Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
Matt

Member
Registered: 01/24/06
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #1 

Is there anyone out there who has had experience in fighting a post secondary education subsidy based upon poor academic grades and / or repudiation of the parent?

Thanks for any help!!

 

Code of Iowa  2005

598.21 Orders for disposition and support.

5A. The court may order a postsecondary education subsidy if good cause is shown.

a. In determining whether good cause exists for ordering a postsecondary education subsidy, the court shall consider the age of the child, the ability of the child relative to postsecondary education, the child's financial resources, whether the child is self-sustaining, and the financial condition of each parent. If the court determines that good cause is shown for ordering a postsecondary education subsidy, the court shall determine the amount of subsidy as follows:

(1) The court shall determine the cost of postsecondary education based upon the cost of attending an in-state public institution for a course of instruction leading to an undergraduate degree and shall include the reasonable costs for only necessary postsecondary education expenses.

(2) The court shall then determine the amount, if any, which the child may reasonably be expected to contribute, considering the child's financial resources, including but not limited to the availability of financial aid whether in the form of scholarships, grants, or student loans, and the ability of the child to earn income while attending school.

(3) The child's expected contribution shall be deducted from the cost of postsecondary education and the court shall apportion responsibility for the remaining cost of postsecondary education to each parent. The amount paid by each parent shall not exceed thirty-three and one-third percent of the total cost of postsecondary education.

b. A postsecondary education subsidy shall be payable to the child, to the educational institution, or to both, but shall not be payable to the custodial parent.

c. A postsecondary education subsidy shall not be awarded if the child has repudiated the parent by publicly disowning the parent, refusing to acknowledge the parent, or by acting in a similar manner.

d. The child shall forward, to each parent, reports of grades awarded at the completion of each academic session, within ten days of receipt of the reports. Unless otherwise specified by the parties, a postsecondary education subsidy awarded by the court shall be terminated upon the child's completion of the first calendar year of course instruction if the child fails to maintain a cumulative grade point average in the median range or above during that first calendar year.

e. A support order, decree, or judgment entered or pending before July 1, 1997, that provides for support of a child for college, university, or community college expenses may be modified in accordance with this subsection.

 

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered: 03/07/04
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #2 

We have one member that had not seen his daughter in eight (8) years because of parental alienation.  When his daughter started college, she still refused to have anything to do with her father but wanted her college tuition paid and sought a court action.  A therapist testified and claimed parental alienation so the judge refused to hold the father responsible for the college tuition.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Chad

VIP Member
Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #3 

I thought this is one thing we are trying to get changed. Married couples are not leagaly bound to pay for their childrens education or insurance I don't see how divorced parrents can be forced to pay for it either. Don't get me wrong I am saving and planing to help my child as much a possible, but I don't see how the court can force me to.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
Matt

Member
Registered: 01/24/06
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #4 

Thanks for weighing in guys.

 I believe the whole issue started with my ex & I not getting along, leading to her negatively influencing the kids over the years, then finally to the kids e-mailing me, of all ways, saying they knew my phone #, my address, and where I lived and that they were taking a "break" and if they wanted to see me again, then they would come over....that was August of 2000.  Haven't seen them or talked to them since.  And they live 10 blocks away in our small Iowa town.

 

I filed a petition to modify in July 2005...specifically to ask that the Postsecondary Education Subsidy that is in our stipulation be deleted due to no good cause...in my case the child has "repudiated the parent" by refusing to acknowledge the parent.

 

My son was a great student in high school and has partied away his 1st semester as a college freshman to the point of having a 1.6 GPA at UNI.  So poor grades may end up being an issue if it continues through the second semester.

 

The lawyers I have talked to and my own research of the Iowa Supreme Court website and Appeals Court websites has shown that rarely is anyone successful in showing that good cause exists to stop the postsecondary subsidy due to repudiation of the parent.

The court date has been set for this March. 

Do any of you know more about this...I feel like it is hopeless.

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered: 03/07/04
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #5 

Chad, you are right. This is one area that we want reform. Iowa did not think the current statute through when requiring divorced parents to pay for post-secondary education while not requiring non-divorced parents to pay for post-secondary education.  It's called De facto discrimination and thus all divorced parents have to do is combine efforts and file a class action lawsuit against the state. There is no way this statute holds up in Federal Court!


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered: 03/07/04
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #6 

Matt, have you requested that the court demand counseling?  It could work to your advantage.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Matt

Member
Registered: 01/24/06
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #7 

Counseling?...that's an interesting issue here.  I found out a couple years ago that around the same time the kids said they didn't want to see me anymore, my ex had taken the kids to counseling without me ever knowing about it.

A couple months before the kids stopped seeing me, my ex's lawyer proposed a "round table" discussion to discus visitation issues.  I agreed and welcomed some outside arbitration, even if he was paid by her.  My ex refused....two months later in August 2000 was the last time my kids spoke to me.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.