bill in Co.]

DaKitty wrote:
> Phil #3 wrote:
>
>>> Mexico?"
>>> Keyword and the topic of this branch of the thread was about freedoms of
>>> people within the country.
>>>
>>
>> Bye :)
>> Phil #3
>
> You said that before. Are you actually going to follow through this
> time, or just act like a tantruming two year old and say bye 67 more
> times, as if I'm supposed to care whether you'r here or not?

He (like a few others) is going to do the latter. (But I thought you knew
bettter)

[Phil #3]

"Bill in Co." > wrote in message
ink.net...
> DaKitty wrote:
>> Phil #3 wrote:
>>
>>>> Mexico?"
>>>> Keyword and the topic of this branch of the thread was about freedoms
>>>> of
>>>> people within the country.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bye :)
>>> Phil #3
>>
>> You said that before. Are you actually going to follow through this
>> time, or just act like a tantruming two year old and say bye 67 more
>> times, as if I'm supposed to care whether you'r here or not?
>
> He (like a few others) is going to do the latter. (But I thought you
> knew
> bettter)
>

Sorry to disappoint but I've already blocked DaKitty and after this post,
you as well. Typical of thickheaded people like Da Kitty, I've never said I
was leaving before and failed to follow through, which is the reason I
refuse to waste my time arguing and slinging pointless and meaningless
insults.
Who, I wonder are "the others"? I guess people who don't do everything in
their power to degrade, insult and belittle everyone around them.
I have no time to argue pointlessly. My intent was discussion: perhaps one
of you have heard of it. It's the idea where two or more *exchange* ideas
instead of preaching one's personal bias as if only they were the only ones
who, as I like to say: 'got it all knowed up'.
I'm sure your mothers are both sooooo proud :))
Phil #3

>

[DaKitty]

"Bill in Co." > wrote in message
ink.net...
> DaKitty wrote:
> > Phil #3 wrote:
> >
> >>> Mexico?"
> >>> Keyword and the topic of this branch of the thread was about freedoms
of
> >>> people within the country.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Bye :)
> >> Phil #3
> >
> > You said that before. Are you actually going to follow through this
> > time, or just act like a tantruming two year old and say bye 67 more
> > times, as if I'm supposed to care whether you'r here or not?
>
> He (like a few others) is going to do the latter. (But I thought you
knew
> bettter)

Yea, I know better.

[Moon Shyne]

"Phil #3" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > DaKitty wrote:
> >> Phil #3 wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Mexico?"
> >>>> Keyword and the topic of this branch of the thread was about freedoms
> >>>> of
> >>>> people within the country.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Bye :)
> >>> Phil #3
> >>
> >> You said that before. Are you actually going to follow through this
> >> time, or just act like a tantruming two year old and say bye 67 more
> >> times, as if I'm supposed to care whether you'r here or not?
> >
> > He (like a few others) is going to do the latter. (But I thought you
> > knew
> > bettter)
> >
>
> Sorry to disappoint but I've already blocked DaKitty and after this post,
> you as well. Typical of

<degrade, insult and belittle alert>
thickheaded people like Da Kitty
</degrade, insult and belittle alert>

, I've never said I
> was leaving before and failed to follow through, which is the reason I
> refuse to waste my time arguing and slinging pointless and meaningless
> insults.
> Who, I wonder are "the others"? I guess people who don't do everything in
> their power to degrade, insult and belittle everyone around them.
> I have no time to argue pointlessly. My intent was discussion:

<degrade, insult and belittle alert>
perhaps one of you have heard of it.
</degrade, insult and belittle alert>

It's the idea where two or more *exchange* ideas
> instead of preaching one's personal bias as if only they were the only ones
> who, as I like to say: 'got it all knowed up'.

<degrade, insult and belittle alert>
> I'm sure your mothers are both sooooo proud :))
</degrade, insult and belittle alert>

> Phil #3
>
> >
>
>

[Phil #3]

..... your debating and discussion skills are right up there with Bill and
DaKitty bwahahahahahahahahaha.
Phil #3



"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil #3" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Bill in Co." > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> > DaKitty wrote:
>> >> Phil #3 wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> Mexico?"
>> >>>> Keyword and the topic of this branch of the thread was about
>> >>>> freedoms
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> people within the country.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Bye :)
>> >>> Phil #3
>> >>
>> >> You said that before. Are you actually going to follow through this
>> >> time, or just act like a tantruming two year old and say bye 67 more
>> >> times, as if I'm supposed to care whether you'r here or not?
>> >
>> > He (like a few others) is going to do the latter. (But I thought you
>> > knew
>> > bettter)
>> >
>>
>> Sorry to disappoint but I've already blocked DaKitty and after this post,
>> you as well. Typical of
>
> <degrade, insult and belittle alert>
> thickheaded people like Da Kitty
> </degrade, insult and belittle alert>
>
> , I've never said I
>> was leaving before and failed to follow through, which is the reason I
>> refuse to waste my time arguing and slinging pointless and meaningless
>> insults.
>> Who, I wonder are "the others"? I guess people who don't do everything in
>> their power to degrade, insult and belittle everyone around them.
>> I have no time to argue pointlessly. My intent was discussion:
>
> <degrade, insult and belittle alert>
> perhaps one of you have heard of it.
> </degrade, insult and belittle alert>
>
> It's the idea where two or more *exchange* ideas
>> instead of preaching one's personal bias as if only they were the only
>> ones
>> who, as I like to say: 'got it all knowed up'.
>
> <degrade, insult and belittle alert>
>> I'm sure your mothers are both sooooo proud :))
> </degrade, insult and belittle alert>
>
>> Phil #3
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[DaKitty]

Phil #3 wrote:
<degrade, insult and belittle alert>
> .... your debating and discussion skills are right up there with Bill
and
> DaKitty bwahahahahahahahahaha.
<degrade, insult and belittle alert>
*giggle*
I think I'm liking this... thanks Moon Shyne :)

[no@spam.please]

I'm a bit confused by the term "adult children", perhaps I need to hire a lawyer
to explain that to me...

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:31:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:

>Court tells doctor to foot daughter's med school bill
>
>Last Updated Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:59:20 EST
>http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/12/adult-support050112.html
>SURREY, B.C. - British Columbia's highest court has ruled that a doctor must
>pay 50 per cent of the cost of putting his 23-year-old daughter through
>medical school, referring to the money as "child support."
>
>The decision by the province's Court of Appeal could set a precedent because
>previous decisions have decreed that parents with sufficient means are
>responsible only for seeing their children through undergraduate degree
>programs.
>
>As far as the courts were concerned, adult children have been on their own
>when it came to paying for postgraduate education in most circumstances.
>
>The doctor at the centre of the case, William Neufeld, is angry that he must
>shell out as much as $22,000 a year to see his daughter Jennifer through at
>least three years of medical school at the University of Calgary.
>
>"It's just very wrong to teach the children of this province that if they
>happen to be the children of a person who makes more than an average amount
>of money, they can just sit on their ass and do absolutely nothing and
>expect to be paid for it, as long as they're making good marks," he told the
>Vancouver Province Tuesday.
>
>In making the ruling, one judge referred to Jennifer as "an exemplary
>student."
>
>The appeals court based its ruling on the fact that a separation agreement
>Neufeld signed after splitting with Jennifer's mother Barbara in 1999 did
>not set a cap on his educational support for either Jennifer or her younger
>brother.
>
>Barbara Neufeld's only income is from spousal support, the ruling noted.
>
>The ruling also took into account William Neufeld's income of $170,000 a
>year, and said it might have come to a different conclusion for a child
>"simply going to college because there is nothing better to do."
>
>A lawyer acting for Barbara Neufeld said adult children would be unlikely to
>receive such support in future court rulings if they took a long break
>between degrees or went back to school to pursue a second career at some
>point later in life.