“Because we cannot determine from the record the total extent of the father’s postminority-edu-cational-support obligation, we cannot say that the trial court’s judgment does not subject the father to undue hardship.”
How later courts described this case
- “Because we cannot determine from the record the total extent of the father’s postminority-edu-cational-support obligation, we cannot say that the trial court’s judgment does not subject the father to undue hardship.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur in the main opinion. I write specially simply to emphasize that proof of the "costs" of a child's college education is an essential prerequisite of a valid judgment under Ex parte Bayliss , 550 So.2d 986 (Ala. 1989). Adducing proof of those educational "costs" has, unfortunately, historically proved difficult for attorneys representing petitioning parents and children; part of that difficulty may perhaps be attributable to the myriad tuition and financial-aid regimes and billing practices of higher-education institutions that may make discerning the "costs" of attendance less than transparent. However, both Judge Crawley in 2002 and Judge Thomas in this case have correctly noted the uniqueness of our indulgence in this area of practice, and remands from this court have repeatedly been necessary in order to cure parties' failures of proof in this area over the past 18 years. Nonetheless, I am content in this case to, in essence, let family law practitioners off with the stern warning stated in footnote 2 in the main opinion, lest this court be accused of retroactively imposing a new, harsher standard without advance notice. Any change in our procedures should, in my view, be made prospective only.