In Thelma Risinger’s action for divorce against her husband Harvey, she was granted divorce, alimony, child support, and a share of his property. The husband has appealed, alleging that the amounts of alimony, support, and property granted to the wife were excessive, and alleging that the family court had no power to order a husband to support an adult child, one over 18, while the child was attending schoоl.
We affirm the family court’s ruling as to alimony and property division under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this сourt, since a full written opinion on those points would be without precedential value. There was ample evidence from which the judge could have concluded that the wife needed, and that the husbаnd could afford to pay, the amount of alimony ordered. There was ample evidence from which the judge could have concluded that the property division was equitable under the rule in
Wilson v. Wilson,
210 S. C. 216,
We turn to the trial court’s award for the benefit of the child, Lisa, who was 19 at the time of the final divorce hearing. She is a dean’s list student in college, and plans to teach handicapped children. In order to minimize her exрenses, she has worked part-time, borrowed money, lived at home and gone to every summer schoоl session. Her mother provides her food, clothing, and shelter; but there was evidence that despite all efforts by her mother, Lisa could not stay in school without some monetary help from her father. He had, by сonsent, contributed to her education in the past. In his final order, the
The Family Court Act allows that court to make orders running past a child’s majority “where there are physical or mental disabilities of the child or othеr exceptional circumstances that wararnt it, . . .” § 14-21-810(b) (4), Code- of Laws of South Carolina (1976). Physical and mental disabilities are specificаlly mentioned in the act as exceptions to the general rule. The need for education is the mоst likely additional “exceptional circumstance” which might justify continued financial support. Children over 18 with a physical or mental disability, and children over 18 in need of further education, have much in common. In each case, the child’s ability to earn is either diminished or entirely lacking. In each case, most pаrents feel an obligation to help, and do help the child.
Other courts have construed kindred statutes in а similar fashion. A Michigan statute permitted its family court to order support for a child between ages 18 and 21, but only in “exceptional circumstances.” The Michigan court has held that a child’s desire and ability to gо to college and his father’s ability to pay for his education constituted such an exceptionаl circumstance.
Johnson v. Johnson,
Any doubt that the family court has the power to make such an award should be resolvеd in favor of that power, for the legislature has dictated that the act be construed liberally, in order to reach a result conducive to, among other things, the well-being of the family, welfare of the child, аnd the best interests of the State. Code § 14-21-160 reads as follows:
“This chapter shall be liberally construed to the end that families whose unity or well-being is threatened shall be
Were we to construe the act narrowly, children without independent means would often be unable to finish even high school. Such a construction would not be in the best interest of the children, of the family, or of thе State'.
Nothing in
Cason v. Cason,
S. C.,
We do not presume to list all circumstances under whiсh a divorced parent may be ordered to help pay for the educational expensеs of a child over 18 years of age. That determination must be left largely in the hands of our family court judges. Without holding that these are the only circumstances under which a family court’s award is proper, we hold thаt a family court judge may require a parent to contribute that amount of money necessary to еnable a child over 18 to attend high school and four years of college, where, as here, there is evidence that: (1) the characteristics of the child indicate that he or she will benefit from collеge; (2) the child demonstrates the ability to do well, or at least make satisfactory grades; (3) the child cannot otherwise go to school; and (4) the parent has the financial ability to help pay for such an education.
Accordingly, the decree of the lower court is
Affirmed.