Question: I was divorced 11 years ago when my children were six and three years old and I was 29. I didn’t listen to the advice of my lawyer and, being altruistic, agreed to pay 100% of the cost of college educations for my children. There was no dollar limitation, which I admit was pretty dumb on my part.

My older child, a very bright young lady with whom I have a terrific relationship, is to begin college next fall. Because of her academic record, she has received commitments to scholarship funds and grants that will pay nearly half of her annual expenses for four years. But my ex insists that I must pay for 75% of the cost, regardless of grants and scholarships, and that I am not entitled to any credits. My agreement says that that I will pay 100% of the cost of each child’s tuition, room, board, and books. It says nothing about scholarships. My ex says that I must pay 100% of the billed amounts because she (my ex) will need the money to support my daughter during the summer, school holidays, and breaks. I feel she is being most unreasonable, but I don’t want to take a chance that a court will make me pay more than is actually necessary.

Answer: According to the law of most jurisdictions, a parent who is obligated to pay for a child’s college education is entitled to credits for scholarships and grants that are available to or awarded to a child. In fact, in some states, children must make efforts to get loans.

While we have not seen the wording of your agreement, from one perspective, It would appear to us that “cost of college education” could refer to the actual cost of tuition, etc., after credits for scholarships and grants. If this were not the case, some argue, children of divorced parents would get the benefit of a windfall because they would be paid for costs that were not incurred, and that would be both unfair and illogical.

On the other hand, it can be argued that there are “costs” attendant to going to college that extend beyond tuition, room, board, and books. For example, there are expenses incurred in travel, clothing, automobile maintenance, gasoline, insurance, health coverage, and the like. To not be required to contribute to these expenses, some states say, would be a windfall to the parent who has agreed to take on the obligation.

Since the answer to your question will depend on the wording of your agreement and the law of the state in which you live, we suggest that you review these matters with an experienced matrimonial lawyer in your area before you make a final decision.

SoloFact: Similar questions arise when non-custodial parents who, after being required to pay child support, either become disabled or retire, and not only began drawing Social Security Disability themselves, but also, as a result, entitle their minor children to receive certain Social Security benefits.

According to the Social Security law, each person who is “fully insured”, reaches age 62, and files an application for Social Security retirement is entitled to certain payments for his/her child under certain circumstances. The same holds true for those who receive Social Security Disability.
The issue becomes whether the benefits paid to the children from the Social Security Administration should be credited against child support payments required by court order.
While the child support guidelines adopted in each state generally deal with what happens under these circumstances, some states have allowed these payments to be used as credits against child support obligations while others have not -- even if the payments are based on the parent’s disability and do not reduce the parent’s own entitlements.

It is probably wise to address these issues in divorce settlements and agreements so that these questions don’t arise at inopportune times.