It’s no secret college tuition, room and board, books, and related fees is extremely expensive. In a recent study, the College Board reports that a moderate college budget for in-state public college every academic year is $24,610, whereas a moderate budget for a private collage is $40,320. Married persons with the same children can choose whether, and to what extent, to assist their children with college expenses. In some states, however, children of divorcing or divorced parents may get a surprise from the Court, as in an order to pay all or some of the child’s college tuition and fees!
Unlike Nebraska and South Dakota, the State of Iowa is one of approximately seventeen states where a Court can order divorcing parents to pay part or all of the child’s college tuition and fees. This can be done one of two ways in the State of Iowa. First, divorcing parents may agree by written stipulation, which can be approved by the Court, if and to what extent they will help pay for their children’s college expenses, legally referred to as a post-secondary education subsidy. If divorcing parents do not agree to pay post-secondary education expenses, the Court can, upon application of either parent, mandate how and to what extent each parent will pay for the child’s college expenses. To do so, the Court must first find good cause for the educational subsidy for any child of divorcing or divorced parents who is between the ages of 17 and 23.
Once good cause exists, the Court must determine the cost of postsecondary education based upon the reasonable cost of attending an in-state public college. Generally, the cost of undergraduate studies is the average cost of tuition, room, board, books, and supplies at the local public undergraduate institutions (for example, the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa).
Unlike some states which can require divorcing parents to pay 100% of a child’s college tuition, the most Iowa Courts can order either parent to provide is one-third of the total costs. In other words, at most, each parent may be responsible for a maximum of one-third of the cost, while the student is responsible for the remaining one-third. In making this order, the Court must determine the amount the child can contribute to his/her college education, taking into consideration things such as the child’s financial resources, grants, scholarships, student loans, ability to earn wages while attending school, and monies saved or gifted for college expenses. Clearly, this is not an appropriate determination for the Court until the child nears age 17 or is capable of applying for college grants, scholarships, etc.
If a post-secondary education subsidy is ordered, it is to be paid to the child and/or the educational institution, not to the other parent. Further, within ten days of completing each academic session, the child must forward to each parent his/her grade reports. Unless the parents agree otherwise, a postsecondary education subsidy awarded by the Court shall end when the child completes the first calendar year of course instruction if the child fails to maintain a cumulative grade point average of at least the median range that first calendar year. In other words, the child must keep some skin in the game and can’t pull a “Van Wilder” (e.g. a permanent student who takes the minimum class load and passes classes by the skin of his/her teeth).
Significantly, if a child has repudiated (e.g. disowned, abandoned, refuses to acknowledge his/her parent), a post-secondary education subsidy shall not be ordered.
There has been some talk among attorneys and legislators regarding trying to get rid of this somewhat strange law. What is your opinion? Should Courts be able to order divorcing or divorced parents to pay up to one-third of a child’s undergraduate studies when married persons cannot be ordered to do so?
The information contained is for informational purposes only, and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. You should not act or rely on any information herein.
This is a law that was recently brought to my attention following my divorce from 2009. Luckily my ex husband and I agreed that we would get it legally documented that ours kids were responsible for their own post-secondary education and our contribution would be voluntary and on each of our own terms, if we chose.
I do not understand how a law can only apply to a divorced demographic. Seems discriminatory to me.
It would definitely be interesting to view the legislative history on the law and whether the fact that married persons are not required to provide post-secondary assistance was considered.
It has to do with the fact that many divorcing men — sometimes at the behest of their lawyers — would try to use college tuition as a bargaining chip to lower child support. Women would let go of the college money to insure child support, which left the kids pretty screwed come college time. On the other hand, children whose parents hadn’t divorced were more likely to have parents who would help them pay for college, leaving kids of divorce at a steep disadvantage. Whether that’s because the married mothers want it to happen, and the dads go along, I don’t know, but it’s telling that in these “I shouldn’t have to pay” cases the litigant is usually a divorced dad making more than the mom.
No I feel parents should be able to help their child when they can what if they barely make it to make parents struggle to make ends meet them selves as the child gets to get funded I feel it’s their responsibility to take care of there costs and live within their needs and kit rely on parents to support the education after supporting them all the years prior just feel shouldn’t be made too I’m in situation now and I feel in fair to be made too in stead of helping when can instead of making parents struggle NOT FAIR
This law needs to go…..
I agree that this law needs to go. My ex-wife seemingly used this law as a vendetta against me 15 years after our divorce. It drove a wedge between myself and my daughter.
Yes I agree, same situation here. Especially when my child refuses to speak with me and treat me horribly it’s unfair that I should be forced to pay for further education.
Some states have laws which don’t require a parent to pay if the child refuses to have a relationship with him / her.
Interesting that this commentary does not address the parent refusing a relationship with the child; 5 years post divorce and from the time of separation the father in this case had zero to do with child other than an occasional text message. She was 15 going on 16; no visitation , no holidays, no gifts/cards – no invitation to his (new) family home. Now that she is entering college, he addresses the court that SHE disavowed HIM; rather it was the other way around. Will be interesting to see how the court sees or accepts the evidence.
That, or maybe both the mom and daughter expected you’d have planned and thought ahead as they’d had to, and wanted to help your daughter do well in life. College is expensive.
This is absolutely absurd! America has placed college way to high on the priority list of life’s “must haves”. If a kid wants to go to college it’s on them. No way should the parent be on the hook for that, married parents or not. One of the problems we have in this country, irresponsible young adults. They want to make it “big” then they need to make it happen, not have it given to them. Look around folks, help wanted signs everywhere. Kids don’t want to work already and when they do, they want to be paid enough to make the mortgage and car payments! Let’s give them sooo much that they never learn the value of getting things done themselves. And then the idiots out there are pushing for higher wages for entry level jobs. Legislators have created an absolute mess when it comes to our children. They’ve taken away parenting from the parent and placed it into the hands of the state. Forced to pay tuition, how absurd!! What a mess we have created! Free country! Yeah right! Without question, get rid of this law!
Thank you for reading our blog! I think many people share your opinion.
I have no problem with this law if at the time a parent can afford it. My concern is, if the parent is paying thousands of dollars and the student is having a good time away from home, and gets kicked out of college due to failing grades, by law, are the parents required to loose tens of thousands of dollars annually to support a child who has no desire to achieve an education.
Generally the payments are limited to 4 years and reasonable performance in school. It’s up to the kid to use the money well. If they don’t, there isn’t more coming, and they’ll have to figure things out the hard way as adults.
The help wanted signs are mostly for jobs that won’t support one adult, let alone a family. We’ve moved away from an industrial society and there isn’t much call for repetitive factory work anymore. You need to know quite a bit just to work the machinery, and the minute your job can be automated economically, it will be. So yes, the kids have to learn. Personally, I think higher ed should be mostly tax-paid, not out of pocket by young people and their families, but until that happens, college will be a necessary expense, even for the kids who’re planning to be whatever Paul Ryan kept talking about — plumbers, pipefitters, whatever. They’ll need to keep up with new green tech and learn to run businesses so they’re not out on disability at 50 from trying to keep on doing heavy labor themselves.
Sorry. It’s not 1970 anymore.
i do find it extremely annoying that college is kind of a must do thing in american right now. Coming from a home that lacks money it is disgustingly hard to get enough money for college without going in debt. that is why i’ve decided to go to a community college. unfortunately though my parents still are not having to pay for any of it or have just not told me about it. from the sounds of it they are not funding me whatsoever which puts me at a huge disadvantage. I have a job and everything it’s not much money but its not terrible for my current situation. what upsets me the most is that my parents are not supportive at all. i lack the funds to pay for housing, cars, insurance both car and health, food, and college all at the same time. what’s probably worse is that my father i’ve completely lost contact with no idea why but that makes my fundings even worse as i can not talk with him about it (that’s probably not going to change anytime soon). is there any advice you could give to me about these divorce laws?
Hi, I’m sorry to hear about your situation. It’s a tough position to be in. The law cited here only applies to divorced parents. If your parents are divorced and in a state that allows for making post-secondary education assistance potentially mandatory, the most a Court would order is that your parents (if divorced) pay 1/3 each of your in-state college and related expenses. It’s generally up to one of the parents to go back to Court and request this. I have never seen a case where the adult child tried to enforce it, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. I’d recommend contacting a divorce attorney in your county / state. All of that said, the fact that you are out there paving your own way speaks volumes to your future success and dedication.
You mention this law is only for divorced or divorcing parents. How does this affect a child that was removed from the home and is in relative custody? I was disallowed from taking the cold tax credit because I was’t divorced from the child’s mother. I’d this same “loop whole” available for this law?
If legal custody of the child was terminated, then there would be no obligation to support post-secondary education.
I’m curious about what would qualify as “good cause” in the following statement: “To do so, the Court must first find good cause for the educational subsidy for any child of divorcing or divorced parents who is between the ages of 17 and 23”. Is this a standard that’s hard to meet?
Also, does it take into account the salaries of the father vs. mother like when figuring child support, or is it typically ruled in the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 if both parents have adequate means (even tho one parent makes significantly more than the other parent)?
This question is under Iowa law, which is referenced in your post. Thanks for the info – interesting topic!
Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 598.21F, the criteria the Court considers in determining whether good cause exists is:
1. Age of the child;
2. Ability of the child relative to postsecondary education;
3. Child’s financial resources;
4. Whether the child is self-sustaining; and
5. Financial condition of each parent.
If the Court determines each parent should have some responsibility in paying for a cost of the child’s postsecondary education, it doesn’t necessarily allocate 1/3 to each party. After determining the amount the child may reasonably be expected to contribute and deducting that from the cost of the postsecondary education, the Court then apportions responsibility for the remaining cost to each parent. It’s just that the amount paid by each parent shall not exceed 1/3 of the total cost.
This will be long winded. In correlation to Iowa law; would, refusal of visitation both by the custodial parent and children, years of children disprespecting non-custodial parent, children changing their last names, ultimately the children verbally saying they want nothing to do with the non custodial parent and that they don’t actually consider the non custodial parent a parent at all be considered repudiation? The law doesn’t give clear definition of repudiation and most case law I’ve found do not offer examples of valid repudiation.
Pursuant to I.C.A. §598.21F(4), the State of Iowa defines repudiation as the child “publicly disowning the parent, refusing to acknowledge the parent, or by acting in a similar manner.”
In the 2004 case of In re Marriage of Angove, the child’s father believed his son was not entitled to receive post-secondary subsidy support from him due to repudiation and the Court of Appeals held that the father was obligated to provide educational support for the son. The Court held the “record supported finding that son had not publicly repudiated or disavowed his father, and thus father was obligated to provide postsecondary educational support for son following dissolution proceedings, even though trial court found that son had acted as a petulant, angry young man and had chosen to punish his father for having hurt his mother; trial court also found that father had acted in immature and self-centered ways and had alienated his children.”
The Court additionally goes on to discuss the following case law:
Our court discussed repudiation In re Marriage of Dolter (Iowa Ct.App.2002). In that case the child did not encourage his mother to attend his high school graduation ceremony but did not argue with her when she said she was going to attend. Our court held there was not enough evidence to show repudiation. Dolter, 644 N.W.2d at 373. In another case, State ex rel. Tack v. Sandholt, 519 N.W.2d 414, 418 (Iowa Ct.App.1994), our court held that the lack of contact was due to the parent’s’ harassing conduct. These circumstances were of the parents own making and were not proof of repudiation. By contrast is the situation shown in In re Marriage of Baker, (Iowa Ct.App.1992). Two children consciously and intentionally disowned their father. They refused to return their father’s greeting on the street. They introduced their mother but not their father at a community reception. In the high school annual and newspaper they listed their mother as their only parent. See also In re Marriage of Pendergast, 565 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Iowa Ct.App.1997).
Thank you for your question!
Hi great article. I live in Washington State. Per court order my x and I split my daughter college. I paid my 50 percent but my x has failed to pay anything. I think she is going to talk my daughter into paying it. What can the court do to ensure my x pays it. Can they garnish wages? Thanks mark
Hi – thanks for reading the article and your question. Unfortunately, I’m not licensed in Washington, so I can’t be sure. If your daughter voluntarily pays your ex’s percentage, then I would assume (but again I don’t know Washington laws on this topic) that’s your daughter’s choice and there would be no recourse. However, if your ex voluntarily is not paying her share under the Court Order, then I would suggest contacting an attorney in your area and perhaps file a motion asking she be held in contempt of Court. Best of luck!
It is NOT equal opportunity under the law to ask divorced couples to pay and non-divorced not too. Challenge this in court!!
If not specifically stated in the divorce decree, is this something that can be petitioned after the child support obligation is satisfied. For example my daughter turned 18 in December and graduated high school in June. I received notice in December from the child support recovery unit that my obligation was fulfilled. (I continued paying child support through June because she was still in school). This week my ex wife messaged me informing me that i would be responsible for 1/3 of our daughter’s college tuition, books, and fees. My ex wife has only the one child and their household income is approximately 3x more than mine. I’m remarried with 3 additional step children (all in high school). It seems she’s attempting to scare me into continuing my child support or else she’ll petition the court to “make me pay my third”. I have always planned to assist my daughter with her schooling, I just want it to be my choice. If we were still married would the state mandate we pay 2/3 of her expenses? This seems absurd to me.
If its not addressed in the Court Order, either parent would have to petition the Court to make a finding on whether, and if so, how much, each parent would need to pay. Until there is a Court Order there is no obligation for post-secondary education contributions from the parents.
Who can we reach out to about getting this law changed? Are there any legislators that champion for divorced parents? My husband and I are in a similar position to Matt that posted in June. My step hasn’t been following visitation for years, rarely comes around, calls her stepdad “dad” on social media, etc. We can’t afford to pay an extra $7,000 a year with three kids of our own at home and still paying off our own student loan debt. The sad part is, if my ex had just had a child out of wedlock or they had stayed married, he wouldn’t have to pay a cent for his daughter to go to school if he didn’t want to.
I’m curious about how these 2 circumstances involving divorced parents are considered in the ~1/3,1/3, 1/3.
1. The college student is currently in the National Guard, thus receives financial college assistance through NGEAP. Would this affect each parent’s ~1/3?
2. One parent qualifies for a Pell Grant each semester. Can the money from the Pell Grant be consider that parent’s 1/3?
When the parents are required to pay one-third of the cost of the education, is that just one third of the cost of the tuition and fees? Or do they have to also pay one-third of the cost of the room and board? Either way I think it’s ridiculous If the parents were never married or never divorced they would never be required to pay for their children’s education.
I m paying child support and our decree States the custodial parent is responsible for all Curricular and extra -curricular expenses My daughter is a senior and will be taking 5 college classes alnong with 2 high school classes this fall. Ex and daughter sent me a bill for 1/3 of the $$ for the college classes. I offered to let daughter do cleaning for me to “earn” this money as a hope of getting to see her. I was told to go to hell. I am partially disabled and could really use some help but mostly would just love to be visited by my daughter. Can they force me to pay these cost while she is still in high school? My daughter refuses to list me as parent in any of the many ceremonies she has been in from her church confirmation to school athletics wards..
My order reads:
“The Parents must pay for the child’s post-secondary educational support. Post secondary educational support may include support for the period after high school and before college or vocational school begins. The amount or percentage each person must pay is as follows:
Reserved until the actual costs are known. Then if the parties cannot agree, it shall be submitted to XXX for arbitration.”
My ex took our daughter to see a school signed her up for an expensive apartment (lease 12 months) went to school for 6 days, then COVID. She didn’t want to do on-line classes. Now my ex is taking me to arbitration to get me to pay half. Did he need to either continue to pay support after her 18th birthday until she started school? or did he need to file an order for the amount prior to her 18th birthday?
Does this law only apply to the first 4 years of college? Or are the ex and the child allowed to continue to drain my husband of money for as long as the child decides to go to school? Shouldn’t there be a limit? Besides the fact that he had to pay 1/3 of room and board the first 2 years when the school the child chose to go to was literally 5 blocks from her mother’s house! Also, it was not a state school, and he was not given any choice as to what school she would attend. We just want to know if he has to continue to pay forever if she should decide to keep going to school, because they are only out to get his money.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE DIVORCED! If the courts cannot order married couples to pay for college and an adult child cannot sue the parents for college than WHY is it ok to FORCE a college intuition down the throats of someone because they got divorced? Once you’re a legal adult you should work and find your own way to pay for college. It’s when their OWN investment is involved it’s taken seriously, not just a free ride to party! If it’s going to be a LAW or not a LAW, it should be across the board and not different in each state. This so called law is pure BS and just wrong.
Agreed! I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the state wheelin and dealin with the colleges to insure tuition. So wrong. I’m dealing with it too.