ILNews

Mother may petition for college expenses for emancipated children

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two amendments made by the Indiana General Assembly to the termination of child support and emancipation statute allow for a mother’s college support petition for two emancipated children to stand.

Alexander Toradze and Susan Toradze were divorced in May 2002. The divorce decree included an order for child support for the two minor children but did not contain any language regarding payments toward any college education expenses. In October 2012, the children’s mother filed a petition to modify child support to help cover college costs.

The children’s father filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction to decide Susan Toradze’s request based on Indiana Code 31.16-6-6.

In Alexander David Toradze v. Susan Blake Toradze, 71A05-1212-DR-623, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirms the trial court’s denial of Alexander Toradze’s motion to dismiss. The COA concluded the lower court acquired jurisdiction because of amendments regarding child support made to the state statute. The judges pointed to the Legislature’s two amendments to the state statute regarding the termination of children support and emancipation.

The Indiana General Assembly enacted an amendment, effective July 1, 2012, which lowered the age for stopping child support to 19. A year later, the Legislature approved another amendment, retroactively effective July 1, 2012, which enabled a parent, guardian or child to petition for education needs when a child support order was issued before July 1, 2012.

Since the children were both emancipated on July 1, 2012, – the child support order had been issued in 2002 – the Court of Appeals found Susan Toradze can file a petition to modify.

“When Mother filed her petition for educational expenses, both children had not yet reached twenty-one years of age, Judge Patricia Riley wrote. “Because the trial court had established a duty to support the children in a court order issued prior to July 1, 2012 and the children were younger than twenty-one years of age, Mother was entitled to file her petition for post-educational expenses based on I.C. 31-16-6-6(a) & (c).”

Judge Elaine Brown wrote a separate opinion, concurring in result but disagreeing with the “majority’s conclusion that the trial court acquired subject matter jurisdiction to decide Mother’s request….”

Brown concluded the trial court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction and that Ind. Code 31-16-6-6 provided statutory basis for providing Mother the requested relief.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT