Current New Jersey law says that when a child reaches the age of 19, and absent specific exceptions for college education or disability, s/he is presumptively emancipated. This means the child becomes financially independent of his/her parents. The burden is on the young adult child or the other parent to demonstrate that the child is still dependent. This is easily accomplished if the child is a full-time college student or disabled and remains reliant on parents’ financial support. In the case of college students, current law requires that a parent who is paying child support must continue to do until the child is no longer a full time student, or reaches age 23, whichever first occurs.

Earlier this year, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided Parrish v. Klugar (App. Div. 2016), an unpublished decision in which a father appealed from a Family Court post-judgment order denying his motion to forcibly emancipate his 21-year-old daughter. The trial court resolved the issues without a hearing, despite the parents’ contested sworn statements.

The father cited these facts in support of his motion to emancipate his daughter: (1) she had not spoken with him for more than three years; (2) he claimed he did not have a say in the child’s college choices; (3) the child was not a full-time student; and (4) the child’s grades were never made known to him.

The mother responded the father was responsible for the relationship break between father and daughter, and that the daughter’s educational delay was occasioned by medical problems outside of the child’s control.

The trial court determined the child “is clearly still in college and dependent on her parents as she pursues her education… [and is] pursuing a [full-time] four (4) year degree at Raritan Valley Community College . . .”

In its review, the Appellate Division said “’parents are expected to support their children until they are emancipated, regardless of whether the children live with one, both, or neither parent.’ Colca v. Anson, 413 N.J. Super. 405, 414 (App. Div. 2010) [internal citation omitted].” The Appellate Division further opined: “Children are emancipated when they have moved ‘beyond the sphere of influence and responsibility exercised by a parent and obtain[ed] an independent status of [their] own.’”Filippone v. Lee, 304 N.J. Super. 301, 308 (App. Div.1997) (internal citation omitted). This fact-sensitive evaluation must include consideration of child’s needs, interests, and independent resources, the family’s reasonable expectations, and the parties’ abilities to pay.

Child support for a non-emancipated child is guided by N.J.S.A. 2A:34–23(a), considering:

(1) Needs of the child;

(2) Standard of living and economic circumstances of each parent;

(3) All sources of income and assets of each parent;

(4) Earning ability of each parent, including educational background, training, employment skills, work experience, custodial responsibility for children including the cost of providing child care and the length of time and cost of each parent to obtain training or experience for appropriate employment;

(5) Need and capacity of the child for education, including higher education;

(6) Age and health of the child and each parent;

(7) Income, assets and earning ability of the child;

(8) Responsibility of the parents for the court-ordered support of others;

(9) Reasonable debts and liabilities of each child and parent; and

(10) Any other factors the court may deem relevant.

In addition to child support, financially capable parents may be required to contribute to the higher education of children who are qualified students. Kiken v. Kiken, 149 N.J. 441, 449 (1997); Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 545 (1982); Rector v. Rector, 62 N.J. 577, 580 (1973).

In Newburgh, our Supreme Court identified twelve factors a trial court should consider a motion for the other parent’s contribution to a child’s higher education. 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 long-range goals of the child.

Importantly, a relationship between the child and a non-custodial parent is not a precondition of mandated financial assistance. However, Newburgh expects a parent or child seeking college funding from the other parent to share information about identified or desired schools and their attendant costs — before incurring educational expenses. Failure to so advise weighs against the application.

In the Parrish case, decided this year, the Appellate Division noted that the trial judge’s statement of reasons includes no analysis of the statute or a consideration of the Newburgh factors, which include the child’s commitment to and aptitude for the requested education.  Most importantly, the Appellate Division reversed the Family Court, and determined that a plenary hearing must be held, because genuine issues of materially disputed facts existed.

The Appellate Division’s decision was based on certain considerations, including:

• As long as an over-18 child is a full time student, both parents are expected to continue financial support until the children are emancipated, whether they live with one or both parents;

• Children are emancipated when they have move beyond the sphere of influence of the parents and are independent;

• The trial court must consider the specific details of the case, including the academic interests and abilities of the child, the relationship between the child and each parent, and whether or not the parents would contribute to the educational expenses of the child if the parents were still living together;

• Every child has a specific set of needs, skills, aptitude and interests, as well as earning potential, assets and standard of living;

• Each parent has a unique financial situation, including income, earning potential, assets, standard of living, and economic circumstances;

In considering the financial obligations of parents to their adult children, the court weighs each case individually to determine whether or not it is appropriate to release one or both parents from support.

As this post has shown, financial issues between parents and their adult children can be complicated. An experienced, compassionate, yet tough Family Law attorney can help you sort out your legal rights and obligations. Contact the Central Jersey Law Offices of Hanan M. Isaacs, P.C., to schedule your near-term and reduced fee initial consultation. Call 609-683-7400 or contact us online today. You will be glad you did.