reversing the judgment and remanding the case for the trial court to set a reasonable time limitation on the obligation to pay postminority educational support, to require that the child maintain at least a "C" average, and to require that the child be enrolled as a full-time student
How later courts described this case
- reversing the judgment and remanding the case for the trial court to set a reasonable time limitation on the obligation to pay postminority educational support, to require that the child maintain at least a "C" average, and to require that the child be enrolled as a full-time student
- holding that an award of postminority educational support must include reasonable limitations on the award to prevent undue hardship on the paying parents
- reversing and remanding for the trial court to limit the support to a reasonable period, require the child to maintain at least a "C" average, and require that the child be enrolled as a full-time student
- holding trial court should set reasonable time limits for collegiate child support, and require full-time status and "C" average from child
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur in the reversal of this case; however, I would reverse on the basis that the facts here do not meet the standards set out in Bayliss. Also, as Justice Almon wrote in a "concurring in the result" opinion in Ex parte Barnard , 581 So.2d 489 , 489 (Ala. 1991), concerning the problems with the Bayliss decision that
"[o]ther inherent problems include the questions of how good a student a child has to be in order to be entitled to support under Bayliss; whether a child should be awarded support to attend a trade or technical school; whether such support can be awarded for post-graduate or professional studies; and at what age the parent's obligation terminates."
This seems to be one of those cases.