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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT