Overview
1. In most states, child support ends when the child is 18, although if the child has not completed high school by that age, some jurisdictions allow support until the age of 19 or graduation from high school, whichever occurs first. As a matter of public policy should state legislatures provide for child support beyond the age of 18 years, for example, to age 20, in order to reflect economic realities? Is there sufficient justification to impose this additional obligation on a non-custodial parent? Should (could) the legislature impose this same rule on parents within an intact family, who might otherwise seek to emancipate their children when they reach the age of 18 years?
2. College, or similar post-secondary educational training, qualifies for an extension of support in some states. Is there an equal protection problem when college students have greater rights to financial support than the needy 19-year-old who cannot attend college?
3. Stepparents traditionally have no obligation to support a child once they terminate their relationship with the child’s biological parent. As a corollary, they have no right to demand visitation or custody. In some respects, these limitations on rights and obligations may be similar to those involved in technologically assisted reproduction. Are the public policy justifications also similar? Should the two categories of “parents” be treated similarly or should legislatures and courts distinguish between them?
1. Most state courts are required to use the legislature’s best interests of the child standard for parent-versus-parent custody disputes. In parent-versus-nonparent custody or visitation disputes, the process tips in favor of the wishes of a fit parent, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. What might support the argument that close family members, such as grandparents, should be judged under the best interests standard for visitation? Are the better arguments based on situational factors or legal rights?
2. For the most part, custodial parents are free to relocate and thus jeopardize the visiting rights of the non-custodial parent. The states have various approaches to this dilemma of competing interests. What is the best approach to resolve this issue? Should we begin by prioritizing rights, and if so, what is the proper hierarchy of the rights of the custodial parent, the non-custodial parent, and the child? Instead of a legal rights approach, should this process begin from a social or psychological approach? Once a priority of rights and/or concerns is determined, which factors would weigh in favor of one decision over another?
3. In her article, Eliminating Consideration of Parental Wealth in Post-Divorce Child Custody Disputes, Frantz writes that courts should not base custody decisions on the financial status of the respective parents. In what ways, if any, might the financial well-being of each parent be relevant to a more accurate determination of the best interests of the child? In what ways, if any, do the rules on child support affect this issue?