Parents lose constitutional challenge of post-secondary school expenses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bound by precedent, the Indiana Court of Appeals declined to find the statute allowing courts to impose post-secondary educational expenses on divorced parents is unconstitutional. The parents had argued the statute needs another look.

In this consolidated appeal, divorced parents from Elkhart, Kosciusko and Marion counties challenged the trial court’s order that a parent pay a portion of his or her child’s college expenses. The parents maintained the statutory authority is unconstitutional because it violates a divorced parent’s equal protection right because it places the divorced parent in a different position than married parents. The divorced parents also claimed the statute interferes with a parent’s fundamental right to determine his or her child’s upbringing and education.

The Indiana Supreme Court in 1991 previously rejected such claims and upheld a substantially similar prior version of the statute in question in Neudecker v. Neudecker, 577 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. 1991). But the divorced parents in the instant case argued because that case is more than 25 years old, the court “should review this issue anew as prior law is outdated and not in sync with our current society.”

“[I]t is well-established that as Indiana’s intermediate appellate court, we are bound to follow Indiana Supreme Court precedent,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote, declining the parents’ request to overturn Neudecker.

The Court of Appeals also ruled with respect to father Jasen Simcox that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in crediting him with nonconforming child support payments made to ex-wife Amy Likes or in basing his financial obligation for his daughter’s college expenses on the cost of a public university rather than a private one.

The case is Lisa Gill v. Jeffery B. Gill; In Re the Marriage Of: Jasen Simcox v. Amy S. (Simcox) Likes; and Paul King v. Jennifer Devine, 20A03-1607-DR-1569.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.