April 19, 2010

The South Carolina Supreme Court in Webb v. Sowell, Opinion Number 26807, found that requiring a divorced parent to contribute to an emancipated child's college expenditures violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.  This is a long anticipated departure from prior case law.  What this means to you is that all parents are treated equally under the law.  The way I explain it to clients is that if your marriage is intact, you have no legal obligation to pay for your child's college education.  You cannot be required to do so under any theory of the law.  Just because you are divorced does not mean that you would have that obligation and to require a parent to do so because he or she is divorced violates the Constitution.

This does not, in my opinion, negate our moral obligation as parents to educate our children and help them as much as we can.  However, moral law and case law are two different things.

April 19, 2010

The South Carolina Supreme Court in Webb v. Sowell, Opinion Number 26807, found that requiring a divorced parent to contribute to an emancipated child's college expenditures violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.  This is a long anticipated departure from prior case law.  What this means to you is that all parents are treated equally under the law.  The way I explain it to clients is that if your marriage is intact, you have no legal obligation to pay for your child's college education.  You cannot be required to do so under any theory of the law.  Just because you are divorced does not mean that you would have that obligation and to require a parent to do so because he or she is divorced violates the Constitution.

This does not, in my opinion, negate our moral obligation as parents to educate our children and help them as much as we can.  However, moral law and case law are two different things.