s/o 18 yr old suing parents: Financial obligation to 18-yr-old high schoolers

[MinivanMom]

What is your financial or moral obligation to your child who is a legal adult, but is still in high school? When does your obligation to support him end? Is it the moment he turns 18 . . . or when he graduates high school . . . or when he refuses to follow your rules?

 

How does this change in the age of red-shirting? If parents choose to hold their child back so that he turns 18 prior to starting his senior year of high school, do the parents now have an obligation (legally or morally) to support their child through that last year of high school since they are the ones who chose to redshirt him?

[musicianmom]

I think the parent is obligated to provide for the child until high school graduation, even past the 18th birthday, unless the child has severely violated reasonable boundaries.

[Unicorn.]

All of my children will turn 18 the summer before their senior year.   I will give you my perspective after I address a  huge pet peeve of mine.  My children were held back so they would graduate at 18.  They were not redshirted.  Redshirting is strictly an athletic term that allows an athlete to attend school/classes, practice w/ a team, but not play in games so that he/she can extend their academic time to 5 or 6 years.

 

Ok, mini rant over.  My financial and moral obligation to my children will absolutely include their senior year, and I will do everything I can to help pay for their college, and even help them get started after graduation.  However, if they choose to act like a spoiled, entitled brat, and they want to run away from home, and not follow our rules, then good luck to them.  Financial and moral responsibility would end at that point. 

 

Does that answer your question?

[Corraleno]

Personally, I believe that my "moral obligation" to my children continues as long as I'm alive. I don't understand the concept that it just "ends" at a specific age, and I would not make my support (whether financial or emotional) contingent on my adult children living their lives exactly as I dictate. I will help them whenever I can, however I can, because I love them, and because we're a family, and that's what families do.

 

 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Personally, I believe that my "moral obligation" to my children continues as long as I'm alive. I don't understand the concept that it just "ends" at a specific age, and I would not make my support (whether financial or emotional) contingent on my adult children living their lives exactly as I dictate. I will help them whenever I can, however I can, because I love them, and because we're a family, and that's what families do.

This.

 

Why would I not help my kids if I am able? We are family, I hope they'd return the favor.

[SKL]

Legally, in my state, I'm pretty sure parents are allowed to cut kids off on their 18th birthday with no formalities whatsoever.  It can happen sooner, but there is some legal formality you have to go through, I think.  I can't imagine the courts creating an obligation to support an adult offspring.

 

Personally, I would not want to stop supporting my kids as long as they were pursuing their high school diplomas, even if they were 19 when they graduated.  Longer if it worked out and made sense under the circumstances.  However, the support would be provided the same way I provide support to minor kids.  Which normally means that they live with me.  Which means certain household rules get followed (on both sides) so that our living together is not obnoxious.  When I say rules on both sides, I mean that I don't say foul things about them, their choices, their friends, etc.; I don't make ridiculous rules that disrespect/demean them; I give them space that respects their age and maturity.  But I would expect respect and consideration from them as well.  If things were obnoxious too much of the time, I'd show them some "tough love" aka "the door."  I'd try to keep the lines of communication open, but not at all costs.

 

If a child has special needs / mental illness, the parent may be able to seek legal guardianship so the relationship can continue similar to that with a minor child.  In that case, the parent would be entitled to benefits (if any) and would have financial as well as moral obligations to the child.

[SKL]

Not sure what you mean by "moral" obligation.  I don't love my kids because of an obligation, moral or otherwise.  If I'm anything like my mom, I'll continue to be concerned and involved in a loving way throughout my life, to the extent that feels right to each child.  I only hope that nothing ever happens to prevent that.  But not because I "should" give a damn.  Because I can't help but give a damn.

[Catwoman]

Our personal intention is to financially support our ds through college and grad school, and to make sure he has a car when he gets his license, and probably a condo or a house to get him started.

 

But... If he pulled a Rachel Canning on us and suddenly started spouting hideous vulgarities and telling us we owed him our financial support no matter how rotten he acted, simply because we could afford to give him the money... ummm.... Let's just say that attitude wouldn't go over very well with us and all bets would be off. :glare:

 

But we have a great relationship with our ds and I'm really hoping it stays that way! :) It makes me so sad to hear stories about families who end up in battles over money.

[Pawz4me]

I suspect legally the obligation ends at 18.  Period.

 

Morally?  My opinion is that DH and I chose to bring our kids into the world.  They didn't have any say so in the matter.  In today's world a college education is pretty much a necessity.  And therefore our moral obligation is to pay for that (at least as much as possible, I know many families can't pay for it all).  And I personally can't imagine ever not feeling a moral obligation to support my kids in whatever way they need (financially, emotionally, etc.).  But that is a two-way street, of course.  If they want us to support them so they can sleep all day and play video games or party all night or act in any way other than as a responsible human being contributing (in some way) to society . .  no.

[creekland]

 

My financial and moral obligation to my children will absolutely include their senior year, and I will do everything I can to help pay for their college, and even help them get started after graduation.  However, if they choose to act like a spoiled, entitled brat, and they want to run away from home, and not follow our rules, then good luck to them.  Financial and moral responsibility would end at that point. 

 

Does that answer your question?

 

 

Personally, I believe that my "moral obligation" to my children continues as long as I'm alive. I don't understand the concept that it just "ends" at a specific age, and I would not make my support (whether financial or emotional) contingent on my adult children living their lives exactly as I dictate. I will help them whenever I can, however I can, because I love them, and because we're a family, and that's what families do.

 

These sum up my feelings.  In the event that drug or alcohol abuse were in the picture, we'd likely take a tough love sort of thing.  Ditto that for frivolous spending without having bills paid first.  But my kids are allowed to be themselves (within legal and ethical limits) and we're all still family.  Family helps each other - forever.  They do not have to be little clones.

 

If they acted like RC, we'd be patiently waiting and hoping they'd grow up sooner or later, but we wouldn't be supporting them financially because they claimed we must.  That, to me, is the definition of spoiled - not family.

[Night Elf]

My full responsibility is through high school graduation. After that, the teen must do one of the two things, 1. Go to college, or 2. Work full-time. That's what being an adult means. I will not 100% support my children in either case and I most certainly will not let them just stay home and try to remain a child.

 

My dd21 has worked full-time since she was 18 and has lived with me with free room and board. She is a hard worker and I'm very proud of her. She buys everything for herself, including food, although our kitchen is always open to her. She's saving her money so she can move out. She simply doens't make enough money to be self-sufficient. She's also thinking about college, but doesn't want to start unless she has an idea of a major and absolutely nothing speaks to her. So she continues working. She's hoping to eventually find a roommate, but so far all of the young ladies she knows have not been suitable. She may marry within the next few years, depending on when her boyfriend graduates college.

 

My son will begin college as soon as he graduates high school, which I have no idea when that will be exactly. He will live at home. I hope he'll be working part-time, but we'll see how that goes. I have no idea how long it will take him to graduate with a college degree. He won't start out taking a full load. He has Aspergers and is terrified of college. It will have to be a gradual transition. So yes, we'll be supporting him until he graduates and gets a full-time job.

 

My youngest dd will go away to college. She wants to live on campus. She'll work part-time and have scholarships and loans. I figure we'll help by filling in the gaps. She told me that once she leaves, she doesn't plan on living at home again. She wants to be independent and doesn't want to be supported.

[unsinkable]

All of my children will turn 18 the summer before their senior year. I will give you my perspective after I address a huge pet peeve of mine. My children were held back so they would graduate at 18. They were not redshirted. Redshirting is strictly an athletic term that allows an athlete to attend school/classes, practice w/ a team, but not play in games so that he/she can extend their academic time to 5 or 6 years.

 

Ok, mini rant over. My financial and moral obligation to my children will absolutely include their senior year, and I will do everything I can to help pay for their college, and even help them get started after graduation. However, if they choose to act like a spoiled, entitled brat, and they want to run away from home, and not follow our rules, then good luck to them. Financial and moral responsibility would end at that point.

 

Does that answer your question?

The definition of red shirting has expanded to include academic red shirting. I'm sorry it is such a pet peeve of yours. But if you google red shirting, many articles come up about academic red shirting.

 

I don't think the genie is going back in the bottle, either with the definition of academic red shirting or its existence.

[kroe1]

I cannot find any legal obligation here in Florida for educational support past age 18 unless the parents are divorced. But, I am just googling.

 

I think for some states the cutoff for married families is 19 instead of 18.

 

Step parents have no financial obligation unless they provided financial support at some point when the student was a minor. Then, they may be treated just like a parent if there is a divorce.

 

In regard to what we practice as a family, we provide ridiculously excessive support as long as we can afford it and strict rules are followed.

[Wheres Toto]

My oldest will be 20 next month.  She is in college full time.  We pay her tuition and fees (and her dad will pay the next two years since we finally settled that court case), and then she will go to grad school, which we will also help with tuition.  

 

She technically could commute but it's an obnoxious commute on some of the unsafest roads in our area.  Due to the agreement with her dad she's paying her room and board but she is allowed to use her Stafford Loans and we actually paid for it and she's paying us back.  She works for Target and we get 80% of every paycheck until it's paid off.  In reality, she probably will not make enough this year to actually cover it all.  In reality, she always has money when she needs it for something important.  The only thing we really make her pay for with her 20% is meals out with friends or shopping for not really needed clothes and shoes.  It's more about her showing her willingness to work hard and contribute instead of expecting everything handed to her. 

 

My other two are much younger but I expect that we will offer than similar support if it's at all possible. 

 

I definitely won't continue supporting an adult who doesn't want to work or go to school.  I would give them a reasonable amount of time to get settled, and would certainly take circumstances into consideration, but I would expect them to be contributing to the house and/or their future in some form shortly after the point they graduated high school, within reason.  Since my oldest was going to school and we wanted to give her the chance to settle into college, we didn't have her working her freshman year.  She started working the week school stopped for the summer.

[DawnM]

I will support them as long as they need it.  

 

My parents told me when I left home at age 18 to go to college that their door was always open and I could always come back if I needed to.  I plan to have the same policy with my kids.

 

I may not be able to provide all the "extras" like a more expensive car, a more expensive college, or trips, but I can certainly provide a bedroom, clothing, and food.  This is their home too and they are welcome.

 

Dawn

[lynn]

Are  you asking regarding paying for cars, clothing, living expenses etc?  A car is a privilege imho.    We did provide my boys with transportation and paid  reasonable gas each month and insurance for they chose to work.  I did provide for clothing, spedning money etc.   They were expected to follow house rules.  Curfews, keeping their rooms tidy, yard work, and wash their own clothes.   We did buy their cell phones and paid for 1 full year of service then after that they were to pay their own.

 

 

A small rant though.....in my family we were not told to get a job and pay our own way but my sisters and I all worked from the time we were 14/15 , we purchased our own vehicles, gas, insurance, clothes,  bought our own lunches, and for anything we wanted to do We all paid for own schooling I even paid my own private school tuition .  I never thought to ask my parents to pay for it when it was my choice to attend a private school vs public school.  There were times when we would be short on cash and needed a few dollars for gas or to pay insurance and our parents would help   It just was never expected that they had to help.  My question is, what happened???   Why such a sense of entitlement.

[Pawz4me]

Are  you asking regarding paying for cars, clothing, living expenses etc?  A car is a privilege imho.    We did provide my boys with transportation and paid  reasonable gas each month and insurance for they chose to work.  I did provide for clothing, spedning money etc.   They were expected to follow house rules.  Curfews, keeping their rooms tidy, yard work, and wash their own clothes.   We did buy their cell phones and paid for 1 full year of service then after that they were to pay their own.

 

 

A small rant though.....in my family we were not told to get a job and pay our own way but my sisters and I all worked from the time we were 14/15 , we purchased our own vehicles, gas, insurance, clothes,  bought our own lunches, and for anything we wanted to do We all paid for own schooling I even paid my own private school tuition .  I never thought to ask my parents to pay for it when it was my choice to attend a private school vs public school.  There were times when we would be short on cash and needed a few dollars for gas or to pay insurance and our parents would help   It just was never expected that they had to help.  My question is, what happened???   Why such a sense of entitlement with this generation.

 

I'm 51 years old and I don't think that on the whole there is any more sense of entitlement now.  Sure it's easy to pick out individual examples here and there, but no doubt that's been the case since the beginning of time.  Some people in every generation like to believe the generation behind them is going to you-know-where in a hand basket.  So far I think it's pretty clear that hasn't been true.

[Jane in NC]

What is your financial or moral obligation to your child who is a legal adult, but is still in high school? When does your obligation to support him end? Is it the moment he turns 18 . . . or when he graduates high school . . . or when he refuses to follow your rules?

 

 

 

The OP's last question is really tricky. On the one hand, yes, parents have every right to establish house rules.  On the other hand, some parents assert absurd levels of control and then balk when their kids refuse to conform.

 

How much micromanagement should we do of our kids' lives?  Should our college students study what we as parents want them to study?  Should we approve of their friends, their extracurriculars, their recreational choices?

 

Parenting comes with risks.  I feel that we as parents have a moral obligation to help navigate our children through the potentially rough waters of life.  Some kids have smooth sailing all along from circumstances or plain dumb luck.  Other kids have a rough go and have to learn their lessons the hard way.

 

I am not suggesting that we as parents fund dangerous lifestyles by giving blind financial support.  I do hope that by giving constant moral support we maintain open doors of communication.  Some kids are going to need a helping hand.  Yes, we all know those who have pulled themselves up by their boot straps (waving hand) but that should make us more sensitive to those facing similar challenges. I made certain financial choices when my son was a baby so that he would not have to be in the position I was in when I attended college. 

 

Maybe this is easy for me to say because I have one focused kid, now a senior in college.  His homeschooling journey led him to where he is today. I have walked by his side, held out my arms in the air in case he fell, and now serve as his cheerleader.  Being mom to The Boy has been the greatest joy in my life.  I refuse to resign the position enough though he is a senior in college.

[In The Great White North]

 

 

 I'll only mention that high schools often do not treat 18 year old students as adults.  For example, they don't let them call out sick for themselves

They still don't.  I'm the swim coach.  A kid who, for some reason can't make the bus to a meet, has to get his parents to send a note to the AD for them to drive him.  He can't write the note or drive himself, even if he is 18.

[lynn]

I'm 51 years old and I don't think that on the whole there is any more sense of entitlement now.  Sure it's easy to pick out individual examples here and there, but no doubt that's been the case since the beginning of time.  Some people in every generation like to believe the generation behind them is going to you-know-where in a hand basket.  So far I think it's pretty clear that hasn't been true.

 

I must be getting old when I use the phrase "this generation" without thinking about it.    :leaving:

[Kathryn]

DH dropped out of high school at 16. His father immediately went to court so he could stop paying child support. That meant that even though he realized that he made a huge mistake, he couldn't go back to high school because he had to work full-time as his mother was unreliable with keeping jobs and paying bills.

 

Our children will all turn 18 in their senior year. They will be fully supported at least until they finish. If they make stupid choices, we will be there to encourage them on the right path. If they need extra help, it will be there. If they want extra help without any regard for other people or helping themselves, it would not be in monetary form.

[lavender's green]

I think whatever the answer is, the child should be really aware of it, and the parents should have  prepared the child for it - how to make money/go to college, how to make financial and life choices, how to respect (cough, Rachel Canning, cough) the people who are footing your bill.

 

My parents always said they'd pay for my college and fees and room until age 22, or marriage, or graduation.  I paid car stuff, clothing, food, extras, etc.  There were a couple of summers when I chose to live on campus, working.  They weren't 100% on board with that idea and told me I'd have to fully support myself for that.  And I did, no hard feelings on either side.  Those three cut-offs happened at the same time for me, and DH and I knew it was coming and were prepared to handle everything at that point.  Now, I do happen to come from a dysfunctional family, and Miss Canning could be my sister (that voicemail was tame compared to what she'd say to all of us on a daily basis).  But financially I think my parents and I had a great agreement going on, and I'm grateful for that support, and that I always knew what was expected of me, and I could always count on x.y,z being paid for up until a,b,or c cutoff.

 

DH and I plan to have a few more children, and our oldest is still in diapers at night, so...we're just a little ways away from needing to really decide on all this.  But we do discuss it from time to time, especially with all the talk about college tuition being a financial bubble.  I think we'll fully support them until 18/graduation, whichever comes later.  Then slowly cut the apron strings, on a timeline the child is aware of, with us having done everything we can to prepare the child for that level of maturity.  I doubt we'll fully fund everyone's college, but we'll give them each X amount per year, and living space for a few years.  If they want to attend CC and live at home so everything's paid for, great.  If they want to go to an expensive college they'll still receive X amount and will have to fund the rest themselves.

 

Something I've recently decided on is to not bless a child's marriage until they're capable of supporting themselves and any kids they might produce right away (BC accidents happen!).  Because I know  a guy in his mid-20s who's living with his in-laws while flunking out of undergrad.  His heavily pregnant wife is on her feet all day at a coffee shop to pay off her own student loans because she made unwise financial and degree decisions.  I think it's great that her parents are supporting them through this rough time, but I don't want any of my children to be in that situation (especially the young man's - seriously, he's mid-20s, still an undergrad, failing at it, and has a baby on the way, that he can't support).

[In The Great White North]

Here's a nice list of the legal requirements in each state.  (It kind of implies divorce cases with frequent mentions of court orders and agreement between parties, but doesn't actually say that it only applies in those situations.)

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/termination-of-support-college-support.aspx

[Catherine]

So much of the answer to this question depends on one's financial means.  In some families where I live, a car is a common college graduation gift.  I don't see those kids as spoiled-their parents can afford it without undue burden, it helps them to get started in life, and if they are progressing responsibly into independence, I see no issue with it.  OTOH, in some families, the parent or parents cannot provide anything at all beyond the very most basic necessities, ie, food and shelter.  And in those cases, the parents are doing what they can.

 

Unfortunately, we are not discussing a case like either of the above, because it sounds like the young woman in NJ has run afoul of her parents.  This is oh so familiar to me-I know SO many young adults, particularly young men, who have seriously stumbled in this phase.  In almost all cases, these was substance abuse, mental illness, or both.  I have feared my own kids might end up college dropouts because of their depression, and feared we might face a very difficult choice with them. Thank goodness, substance abuse is not in the picture here, but even in families with stable, responsible parents, (I hope I can count myself in this group), this happens.  I have a close friend whose son has been in no end of major trouble (legal, mental, substance, academic failure) since he was 12 and they are beside themselves.  They forced him to leave when he was bringing drugs into their house and one of his friends threatened their daughter.  But what an agonizing situation.  I used to believe that "good" families didn't deal with this, but I really don't anymore.  I think parents can do much to get and keep their kids on the right track, but even good parents can have kids who stumble.  Which is all to say, I am VERY sympathetic to these parents, although I don't know the details.  Perhaps their share a lot of the responsibility for the breakdown in communication.

[Julie Smith]

The rule according to my Mother is you are always allowed to move home and get family support if one of the following is true:

 

1. You are in school 

2. You are working (and VERY actively looking for work is work)

3. You are seeking mental health help and taking your recommended medication

 

or a combination of those that keeps you occupied for several hours of the day. 

 

[catz]

We have every intention of seeing our kids through college and hopefully set up in adult life without huge amounts of debt. That said, I watched my parents financially support my brother into his 30's which enabled him to behave like less than an adult. So I think there's a fine line. I do want my kids to launch as responsible and self supporting adults. My brother is 42 and only the past couple years have I felt like he's taking full responsibility. I floundered a little financially as a young adult just out of college and now that we are comfortable, I feel like we are pretty financially responsible (we have no debt other than our mortgage, good retirement, college savings, etc). Learning to struggle a little and manage money was a actually a much greater gift than being handed a couple hundred bucks when in a tight spot.

 

Anyway, I have every intention of always being there for my kids. I however don't intend on financially supporting fully educated adults for the long term.

[umsami]

I would like to believe that we would help all of our kids through college, grad school, maybe help them with a down payment on a condo/home, etc.    My parents did that for me, and I am very grateful.  But, I also watched them continue to support my brother to this day (he's 49), in spite of years of drugs, jail, etc.  They've financed various businesses for him all which failed.  THey've enabled him to never have to grow up, and I will not do that for my kids.   If we ran into a similar situation, I'd have no trouble showing tough love.  

[MinivanMom]

So much of the answer to this question depends on one's financial means.  In some families where I live, a car is a common college graduation gift.  I don't see those kids as spoiled-their parents can afford it without undue burden, it helps them to get started in life, and if they are progressing responsibly into independence, I see no issue with it.  OTOH, in some families, the parent or parents cannot provide anything at all beyond the very most basic necessities, ie, food and shelter.  And in those cases, the parents are doing what they can.

 

Unfortunately, we are not discussing a case like either of the above, because it sounds like the young woman in NJ has run afoul of her parents.  This is oh so familiar to me-I know SO many young adults, particularly young men, who have seriously stumbled in this phase.  In almost all cases, these was substance abuse, mental illness, or both.  I have feared my own kids might end up college dropouts because of their depression, and feared we might face a very difficult choice with them. Thank goodness, substance abuse is not in the picture here, but even in families with stable, responsible parents, (I hope I can count myself in this group), this happens.  I have a close friend whose son has been in no end of major trouble (legal, mental, substance, academic failure) since he was 12 and they are beside themselves.  They forced him to leave when he was bringing drugs into their house and one of his friends threatened their daughter.  But what an agonizing situation.  I used to believe that "good" families didn't deal with this, but I really don't anymore.  I think parents can do much to get and keep their kids on the right track, but even good parents can have kids who stumble.  Which is all to say, I am VERY sympathetic to these parents, although I don't know the details.  Perhaps their share a lot of the responsibility for the breakdown in communication.

 

We can't help but view the situation through the lens of our own experiences. I have known virtually no situations where a teen went completely off the rails without abuse or severe family dysfunction (although I'm sure that it happens). I have known many situations where divorced/remarried parents were simply done raising the teen from the first marriage and kicked the teen out on his 18th birthday or earlier, usually vilifying the teen in the process. I have also seen parents take the teen to counseling (or offer to do so very publicly) as a way to shame the teen and make him/her the scapegoat of the marriage/remarriage problems. If the child has been to counseling then the parents have an easy excuse for kicking the teen out while still in high school. In the situations I've known in real life, the kids put themselves through college and thrived once they were out of the home, while the parents continued to struggle with financial/marital problems. The NJ case we're talking about seems to be a messier affair - what with the teen's poor behavior and the parents' tumultuous marriage - and I would guess that it probably falls somewhere between these two extremes.

 

I think most parents want to support their children throughout their lives, because they love them and they are family. That support may or may not be financial depending on the family's circumstances and culture, but virtually all families are providing emotional support. I asked the question as more of a moral dilemma.

 

We have a legal structure where teens become legal adults on their 18th birthday, but are almost universally still financially-dependent high school students for an additional 1-18 months past their 18th birthday. What happens to the kid caught between 18 and high school graduation if the parents simply don't want to support them anymore - whatever the reason? Is it really just up to the parents to make that call with no safety net for the kids? Do we as a society have an obligation to fill that gap for kids who are still high school students?

[SKL]

Coming from a family with 6 kids, all I can say is that parents can't really engineer what their kids will be like as adults.  A rebellious kid *may* be rebelling against ridiculous rules or abuse, or *may* have been too spoiled all his life, or *may* just be unable genetically to peacefully live with other human beings at that life stage.  I've known all three kinds.

 

Thankfully, in my family of origin, rebellion has never been extreme (possibly because certain young adults were reminded where the door was situated before things got too crazy).  All of us graduated high school at 16 or 17, with the exception of one brother who chose by his own volition to cancel his early graduation request in order to get more math and science courses before college.  (That brother was a homebody anyway.)  My eldest brother (a gifted student btw) had already decided not to go to college right after high school.  He chose to attend the vo-ed and had a regular job before he had a high school diploma.  He always intended to work college into his life and eventually did earn a bachelor's degree, showing that the supposedly "ideal" path was not right for him.  The rest of us went to college on schedule at age 16, 17, or 18.  Our parents allowed us to live in their house as long as we were reasonably considerate, which we were, for the most part.  Though there were stints when several lived elsewhere for a while.  Not feeling forced to live together may have been the reason why our family ties were never severed.  Of course that's just one family.

[SKL]

I would also say that a kid who quietly stays with his parents at that age isn't automatically mature / in good mental health.  Or well-loved / well-cared for.  It really doesn't prove anything about the parents.  It might sometimes be the easy route when the young adult would be better off facing some life challenges.  It might be a case of a child who has been victimized to the point of being afraid to step out.  Or it might be a well-adjusted young person who is making a mature choice to accept his parents' temporary help.

[Tap]

Legally until 18, but honestly I think it would be pretty cold to kick out an 18 year old senior, just due to when their birthday falls. 

 

Morally, starting the summer after high school graduation, I will continue to parent and provide for my kids as long as they are putting in as much effort as I am.  I have told my kids I will live in a city with multiple college opportunities and they are welcome to live at home, basic living expense free if they are going to school full time and working part time (or visa versa).  I will give them a good high school education so they can get scholarships if they want, tuition will be up to them, but I may help out if I can.  I provide an insured family car to use while at home, but they have to pay the remaining costs to drive/maintain it.

 

 

So, far it is working out fine for us.  DS chose to go to an expensive private college instead of state college so he is footing the tuition bill (makes sense since he is pastoral major LOL), but so far I have kicked in a thousand each term to help out.  He only works 5-10 hours a week during the school year but volunteers more than double that.  Those hours are more of an internship for his career, so I am fine with that.  He pays for his own gas and fun money. but I give him a bit extra randomly.  

 

I want my kids to succeed in college.  I want them to enjoy life and have some down time.  I see no reason to not share the most simple luxuries with my kids like having a place to live.  As long as they are contributing to the house (either emotionally or monetarily)  and not pulling away from it, I see no reason to not allow them to live here. 

 

Our original plan as the kid were growing up, was to have the kids contribute a couple hundred to the house each month after graduation and then for us to  save it for them,  to give back to them when they bought their own home.  But since the bulk of ds's work hours are unpaid volunteer, that doesn't really work out for him. 

[mommymilkies]

I think the parent is obligated to provide for the child until high school graduation, even past the 18th birthday, unless the child has severely violated reasonable boundaries.

 

 

Personally, I believe that my "moral obligation" to my children continues as long as I'm alive. I don't understand the concept that it just "ends" at a specific age, and I would not make my support (whether financial or emotional) contingent on my adult children living their lives exactly as I dictate. I will help them whenever I can, however I can, because I love them, and because we're a family, and that's what families do.

:iagree:   However, I do feel like a tough love approach is necessary for some kids.  I currently have a family member who is taking advantage of his disabled mother.  He is not yet graduated, but well past 18.  He's become abusive, violent, and is using drugs.  I would not hesitate to tell her to kick him out for her own protection. Luckily that is not a common situation.  

[LucyStoner]

Social Security survivor benefit for children end at the later of 18 or high school graduation. 

 

That said, I, oddly enough, don't aim to parent by minimal legal obligations barring some extreme circumstances.  :huh: 

 

I will provide whatever financial support I can to my sons through their graduate school level education (or through vocational training if they don't go the college route).  I will help them after that.  We based our family size and, to some degree, our career choices on being able to help them in a way that is personally meaningful to us and in sync with our family values. 

[SKL]

I haven't seen any selfishness in any of the above posts.  I think each of us wants what's best for our kids.  Sometimes that's financial support, sometimes it's financial independence.

[ssavings]

Absolutely, I will support my children through highschool. And, yes, through as much of college as I am able to do.
 

[creekland]

We can't help but view the situation through the lens of our own experiences. I have known virtually no situations where a teen went completely off the rails without abuse or severe family dysfunction (although I'm sure that it happens).

 

It happens, unfortunately.  When it does it's almost always due to some sort of peer influence which generally, but not always, includes drugs and/or alcohol.  The other times it is purely due to the independent spirit of the individual or some mental illnesses.

 

Perfectly good parents (none of us are "perfect," if we want to get technical, but...) are sometimes at their wits end wondering what they did wrong, when in reality, it was nothing that would have set off an "average" kid.  Many times there are siblings who turn out just fine.

 

Then too, the "other" stuff you mentioned happens a bit as well, but they are definitely different situations.

 

[catz]

I will also say for us another financial goal is saving up for retirement/end of life to the point of not being a financial burden to our children while they're trying to raise their own families. Both sets of our own parents have done that - I don't suspect any of them will ever need us financially. That doesn't mean we won't help them, be there for them, or be heavily involved during their elder years by any stretch. It just means we can help our own kids financially with college and their early adult hood, without stressing our own retirement accounts or trying to pay for nursing home care, or whatever. There's give and take on all these things.

[LucyStoner]

I haven't seen any selfishness in any of the above posts.  I think each of us wants what's best for our kids.  Sometimes that's financial support, sometimes it's financial independence.

 

In my view financial independence can be much more solidly secured with support upfront.  I've worked since before it was technically legal for me to do so.  I was on my own at 17 and supporting my sibling not too much later.  There is value in that.  I am one tough cookie.  That said, there were also opportunity costs to being on my own in that way so young.  Going to a commuter college and working 2+ jobs doesn't leave a lot of time for exciting academic achievement.  I made very good grades but I didn't have time for the unpaid internships and certain academic opportunities that I perhaps would have really benefited from.  You make better contacts during an internship for a bank executive than you do getting a job as a teller.  You have more time to get more out of college if you are not always scraping for every penny or running to your next job.  While financial independence is the ultimate goal, I'd rather see that come with a lot of open doors than from a job flipping burgers.  Sometimes I look at my middle class, relatively privileged sons and compare that to my own upbringing.  Sometimes I have wondered why my sons are so much more naive than I was at the same age.  Then I remember that they are getting a childhood filled with wonder and excitement and lack of worry about every little dime.  That lack of worry frees them up to do so much more than was always practical for me. 

 

[Cammie]

A lot of this is a very American attitude...one that is not shared in much of the world.

 

Here in India, 18 really doesn't hold any special significance for the relationship between a parent and the child.  Children expect and are given financial support until they are working full time.  Often such support may continue until marriage.  And even then, the family remains a "unit."  By that I mean that by the time the kids no longer need support it is probably time for the parents to start receiving support.  Often by moving in together or financial support.  It is really a life long dependency flowing in both directions.

[matrips]

Supporting through high school seems logical, but I think after that is a fine line. I'd want to help my kids, but I'd also expect them to be putting forth a great effort to support themselves or pay their way, and not being demanding and feeling entitled. I worked three jobs at a time and had grants and loans to help pay for college (which was based partly upon affordability and I picked a degree that was geared towards a good job). I did not blow money or take spring breaks. My parents were happy to fill in the gaps. I felt supported and yet not supported (as in beginning to grow up). I think it was a good lead in for when I graduated. I bought my own car, paid rent at home until I moved into an apt, began paying off my loans, and basically felt like an 'adult'. While my parents were there, I did not expect them to provide for me beyond just being there for me and making me feel at home, if that makes sense. It really helped keep me focused on being careful with money and spending wisely etc. I bought my first house a few years after graduation, my search and my loan, and all my purchases for the house. They gave me a tool box and tools that Christmas as a housewarming gift. One that I still use to this day. A great gift! That's what I hope to do for my kids. Set them up to be successful and independent, not enable them to remain children by over-supporting. Again, it can be a fine line. Perhaps more difficult in this day and age.

[catz]

A lot of this is a very American attitude...one that is not shared in much of the world.

 

Here in India, 18 really doesn't hold any special significance for the relationship between a parent and the child.  Children expect and are given financial support until they are working full time.  Often such support may continue until marriage.  And even then, the family remains a "unit."  By that I mean that by the time the kids no longer need support it is probably time for the parents to start receiving support.  Often by moving in together or financial support.  It is really a life long dependency flowing in both directions.

As someone who posted perhaps in a more "American" way, I would say I definitely do not consider 18 to be a magic age at all. I would be absolutely fine helping my kid through grad school, through internships, etc to pursue a chosen career. I would allow a responsible, ambitious kid to move back home. I do not revel in cutting off my kids at all. Financially, there will be a point. In other ways, never as far as I'm concerned. It's been shown brains are still developing into your mid-twenties and that fact does not seem at all surprising to me.

 

But I would say give lack of truly affordable health care and cost of living in the US, it would feel irresponsible not to be planning financially for our own financial futures as well. I wish things were simpler and more affordable here, but it is what it is. I think the fact that my own parents have covered themselves financially for the rest of their lives is a huge gift to us and our own kids. We are still very close with them.

[SKL]

A lot of this is a very American attitude...one that is not shared in much of the world.

 

Here in India, 18 really doesn't hold any special significance for the relationship between a parent and the child.  Children expect and are given financial support until they are working full time.  Often such support may continue until marriage.  And even then, the family remains a "unit."  By that I mean that by the time the kids no longer need support it is probably time for the parents to start receiving support.  Often by moving in together or financial support.  It is really a life long dependency flowing in both directions.

 

I don't disagree.  But on the other hand, American teens don't see themselves as being a permanent part of their parents' household, or responsible for their parents someday.  Without this long-term view of family harmony, they may be quicker to burn bridges etc.  And when they do, they don't have extended family coming along and guiding them back toward filial compliance.  The trajectory is generally outward in our culture, and that's considered normal.  Part of this is because it is relatively easier to set up housekeeping on one's own in America.  Another reason is that there are other sources of support for elderly Americans.

 

I do know Americans (unmarried individuals) who have stayed with their parents long past college age, despite not needing financial support.  They happen to have a good rapport with their folks and have no particular reason to live elsewhere.  I think that's great, but I don't think it's a tragedy that most Americans are more hands off after a certain age.  In my experience, people do usually come to their parents' aid when needs arise, whether they live together or not.

 

I also know some Indians who rebelled as youths and don't show much concern for their parents in their old age.  As with rebellious Americans, some were spoiled, some were abused/stifled, and some were just plain difficult.  Some of them went back and demanded their inheritance etc.  As for caring for their elderly parents, it's true in general, but on the other hand, elder abuse in India (by sons) is rampant.  Mothers were traditionally forced to commit "suicide" if they were widowed, so they wouldn't be a burden.  So it isn't all sunshine and roses in that system, either.

 

ETA:  I would add that many Americans do provide financial support to their parents.  It isn't something that is publicized but it happens all the time.

[Arcadia]

By that I mean that by the time the kids no longer need support it is probably time for the parents to start receiving support.  Often by moving in together or financial support.  It is really a life long dependency flowing in both directions.

:iagree:

 

Most parents do still give support in terms of free babysitting and sometimes help with cooking. At least I can look around in my neighborhood and see families with three generations under one roof.

 

Financial would be when kids are stable in their income and have an emergency fund.  21 is the legal age in my home country anyway. 

Moral obligation never ends.

[Joker]

We plan on helping our children as much as we can, but financially there is only so much we can do. I don't feel like we will be failing them if we're unable to meet all of their financial needs. That kind of thinking is strange to me. My parents, and dh's, did what they could and I feel very fortunate. I never expected anything, and I definitely never expected more than they gave. Dh and I are right now doing better than our parents were and our dds are right now in a better place than we were. We will not be financing them through college but we will be doing all that we can and I'm happy with that (and I hope the children I have raised are happy and grateful for that as well).

 

 

[Camelfeet]

I do not feel I have a moral obligation to financially support my children when they become adults.  That said, I plan on helping my child as much as I can until they are self sufficient.  I want to see them succeed but I don't want to be taken advantage of or enable bad behaviour. By the time they are adults I would expect that they understand that financial help comes with expectations and that they are not owed it by default.  I don't want to foster a sense of entitlement in my children. 

 

I'm not going to kick her out of the house because she is 18.  I'm not going to demand she get a job right away.  It is my intention to see them educated through high school.  I intend on paying for their university/college tuition and books as we already have some savings for that.  I plan on helping with some of their living expenses during university/college as well.  In return I expect good grades and serious study.  I'm not going to pay for university if she misses most of her classes and is failing as a result.  I'm not going to pay for groceries if she turns around and uses what she has saved to get drunk every weekend.      

 

              

[kiwik]

It is a bit different here but ideally I would like my kids to be able to go to university and focus on their career goal. I would like them to be able to choose the most beneficial summer job not the one the paid the most and I would like them to be able to be involved in campus politics and clubs if they desire. I don't want them to be able to afford to do stupid things but enough to pay for course trips and the odd student experience.

[Cammie]

I don't disagree.  But on the other hand, American teens don't see themselves as being a permanent part of their parents' household, or responsible for their parents someday.  Without this long-term view of family harmony, they may be quicker to burn bridges etc.  And when they do, they don't have extended family coming along and guiding them back toward filial compliance.  The trajectory is generally outward in our culture, and that's considered normal.  Part of this is because it is relatively easier to set up housekeeping on one's own in America.  Another reason is that there are other sources of support for elderly Americans.

 

I do know Americans (unmarried individuals) who have stayed with their parents long past college age, despite not needing financial support.  They happen to have a good rapport with their folks and have no particular reason to live elsewhere.  I think that's great, but I don't think it's a tragedy that most Americans are more hands off after a certain age.  In my experience, people do usually come to their parents' aid when needs arise, whether they live together or not.

 

I also know some Indians who rebelled as youths and don't show much concern for their parents in their old age.  As with rebellious Americans, some were spoiled, some were abused/stifled, and some were just plain difficult.  Some of them went back and demanded their inheritance etc.  As for caring for their elderly parents, it's true in general, but on the other hand, elder abuse in India (by sons) is rampant.  Mothers were traditionally forced to commit "suicide" if they were widowed, so they wouldn't be a burden.  So it isn't all sunshine and roses in that system, either.

 

ETA:  I would add that many Americans do provide financial support to their parents.  It isn't something that is publicized but it happens all the time.

 

And that is why generalizations have limited usefulness...there will always be Americans who don't follow the "leave the nest model" and there will always be Indians who don't follow the "family as a unit model."  However, as generalizations go,  I feel they are both pretty spot on.

 

I just had to respond to the comment about mothers being forced to commit suicide in India so they were not a burden to their family.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  If you are referring to the practice of sati it had nothing to do with "mothers being a burden."  It was complicated and multi-layered with political, socio and religious origins.  Indologists, sociologists, anthropologist have been digging through the practice for centuries and reinterpreting and rethinking it constantly.   I think it is unfair to India and Indians and perpetuates a rather horrible stereotype of the cruel and backward heathen to have it shorthanded to "widowed mothers in India were forced to commit suicide."    I am sure you didn't mean to do such a thing.

 

[unsinkable]

In the last few years, I read articles about India's widows being considered outcasts.

 

People can do their own research. I am aware India is a big country but articles talk about thousands of widows with no place to go.

[Beth in OH]

Personally, I believe that my "moral obligation" to my children continues as long as I'm alive. I don't understand the concept that it just "ends" at a specific age, and I would not make my support (whether financial or emotional) contingent on my adult children living their lives exactly as I dictate. I will help them whenever I can, however I can, because I love them, and because we're a family, and that's what families do.

 

I have found that by walking through life with my adult children when they are making independent choices (some of which I do not support), God has given me the chance to grow in unconditional love.  It is sometimes a much harder concept to put into practice than I ever imagined, but I am thankful to have had the chance.   :)

[SKL]

I just had to respond to the comment about mothers being forced to commit suicide in India so they were not a burden to their family.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  If you are referring to the practice of sati it had nothing to do with "mothers being a burden."  It was complicated and multi-layered with political, socio and religious origins.  Indologists, sociologists, anthropologist have been digging through the practice for centuries and reinterpreting and rethinking it constantly.   I think it is unfair to India and Indians and perpetuates a rather horrible stereotype of the cruel and backward heathen to have it shorthanded to "widowed mothers in India were forced to commit suicide."    I am sure you didn't mean to do such a thing.

 

 

My sources include very close friends who are Indians, backed by reliable Indian history / news sources.

 

Sure, there is a rationale that makes it sound like it's a spiritual practice done for all the right reasons.  The same can be said of many human rights abuses worldwide (including in the USA).  The fact is that families threw widows into the funeral fire against their will.  It is outlawed now, but so is child marriage, which continues, so I don't know if sati is also continuing.