92 A.3d 688
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2013Background
- Parties divorced 2010 after 17-year marriage; three children (born within six years). Settlement agreement required both parents to contribute to children’s college costs but left amounts unspecified; father had obligation to pay child support and alimony to mother.
- At divorce the parties agreed to father/son counseling because of a fractured relationship between defendant (father) and oldest child, C.B.; joint counseling never occurred and father and C.B. had little contact post-divorce.
- C.B. graduated high school, attended Rutgers (public; ~ $12,000/yr net) for freshman year; then wanted to transfer to University of Miami (private; substantially higher cost, net uncovered ≈ $22,000/yr).
- Mother and C.B. sought contribution from father for both Rutgers year and anticipated Miami years; father refused to pay because C.B. refused to reunify or attend joint counseling.
- After plenary hearing the court ordered: (1) enforcement of father’s agreement but conditioned continuing contribution on C.B. attending at least five joint counseling sessions with father; (2) consideration of less costly college alternatives in assessing parental contribution; and (3) a limited, joint savings/payment plan ($7,500/year combined for 8 years) allocated among the three children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May court condition parental college contribution on joint counseling when parent–child relationship is damaged? | Mother/C.B.: Father must pay per settlement regardless of relationship; counseling not prerequisite. | Father: He should not have to pay while son refuses reunification; court may require counseling. | Court: Contribution may be conditioned on C.B. attending at least five joint counseling sessions unless exceptional reasons prevent contact. |
| Is availability of less costly state or private schools relevant when child prefers an expensive private college? | Mother/C.B.: Father should cover gap at chosen school per prior agreement. | Father: Cannot be compelled to pay more than the cost of a state school (Rutgers). | Court: Availability/cost of cheaper alternatives is a relevant Newburgh consideration; Finger does not bar such inquiry. |
| May court consider younger siblings’ imminent college needs when allocating contribution to oldest child? | Mother/C.B.: Focus on current bills for C.B. | Father: Funds should be limited; consider needs of other children. | Court: Yes — equity supports a plan allocating limited parental resources among all children (ordered shared savings schedule). |
| What contribution and enforcement mechanism is appropriate here? | Mother/C.B.: Substantial contribution to cover Rutgers and potential Miami costs. | Father: Limited ability to pay; oppose large private-school subsidy. | Court: Ordered combined parental contribution of $7,500/year ($3,375 mother; $4,125 father) for 8 years into three earmarked accounts; C.B. may use funds toward Miami if he secures remaining funds, otherwise toward Rutgers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982) (sets multi-factor test for parental college contribution)
- Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535 (2006) (relationship with parent not an absolute prerequisite to order contribution)
- Finger v. Zenn, 335 N.J. Super. 438 (App. Div. 2000) (court may order contribution exceeding cost of public university under the facts of the case)
- Enrico v. Goldsmith, 237 N.J. Super. 572 (App. Div. 1990) (courts may consider impact of multiple children and overlapping college attendance when ordering contribution)