Law Lessons from MARILYN GORMAN f/k/a MARILYN CRUZ V. LUIS CRUZ, App. Div., A-0182-08T3, November 18, 2009:

The interpretation and enforcement of provisions of an agreement governing support of children is always guided and restricted by fundamental principles recognizing the parents’ shared obligation to support their children and their children’s right to receive it. See Dolce, supra, 383 N.J. Super. at 19-20; Ordukaya v. Brown, 357 N.J. Super. 231, 241 (App. Div. 2003).

The obligation and right to child support include “a necessary education for children” after high school whether it be in a “vocational school” or a “college.” Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 544 (1982). The existence and extent of a parent’s obligation for the cost of such post-secondary education depend upon considerations of the expectations and relevant abilities of the child and his or her parents under factors identified in Newburgh and reaffirmed in Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 543, 546-47 (2006). ^[1] “Th[ose] factors . . . contemplate that a parent or child seeking contribution towards the expenses of higher education will make the request before the educational expenses are incurred.” Id. at 546. Accordingly, the failure to seek an order compelling contribution before the fact “weigh[s] heavily against the grant of a future application.” Id. at 547.

Under Gac, delay is one factor that weighs against entry of an order compelling a contribution to post-secondary education. Ibid. Gac does not establish a bright line rule permitting automatic denial whenever a request is filed after educational expense has been incurred.

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in Linden 07036; South Amboy 08878; South River 08877; Avenel 07001; Colonia 07067; Iselin 08830; Woodbridge 07095; Somerset 08873; Somerville 08876 and Watchung 07069, New Jersey.

Technorati Tags: child-support, higher-education, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

1. The factors are:
   (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 longrange goals of the child.
   [Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 543 (2006) (quoting Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 545 (1982).] [↩]