Effective August 28th, the primary obligation of a divorced or never-married parent to provide support for a child beyond age 18 under certain circumstances has been capped at age 21, as opposed to age 22 which it long had been. This means that the continued support which we impose as a matter of public policy stops at age 21. We do not impose this continuing duty of support on parents who remain married; that stops at age 18.
There are those who argue that the unmarried should not be obligated to pay support past 18 since to place the extra requirement on people gives preferential treatment to the children of unmarried persons at the same time as requiring something of unmarrieds that is not required of married persons. We place a further requirement when we allow divorce or paternity courts to require parents who are divorcing or are not married to contribute to post-secondary education for their children. This serves public policy, we say, by counter-balancing the negative effect of being the children of divorced or never-married parents.
But do these children have disadvantages not borne by children of married parents? I believe that all children have disadvantages and advantages in their unique situations. I am not entirely convinced about this duty of support past 18. On the whole, I think lowering the duty to age 21 under circumstances when it can continue past 18 is a good thing.
Today in the post, came a package from a client whose case recently ended with a relatively favorable agreed outcome — more time with his son, a lowered child support due to improper calculation in the past, a credit for over-paid child support. The “more time with his son” was the number one goal, and I’m glad I was able to get it for him.
Inside the package was a tea cup, a tea pot and a selection of lovely teas including my personal favorite, Earl Grey. The client and his wife remembered that I am a tea drinker, and sent the package as a “thank you”.
In an often thankless profession — a divorce lawyer, for goodness sake, society’s whipping dog second only to personal injury lawyers — it is nice to be recognized as having done some good for a family. My clients usually thank me, but to tell you the truth, this package made my heart sing.
Times past, lawyers and doctors were considered good and honorable members of society. I try to honor that, and I myself am humbled by this client’s kind recognition.
I’m smiling!
I recently tried a case which involved grandparents and a foster family competing to adopt two children who had been split between their homes for several years. The villain of the piece was the Children’s Division (former Division of Family Services), which seemed to think that splitting the kids was an okay thing to do in the face of a two-year fight by the grandparents whom the CD had themselves approved as a placement household.
Recent news stories belie the virtues of fostering when family is available, as do research studies across the nation. I am not intending to denigrate foster families in general or this foster family in particular; they serve an important function in society for many children. In this case, a young child who has been told by the foster parents that he is their son might well be taken and put with grandparents who also love him and have visited him weekly for the entire time he has been in foster care along with his sister, and young aunts and uncles, children of the grandparents.
Or, he might be kept away from grandparents who love him and left with foster parents who, though loving, have no biological connection to him, no social connection with his loving extended family, and no other children of their own. I am not saying that foster parents cannot be loving parents to children whom they adopt; this is definitely a Hobson’s choice.
There is no easy answer, but cases like this show that our system needs to be overhauled for the good of the children.