New Jersey Divorce Law: Obligation to pay for Child’s College Education

New Jersey divorce law has long held that a divorced parent may be required to contribute towards the cost of a child’s college education. In determining the extent of a parent’s obligation to contribute to college costs when the parties have not previously agreed on specific amounts, family courts in New Jersey generally consider the following criteria established in 1983 by our Supreme Court in a case called Newburgh v. Arrigo:

1.    Whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed towards the costs of college;

2.     The effect of the background, values and goals of the parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher

3.     The amount of the contribution sought by the parent child for the cost of college;

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;

9.   The ability of the child to earn income during the school year or vacation;

10.  The availability of financial aid in the form ofgrants and loans;

11. The child’s relationship to the paying parent. Including mutual affections 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.

The above factors are comprehensive, but may not be exhaustive.  Family finances often expand or limit college options. Regarding the child’s college selection, the family court has the power to order a non-custodial parent to financially contribute to college costs in an amount exceeding the costs of attendance at Rutgers or one of New Jersey’s other state universities and colleges. For example, where a non-custodial parent father encouraged his son to apply to George Washington University [“GWU”], was a dentist with significant income, and attended an expensive out of state university himself, the court rejected the father’s argument that his contribution to the GWU tuition of his son should be limited to what he would pay if the child attended Rutgers.

Learn more about: Divorce

Sign up to PR&A News

Be the first to know about firm news, articles, and announcements!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.