Agreed, I just meant I could weight it out -- others may be living on macornia and cheese while dealing with divorce.

And btw, I make every effort to facilitate my X seeing DD. I drove on virtually all pickups/deliveries, make certain she is packed and ready, etc.

I live in Jersey (as you can tell from my name!) and we had a legal battle over college tuition for my SD. She and her mother moved away before her senior year of high school. She had no contact with her father for that entire year and was pretty much a spoiled girl who never was expected to contribute to her own college (by her mother anyway). Luckily, they had started saving for their kids when they were little and so they only needed to pay for 2 years (at one of the most expensive schools in the country...so it was still extremely expensive). Anyway, between her freshman and sophmore years of college my SD lived with us and rather than appreciate our opening our hearts and home after all the pain she caused, she stole from us, lied to us (we actually thought we could make a difference). So, she went back to school and wouldn't talk to us (didn't really want to talk to her either!). Her father told her that he expected her to contribute to college, especially given the fact that she blew a chance at a $16,000 scholarship by not returning the forms. SO, my husband outlined terms for his willingness to continue to pay for her to go to that school and she violated all of them (get counseling, GPA, have a job, not lie -- that was a two-fer: she got fired and lied about it!). So then her mom decided to hire an attorney and we were told that in NJ there IS an expectation that parents send their kids to college -- especially when the parents are college educated themselves (and my husband has a graduate degree, so we were told it would be pretty hard to prove that he should not contribute anymore to her). We did settle and paid ONLY BECAUSE my SD surprised us and did something mature: she took a summer class and will increase her classload this semester so that she graduates a semester early -- saving us around $25,000. So, we took that as her contribution and continue to pay.

As for support during college -- not sure about where you live, but here they do not recognize that the child is away because their home needs to be maintained for them. There is no reduction in child support while the kid is at college, though I think our attorney said you could argue that you are paying twice because you're paying for the meal plan, etc. so if you wanted to spend money on attorney fees, you might save a few bucks (to us, not worth it).

I am soooooooooo looking forward to December when my SD is out of college and off the payroll!

Thank God my SS lives with us and WE will be in charge of the college process. We will ensure that he doesn't go dorm shopping for all the latest and greatest things -- and then charge them back to the other parent. We'll make sure that he doesn't shop in the book store for CDs, clothes, etc. and charge them back as "Book Store Expenses" ugh.

Jersey step mom,

When you wrote earlier about blowing a chance at a 25,000 scholarship, I think the concensus was that the chance of receiving a National Merit Scholarship, absent need, family, work, etc connection is very small. So I think you should let go of that.

I am glad to hear she is doing fine in school now.

We knew that she was going to receive it -- it was through my husband's job and it was given to a colleague's daughter instead. I don't think I ever said $25,000 for that.......but there was other money that she was irresponsible with......

Also, that is one easy thing to point out. There are numerous examples of blowing money: traffic tickets, late fees, etc. etc. The point is she and her mother are irresponsible with money and expect to charge us for everything.

Jersey,

In my stepkids case, the original order was in Arkansas. UIFSA rules are that whatever the original place of the order is, the duration allowed for in that state is the duration of the order, even if the order is modified in a state with other rules. IN Arkansas, support is not ordered after high school, unless there is agreement between the parties.

That is why we wont be paying my husbands ex anything. We will pay part of the tuition and we will give the children living money, providing the relationship is still intact. But we dont HAVE to.

kath-
Thanks for creating the new thread...I was feeling violated. Not really...

Just a couple things I wanted to clarify re: our situation.

I'm not sure "amicable" describes my DH's relationship with his ex, at this point. Although he is thrilled that his daughter is finally getting what she needs (in her words), he is still really, really angry at the time, energy, emotion and money that it's taken for her basic need (of a closer relationship w/her father) to be met. Not only did he lose his ass in their divorce, he also fought the move-away 10 years ago...to the tune of well over $10K. And with the recent legal stuff, he's racked up another $5K.

Some here will say that that's a good $15K that could have been used on college costs for kids. And while that is true, I doubt that would happen. Because, as I've stated, my husband feels that it is not a parents obligation to foot the bill for higher education. He feels that they will work harder and take their education more seriously if they know that it's coming out of their own pocket. Not to say parents shouldn't contribute in other ways; they should, and we do.

Interestingly, I had lunch with oldest son today, who will start his sophmore year of college this fall. I shared with him the whole "debate" going on here about free ride from parents vs. towing the line. He said that although "it would be nice not to have to worry about student loans when I get done, I really think I'm way more serious about my studies than my friends who's parents are footing the bill". This, from a 20 yr. old.

That said, we are not opposed to helping all of the kids. With oldest, he eats here a few times a week, takes home left-overs, does his laundry here, etc. With SS, we will do the same, although he'll be a little farther away.

Both SS & SD do have college trusts set up from their MGP's, which is nice. And while I am not fundamentally opposed to it, I still think that they should contribute something toward their higher education.

The other clarification that I wanted to make is that the relationship between my DH and his ex has nothing to do with his decision not to pay for college. The fact that they already have college trust funds set up is one reason. But that's not all of it. Even if we were millionaires, he would still expect them to contribute to their higher education.

Jersey, in teh first lengthy discourse on the $25,ooo, you didnt mention it was through your DHs job. And there is a world of difference between traffic tickets and 25K.

If one of my children had a ambitions to go to college I would have moved heaven and earth to help him. But legally we do not have to pay for a child's education. The law requires our kids to go to school until they are 16, unless the law has changed we don't even have to pay for that. When I was single I tried very hard to stay off welfare because there was no privacy laws then. If a child had a welfare lunch card everyone knew it. Someone told me she didn't pay a dime towards her child education and he still went to school free. I tried it because I couldn't afford to live on my pay and my children went to school free. I am not proud of that fact, but it was that or welfare.

As far as I know there is no law in the country that can force you to pay for a college education. Most of us would end up broke when we retired and do you think the majority of kids would give us money to help us in our retirement.

KKNY, you simply want to fight. It's about a child accepting responsibility for their own education. Clearly, as Nicksmom is saying -- no matter how much money you have, the kids should take some responsibility. It is part of parenting: teaching children how to handle and appreciate money. Quite honestly, when my SS goes to college, we may force him to take out a student loan just to go through the exercise and have a vested interest. WE would then pay it off afterwards......

The point about the tickets and library fines and late fees, etc. is about a spoiled kid who doesn't give a darn about being responsibile because Mommy will bail her out. Problem is Mommy never taught her how to take charge of things so that she would NOT incur all those unnecessary fees. My case was clearly biomom trying to get as much money out of dad as possible.....lucky for biomom, we will not do the same when dealing with my SS and college. He already appreciates money much more because we worked hard to make him understand.

There is a huge difference between a student taking out six thousand or so in student loans, and putting himself through college. It is the twelve thousand dollar difference (if they attend a public university at a secondary campus) that I am concerned with.

In my state, the law states that both parents must contribute to the student's college educational costs, but apparently it is all too easy to wiggle out of it. Child support continues until they are out of college, or 23 (or maybe 24). That is not negotiable.

I don't see why the relationship with the non-custodial parent should have anything to do with it. Then all the NCP (or the stepparent) has to do is to sabotage the relationship and he (or she) is off the hook.

Jersey, it shouldnt be "we" forcing. It should be up to his parents. You live in a house your DH paid for (according to your earlier posts - OK you did pay for furniture) and yet you object to your DH paying for college.

Many children appreciate college, even when mom and dad pay for it. You can rationalize your way out of anything. Thank god Mom isnt afraid to use lawyers to get the kids college paid for.

>>>I don't see why the relationship with the non-custodial parent should have anything to do with it. You're right...it shouldn't.

>>>Then all the NCP (or the stepparent) has to do is to sabotage the relationship and he (or she) is off the hook. Yeah, because all NCP's (and ESPECIALLY stepparents) are evil and wicked...we all know that!

>>>Thank god Mom isnt afraid to use lawyers to get the kids college paid for. Will let you know the outcome of that. That's exactly what DH's ex is trying. Somehow, I doubt it's gonna fly...because there's NO LAW (at least in our state) that requires ANYONE to pay for SOMEONE ELSE's college, since college is OPTIONAL!

No, not all NCP's or stepparents are wicked, but there are a lot of NCP's who want to wiggle out of supporting their children, and that would be an easy way of doing so.

Nicks mom,

I was referring to Jerseystepmom -- who says it is in her state.

KKNY: when my SS's mom decided to move 2 hours away from her son and leave him for me to raise, I earned the right to participate in his disciplining and activities and rules. What does who bought my house have to do with it? What I object to is a wack job raping her ex-husband financially all in the name of doing what is best for her daughter (yes, his too). You can't give someone the finger with one hand while holding out the other for tens of thousands of dollars. Wait, actually you can.....and they did.

My husband and I split our finances and thanks to my money too, his son gets to live a very nice life. But that is not relevant -- what counts is that if I have to do carpool, grocery shop, cook meals, etc. etc. then I also get a right to opine when it comes to "their" child.

Also, to theotherside.....do you really think that we stepparents are so evil that we would sabotage a child for the sake of saving some college money? Well, I don't know about the people you know, but in all the stepfamilies I know, no one would harm a child that way. I'm sure there are slimballs out there who would, but then look at all the slimballs who are biomoms......some people are evil, but not everyone, and probably not the majority.

>>>but there are a lot of NCP's who want to wiggle out of supporting their children, and that would be an easy way of doing soYes, and here's a perfect example. My SD just received word that her wish to live here is finally coming true. One of the things on her mom's "list of condition": NO CHILD SUPPORT. Now that she's gonna be the NCP, whe wants to "wiggle out of that" financial and moral obligation that she held their father to while he was the NCP. The obligation that he NEVER tried to "wiggle" out of.

Get your head out of the clouds (or wherever you happen to have it tucked away), and get real!

Nick, Arent mom's parents paying for college?

kkny,

Yes, Mom's parents established educational trusts for each of their grandchildren when they were born, or sometime very early in life.

Why do you ask?

I would be glad to forgo child support for one child if my exH were willing to pay for college for another. Financially I would come out way ahead.

Yes, there are many people who would be more than willing to sabotage their relationship with their kids to avoid having to pay for college. There are quite a few NCP who are more than willing to disappear out of their kids lives completely to avoid paying child support - why would you doubt that there are many people who would do the same to avoid paying for college?

So, there are 10 states that allow for child support to be extended for college, without agreement of both parties. Another four states age of majority is 21, so support continues until then. That means 38 states do not require parents to pay support during college, nor college expenses, unless they agree to do so.

In those states, it would certainly be a good idea for custodial parents who wish to see non custodial parents help out with college costs, try to foster a good relationship between the child and the parent, and keep conflict between themselves and that parent to a minimum.

I think it would be important for CP in those states to make sure that college expenses were addressed very specifically, with dollar amounts or percentages, in the divorce settlement.

It would be extremely stressful for a child to spend their entire childhood and teenage years walking on eggshells to make sure they never antagonize their NCP or his/her spouse because doing so would mean they couldn't go to college. If the NCP or spouse is emotionally labile, as is the case with my exH's spouse, no matter how close the relationship, at any moment the person can decide that the child has slighted him/her somehow and use that as justification for reneging on any promises. When you are dealing with people like that, it doesn't have to make sense, it is nothing the child has done or not done, it is all in the person's head - but knowing that doesn't make it any easier on the child when his or her college plans could go up in smoke at any time.

Nicksmom -- my point is that moms family is paying. And some people here would say that if SD lost contact with mom, the moms parents would be justified in seeing if the trust funds could be shifted to others.

Kathline/TOS -- that is why I think it can be better to address in court approved docs, which regardless of whether state will require, will respect. TOS, my agreement has Xs amount unlimited, specifically providing for any college, etc. I have heard of agreements where NCP will pay an amount equal to state schools, a % etc.

Kathline,

I am sure you wouldn't decide not to turn over the trust fund to your stepchildren because they forgot to load the dishwasher, or because you had a bad day at work. What if your stepchildren had to stay in the good graces of someone with the oversensitivity of Thurman, but who was also inconsistent? At least Thurman consistently detests his stepdaughter. What if their parent or stepparent would give them the shirt off their back one minute, and the next minute fly into a rage because they didn't ask for seconds at dinner? It is horribly stressful to try to stay in the good graces of someone like that, and no matter how hard they try, they could be packed for college and have the person pull the rug out from under them.

I work with the public, and I meet people like that all the time. One minute they are sweet as pie, and the next they are swearing at the computer, or screaming at us or at their children.

kkny,

I think that was a good idea to have that specified. My lawyer insisted that it would be better to put in something about the ratio being according to each of our resources and income, so that he would have to pay more as his income rose. She did the same thing with child support. I should never have listened to her - that vague language allowed him to get out of paying a penny, and also has allowed him to continue paying a pittance in child support.

>>>but knowing that doesn't make it any easier on the child when his or her college plans could go up in smoke at any time.Well, their college plans don't have to be considered "up in smoke", because they can work and take out student loans.

>>>Nicksmom -- my point is that moms family is paying. And some people here would say that if SD lost contact with mom, the moms parents would be justified in seeing if the trust funds could be shifted to others.Yes. I see your point. However, just because SD is coming to live here for high school, does NOT mean she is losing contact with her mother. SS remains very close with his mom & stepdad. My husband feels very strongly about continuing to foster that relationship, despite the distance. She will visit frequently (every 4-8 weeks), as well as spend the majority of all vacation time w/Mom, including 7 or 8 weeks in summer. I'm not concerned about her losing contact w/her mother being the impetus for her to lose the college trust from her grandparents.

In reality, I'm not sure how deadset my DH would be about sharing tuition costs, IF there weren't these college trusts available. But they were established when DH was still married to ex...they've been there for a LONG time. Both he AND mom have been planning on the kids using those funds for many, many years. The fact is that tuition, books & room/board are covered. DH is willing to help with everything else.

"The fact is that tuition, books & room/board are covered. DH is willing to help with everything else. "

It seems that Moms family is paying for most. You seem to keep putting this in the background, when complaining about money. Many divorced parents would be glad to have that deal, and would concede on other points out of fairness. I dont think you are focusing on that. My guess is, even if he doesnt say it, your dh is.

"I don't see why the relationship with the non-custodial parent should have anything to do with it. Then all the NCP (or the stepparent) has to do is to sabotage the relationship and he (or she) is off the hook."

Absolutely agreed. And TOS paints an all-too-real picture of how it, unfortunately, *can* be with some ---not all, certainly, but SOME--- NCP's and/or their spouses.

IF college funding is going to be promised and/or legally enforced, then it needs to be black or white, with no wiggle room of this sort. Overall, a system like (based on subjective valuation of what consitites a "good" enough or "close" enough relationship between NCP and bio-child) is far too slanted in favor of the adults in the situation. The reason being that ---despite the accounts of so many minor stepchildren who can be so sophisticatedly "manipulative"--- adults (just by virtue of having more years under their belts) have far more experience, practice, and/or exposure to the slimiest ways & means of the world and ways of manipulating situations to get out of things (not to mention access to legal assistance in doing so), moreover in situations where they have legally-sanctioned power, dominance and authority which the kids do not possess. Of course, the extent of the sliminess varies, but no child is going to be better versed on such sliminess than an adult.

These adults were also the ones who made the decision to divorce, remarry, sometimes have additional kids, and/or move away, and to make decisions about visitation (which is sometimes very infrequent), and opt for certain expenditures over others, all of which are factors which can negatively impact the "goodness" or "closeness" of the relationship with their bio-kids, which become hurdles and uphill climbs in maintaining good ties, and none of which were decided upon by the child.

(To be fair, sometimes there is also interference from one or more of the divorced parents, which prevents or makes difficult what we might call a "good" or "close" relationship with either of the parents.)

But then, suddenly it's all on the *child*, amidst all these changes, adjustments, and emotional negotiations (not to mention their own adjustments as adolescents) to do their best to walk on eggshells and not pi$$ off NCP or NCP's new spouse or NCP's new kids, EVER, lest the NCP (or NCP's spouse) decide bio-child doesn't really deserve the support enough.

It always deeply saddens me to hear how outrageously conditional the expectations are for the *kids* in these situations, and somehow the poor ol' NCP is portrayed as being "taken for a ride", inconvenienced, put-out, or "raped financially" because they had a child and thus have parental responsibilities (regardless of geography).

For this reason, I would strongly argue that the support --if it's going to be promised or legally enforced in the first place-- NOT be tied to the [very subjective and amorphous] condition of "how good the relationship is" between parent and child. Seen another way, if the NCP knew that s/he had to pay out the money no matter what and could not wriggle out of it, then *NCP & spouse* might be the ones ---rightly so--- to have a more vested interest in fostering and maintaining a good relationship with the child. If for no better or more loving reason than simply so as to not feel "raped financially" when they have to fulfill parental responsibilities.

If the college support is NOT officially promised and/or legally enforced 9which is, in fact, the case in most states) then it woudl be better to simply allow the child to grow up not expecting it and thus have many years to prepare for this reality and to save, get scholarships, etc. Then, if the NCP wants to "surprise" the child with the support later, that's great. But this wacked-out situation where the child does not know from one day (or visit) to the next what s/he will be able to count on, or if promises will be reneged b/c of some atrocious offence like not saying "hi" enough when SP walks into the room is just not fair or healthy at all.

Not to mention the gross possibility of training one's children to fake closeness for a prize, or that the formation of relationships should always have an end-goal of gain. And we wonder where "manipulative children" come from!

KKNY, I totally agree that college should be addressed at the time of the divorce decree. In pretty well every state, that would ensure that its enforceable. The current system isnt consistently fair to anyone, not the parents , not the children for sure.

In Canada, there is no choice. Support continues automatically at least until the first undergrad degree is finished. ALthough non custodial parents sometimes b*tch and moan about it, it does cut down on animosity because they know right from the start how long support will last, there can be no arguing about it, and MOST ncp are quite content to pay , since it is expected of them and non negotiable. There is a lot less fighting about something if its enshrined in the guidelines. ALmost every child support fight that gets to the courts in Canada is about what constitutes an extraordinary cost...not about guideline amounts. THe more things that are set in stone and non negotiable, the less fighting there is. The only people that win in the fighting are the lawyers. Everyone else loses.

The United states just isnt that easy. There are huge differences between states in support guideline levels, what is counted, what is not, and whether or not college is awarded for. The north west states and the northern eastern seaboard tend to award for college. The south, and the midwest mostly do not. Coincidentally? the number of people living in the northwest or the north east, who have a bachelor degree or higher, is several times more prevelant than people in the south or midwest who have that same level of degree.

That begs the question, is college support being awarded in those states one of the reasons why far more people in those states have degrees? Or , are those states more willing to award college support because a person cant be expected to s urvive in one of those states unless they do have a degree? Or , perhaps the people living in those states have education as a higher value that they see as important for their children, and thus enshrine it in law. I dont know. Maybe all of the above.

TOS,

Of course I wouldnt do something like that. Firstly though, the money in trust for my stepchildren is my own personal money, not my husbands ( their fathers). I started the funds for them because as my step children, they are part of my family and deserve college support, just like all my other children had. Currently, there is enough in their funds to cover state tuition , books, residency costs, and a small amount of living money, for a four year degree.

About the only scenario I could imagine that I would keep the money is if the children totally rejected their father and refused to come visit or contact himm for a lengthy period of time. If they denigrated him, cut him off, acted as if they do not care for him in any way, then I would be hard pressed to spend money on them. We dont have that situation, nor would we. Both my Skids are closer to their dad than they are to their mom.

And yes, I do agree, some NCP would try to cause a wedge just to get out of supporting the child through college. A LOT Of NCP resent every penny that goes to support and want nothing more than to get it finished with asap.

But conversely, there are also a lot of custodial parents who absolutely hate their ex spouse, and use the children to try to hurt the ex spouse by driving a wedge between the kids and their non custodial mom or dad. There are custodial fathers who consider their ex spouse nothing more than trash to be swept from the childrens lives, because they are mad that she had the nerve to leave them. There are many custodial mothers who consider the kids HER children, and their non custodial father to be nothing more than a wallet on legs. Some people, both men and women, cannot put their own animosity aside long enough to realize that kids can love both parents. I would go on a limb here and say that in most divorced families, there is animosity on some level. SOme people just have a hard time controlling it.

If college has not been addressed at the time of divorce, then its probably best for the children in those families not to make college plans based on assumed contributions from their parents. That way they can be surprised and pleased if the parents DO come through.

Of course, what would be much better is if there is some kind of consistency about the whole thing.

To Serenity Now: to clarify my "raped financially" comment. I was not saying that to pay for his daughter's college is raping him financially. I meant that to choose one of the most expensive schools in the country, without consulting him and having a discussion about how it would all be paid for, and by spending money frivilously and then charging it back (cool new things to decorate the dorm, concert tickets that fall under money used in a college account labeled "meal money") -- this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Not to mention sorority dues, parking tickets, library fines, etc. etc. while at the same time wanting nothing to do with the "wallet" that they expected to share the costs.......THAT is raping someone financially. It is disrespectful and inappropriate. And, it doesn't teach the child about handling money wisely. Instead it is a "take what you can get from him" attitude. My husband has a crazy ex who has always tried to use the kids against him. She ruined one poor girl who has a long tough road ahead.......but thankfully, WE have the other who will be just fine (and already knows that expenses that are from stupidity or laziness will not be paid by us).

Well lets see, sorority dues -- depends on parents income. Parking tickets, library fines -- HOW MUCH ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?? As to one of the most expensive schools in the country -- those are usually the toughtest to get in. And again, if you as you say, split the household bills, big deal if DAD bought the house. I dont think that SM is the only one who should benefit from dads income. And "WE" dont have the SS, Dad does. Statistically most second marriages end in divorce.

KKNY: you are really a riot! You are hung up on the fact that I did not buy the house I live in with my husband. You forget that the house I sold to move into this one had proceeds that were used for this house and our family (by that I mean my husband and SS).

SM isn't the only one benefiting from Dad's income....but SD doesn't deserve to be showered with cash when she lies to her father, steals from him and her SM, refuses to answer his calls or talk to him, parties all the time while at college, gets fired from her job during school (then lies about it) and has excuse after excuse for her poor behavior (it's never her fault). To SD's credit, most of the excuses are made for her by her mother (though I'm sure she feeds them to her mother). By the way, I work too and help us to sustain a very nice life that SS has come to enjoy.

And, yes, WE do have SS.......he moved in with me because I live with his father, granted. However, since I have had to take on the role of mother......WE take care of him and I have earned the right to say "WE" with regard to SS.

Yes, statistically that is true about 2nd marriages, but......I intend to stay around forever to spend every last penny that my Skids could inherit.

FYI, that is a joke.....but I know that you will say "aha, told you so!" :-D

Some parents CAN't foot the bill for higher education. We are telling the girls now how important school and good grades are. Jonathan and I will be lucky to ever retire no less pay for three kids school.

Jersey, you said the money went as follows:

"kkny: No, I don't have the money from my former house -- I spent it on paying off property that I bought for OUR retirement, our furniture, our wedding, and our honeymoon." So I assume that you are now living in home that Dad bought. So stop crabbing when the kids need money. Dad obviously has it, or the courts wouldnt have ordered college payments.

KKNY said "Statistically most second marriages end in divorce"

So is this why you never remarried or is it because you can't get over yourself?

No Ashley. I havent had a serious relationship for a number of reasons, including I have my DD about 95% of the time, dont want a man in house until she goes to collegd, so far the only men who have asked me out have children and I dont want to go there. But even if I were to have a serious relationship, doubt I would get married. Too difficult to combine house/money at my age.

>>>It seems that Moms family is paying for most.Yes, her FAMILY! Not her. The children's GRANDPARENTS have the trust fund.

>>>You seem to keep putting this in the background, when complaining about money.Never once has it been put in the background. In fact, I think it's mentioned in at least every other post/reply on this subject. Have I complained about money?

>>>Many divorced parents would be glad to have that deal, and would concede on other points out of fairness.I think it is a good deal...one that both kids and both of their parents have always planned on. And what points would you concede on? And in fairness to whom?

>>>I dont think you are focusing on that. My guess is, even if he doesnt say it, your dh is.Focusing on what?

Yes, but it is still moms family. It appears that neither Dad nor his family are paying anything towards kids college. You talk about college expenses being "covered". They arent covered. Moms family is paying. And so what that Dad has planned on it. As to fairness, I thought I saw a list of items you were taking apart. I would hope that Dad, as a teacher, would value that Moms parents are paying his kids tuition.

If Mom & Dad were still married, the kids would be getting the same money...from their grandparents. I'm missing your point here, I guess. The college expenses (tuition, books, room & board) are "covered", since they both have college trusts to "cover" those expenses.

And again, for clarification please:
>>>would concede on other points out of fairnessAnd what points would you concede on?
And in fairness to whom?
Have I complained about money?

And, as doodle so eloquently put it:
>>>Some parents CAN't foot the bill for higher education. We are telling the girls now how important school and good grades are.We don't expect our children to support us in our old age , so it would not be in their best interest if we paid for their college instead of toward our retirement. Just the facts, here...

In the "great news" thread you discussed a number of monetary issues. Given that moms parents are paying for all of college -- it seems that the focus would be a little different.

The only money issues mentioned, were the one's Mom mentioned in her list of conditions. However, I certainly wasn't *complaining* about money.

The fact that mom's parents are paying for college should have nothing to do with the finances between mom & dad.

And again:
And what points would you concede on?
And in fairness to whom?

Your stepchildren's college education is going to be paid for by a third party; I gather there was no third party stepping up to pay for your own son's education. I suspect you wouldn't feel so strongly about the supposed "rightness" of children being forced to put themselves through college if some relative of your son had a trust fund for him.

I said in a previous post that even if we were millionaires, we would still expect our children to contribute to their own college costs. Even though SS's college will be paid for by his MGPs, he is still going to work on campus so he has spending/fun money. So, even if I had a rich relative step up to the plate, my feelings would probably be real similar.

There is a huge difference between "putting yourself through college" and "contributing" or working for spending money, a difference amounting to tens or even a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

What a Crappy Crappy crappy education system. At least here it user pays through the Higher Education Contribution Shame. America The Land of the Brave and The Free. RIGHT!
The Brave is stuck on Some Shithole reservation and Education and Medical cost a Goddamn fortune!

amen!, monoral75.

Never was this so obvious to my older son as last year, when he lived in Europe. He came home VERY enlightened, and although he loves the "freedom" we have, he realizes we really are not free at all....

Everything costs too much. Gas is out of this world. Food prices are going up. College trust funds? You must be kidding, right? With the families insurance, school expenses, clothing costs, baby sitter fee, rent, car payments, car insurance, renters insurance, phone bill, grocery bill, utilities....etc. etc. There is little left!

We get no help from mom at all for nothing. I have a child of my own on the way and two others that are not mine that I am financialy responsible for because without me they would have to go without alot of things. I'm not going to let them go without. That isn't an option. I can tell you trust funds arn't gonna happen. We are killing ourselves making it week to week. The economy is hard right now.

It isn;t that I wouldn't LOVE to pay their way through a kick ass Ivy League school because I would. I always say "If we won the lottery....." but the chances of that are slim to none. The real SCARY thing is I make decent money. How to people making only minimum wage make it?

Everything is relative, free as compared to who, what and where. compared to third world countries we are free and rich. From what I have read in Great Britain, you pay 98% death taxes, they have socialized medical care and you may have to wait a year for surgery, but if you slip the doctor enough money you can get in ahead of the other citizens. Compared to Kuwait, they pay no taxes, they share to oil profits. Viet Nam citizens pay taxes and get nothing for their money. due to graft. Here we pay taxes and and have a list of services I am not even going to try and list. We are as free as we can get. How we live our life if up to us. I believe 90% of the choices we make are what makes us successful or failing. The rest luck.

Stargazzer-

There are places worse off than us but I still think the majority of the US is struggling. I think choices can only get you so far. I have friends with degrees that are doing them no good becuase the State Jobs are cutting back across the board, thousands of positions in Florida have been totally eliminated. Alot of hard working, well educated people are jobless right now.Some have had these jobs for a loooong time. They made no poor choices, It's the economy working against them.

The great depression hurt everyone. Suicide rates sky rocketed because many rich people who had made good decisions their entire life went bankrupt. Sometimes it is beyond the control of the people. People are struggling right now even people like me who do have really good state jobs and an education. If you have been to a gas pump lately you know what I'm talking about. My job requires me to burn almost 200 bucks a week in gas alone. That is some peoples entire pay checks in gas!!!!

And the cost of healthcare...OMG! I'm a nurse, with a decent salary. We just learned that our premiums are going up 33%!!! Some families will be paying nearly $1000/mo for insurance! I'm lucky that we are all covered under my DH's insurance, which is great. But I really feel for the girls that work at our front desk. If they are only making $10-14/hour, it won't even be worth it for them to work.

My mom just had surgery and was only in the hospital for 36 hours. So far, her bills total over $24K!!! That just shocks me! She had absolutely no problems or complications. Thank God she has insurance.

Just unreal...