By what law are the parents of Caitlyn Ricci forced to pay her tuition?

December 27, 2014 10:03 AM

The case has been kicking around for a while and all the comments are very excitable but don't shed much light on the judge's ruling. My instinct is to think the judge is wrong, that a child has no right to a college education, but I'd like to hear the other side. So - basically I'm looking for any links to the judge's actual ruling or the relevant law for this case.
posted by IndigoJones to Law & Government (6 answers total)

Best answer: The precedent seems to come from Newburgh v. Arrigo. A case that centered around divorced parents responsibility to pay for schooling

You can fall down a rabbit hole for that one.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 10:19 AM on December 27, 2014

Best answer: If I understand the ruling correctly, it has more to do with family/divorce law than anything else, since the educational support in college does not extend to intact marriages. The law ensures that one divorced parent won't be on the hook for the child's college expenses. The ruling precedent here is Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982).
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:20 AM on December 27, 2014 [3 favorites]

Best answer: I can't find the Ricci decision (in my quick research), but based on news articles, the case relied on a 1982 decision Newburgh v. Arrigo:

>>Generally parents are not under a duty to support children after the age of majority. Nonetheless, in appropriate circumstances, the privilege of parenthood carries with it the duty to assure a necessary education for children. Frequently, the issue of that duty arises in the context of a divorce or separation proceeding where a child, after attaining majority, seeks contribution from a non-custodial parent for the cost of a college education. In those cases, courts have treated "necessary education" as a flexible concept that can vary in different circumstances.

>>Although emancipation need not occur at any particular age, a rebuttable presumption against emancipation exists prior to attaining the age of majority, now 18.
Whether a child is emancipated at age 18, with the correlative termination of the right to parental support, depends upon the facts of each case.

>>In evaluating the claim for contribution toward the cost of higher education, courts should consider all relevant factors, including (1) whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed toward the costs of the requested higher education; (2) the effect of the background, values and goals of the parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education; (3) the amount of the contribution sought by the child for the cost of higher education; (4) the ability of the parent to pay that cost; (5) the relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course of study sought by the child; (6) the financial resources of both parents; (7) the commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education; (8) the financial resources of the child, including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust; (9) the ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation; (10) the availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans; (11) the child's relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance; and (12) the relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to the overall long-range goals of the child.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:22 AM on December 27, 2014 [2 favorites]

Best answer: IANAL. There is case law that supports the idea that college is a necessity of childrearing and not a luxury, age of majority be damned. You can read more in this pdf, which lists relevant case law. What makes this particular case so unusual is that the child has repudiated both parents, which would supposedly make her technically emancipated.
posted by xyzzy at 10:22 AM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

Best answer: A bit of discussion on the Straight Dope Message Board. Particularly useful are the summary of Newburgh v. Arrigo in Post #13, and the debate as to whether the child has a right to a college education.
posted by Johnny Assay at 12:00 PM on December 27, 2014

Response by poster: Perfect! Exactly the sort of things I was looking for. Many thanks to all. (Though the judge's ruling in the current case is around, links appreciated. I expect it would reflect most of what is found here, but still- could be interesting in its own right.)
posted by IndigoJones at 4:30 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]