stating: “[N]otwithstanding a child reaching majority at age 18, -7- J-A09034-17 a parental duty of support is owed until a child reaches 18 or graduates from high school, whichever event occurs later”
How later courts described this case
- stating: “[N]otwithstanding a child reaching majority at age 18, -7- J-A09034-17 a parental duty of support is owed until a child reaches 18 or graduates from high school, whichever event occurs later”
- stating: “[N]otwithstanding a child reaching majority at age 18, a parental duty of support is owed until a child reaches 18 or graduates from high school, whichever event occurs later”
- holding that a parental duty of support is owed until child reaches 18 or graduates from high school, whichever event occurs later
- expanding the inquiry in postminority-edueational-support cases to include consideration of the relationship between the parent and the child and creating the “estrangement defense”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. I do not see this case as involving an abuse of discretion.
I would affirm the Superior Court’s order as to the holding that parents have an obligation to provide college support for their children. I would reverse the Superior Court’s order as to the parents not getting a reduction or credit toward this obligation from the children’s grants, scholarships, loans, financial worth, etc. No windfalls should occur here.