Why Requiring Parents to Pay for Postsecondary Education is Unconstituional and Bad Policy

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12221
• Author: Sophia Arzoumanidis
• Date: 01 April 2016
• Published date: 01 April 2016

WHY REQUIRING PARENTS TO PAY FOR POSTSECONDARY

EDUCATION IS UNCONSTITUIONAL AND BAD POLICY

Sophia Arzoumanidis

For divorced parents, the question of who should pay for their child’s college tuition is very difficult, especially when the issue

was never addressed in their separation agreement. Consequently, some states allow judges the discretion to extend child sup-

port duties for noncustodial parents after considering certain factors. Such factors may lead to the requirement of parental con-

tributions to their child’s postsecondary education. While many states have amended their statutes to encompass extended

child support, Pennsylvania is the only state to have found their statute unconstitutional. Based on the Pennsylvania Supreme

Court decision in Curtis v. Kline, this Note argues that, in order to diminish inequalities between divorced and nondivorced

parents, as well as between children of divorced and nondivorced parents, all states should amend their child support statutes

to declare that no parent is obligated to pay for his/her child’s postsecondary education, unless voluntarily agreed to, in writing,

prior to the child entering college.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their

children.

Absent an abuse or neglect situation, courts do not intervene with intact families, and therefore do not obligate such

parents to pay for their child’s college tuition, but can obligate parents of non-intact families.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held where individuals do not have an entitlement to receive a postsecondary educa-

tion, the state has no rational interest in providing only one group of young adults in need of financial assistance with

the legal means to overcome such difficulties.

This nondiscrimination policy behind Pennsylvania’s decision in Curtis v. Kline should be the governing policy

nationwide, and all state legislatures should enact statutes supporting it.

Keywords: Child Support; Financial Assistance; Intact Families; Postsecondary Education; Postsecondary Support

Statute; and Right to Parent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Rachel Canning was a high school senior attending Morris Catholic High School with aspirations of

attending college and becoming a biomedical engineer.

1

In March 2014, Rachel sued her parents “on

claims that they kicked her out of the house and refused to fund her college education.”

2

She made a

request to the court that her parents pay $650 a week for financial support, as well as her college tuition.

3

Rachel’s parents said she voluntarily left the house two days before she turned eighteen because she did not

want to abide by their household rules.

4

Although Mr. Canning was not refusing to pay for Rachel’s educa-

tion, the judge ruled that Mr. and Mrs. Canning were not responsible for their daughter’s college tuition.

5

On the other end of the spectrum, there is C. Black (C.B.) who graduated high school with honors

and was accepted to Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

6

Like Rachel, C.B. had major con-

flict with his parents.

7

His parents were no longer married and he wanted nothing to do with his

father.

8

Although his father felt differently and wanted to attend joint counseling, C.B. refused,

claiming his father treated him badly before the divorce.

9

Correspondence: sarzoumanidis@gmail.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 2, April 2016 314–328

V

C2016 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts