Curt,
I would be honored to be your brother. To qualify, you would just have to spell my first name correctly. Low threshold.
I tried to say that your legal and public policy analysis may prove correct, but the foundation of the argument is odd and troubling.
I have read data that college educated people make more money than those who are not.
But if that is the basis for the policy, then every parent should be required to fund higher education for every child, regardless of the parents' marital status.
(You actually argue that college not only makes no positive difference, but that college educated kids do financially worse than their lesser educated peers.)
I think
Newburgh is an idea in search of a public policy, and an example of hard cases making bad law. It doesn't square with current societal values of 18 year olds having to make hard choices; families similarly situated should be treated the same; and the courts staying out of people's decision-making for their dependent adult children.
If the Legislature decided to void the
Newburgh doctrine, there is no question but that the NJ Supreme Court would have to yield. There is no constitutional issue here, because if there is, then the educational mandate for college has to go both ways: all families would have to give their children a thorough and efficient college education. And that mandate is not going to happen.
-------------------------------------------
Hanan Isaacs Esq.
Kingston NJ
(609)683-7400
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 03-05-2014 15:56
From: Curtis Romanowski
Subject: NJ Teen Sues Parents for Allegedly Kicking Her Out
To Hanon (and others)...
Oddly, since we are virtual brothers, I am not sure if you are agreeing with my observations or not. My practice has indicated over the past many years that, with remarkably few exceptions, the college educated are not sharing the same elevation as those not so educated, yet successful in business. What we have among the college graduates and particularly those receiving terminal degrees and higher, is crushing educational debt and sacrifice sprawling into their collective futures, including those who have received a ton of support from their parents, intact and otherwise. College is no panacea and certainly no sine qua non for a healthy, growing and proud society.
Please regard this as one argument, and not mine personally, as I will die for the most part with my own beliefs as they concern morals and values, and not purely the law. Thanks!
-------------------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Brielle NJ
(732)603-8585
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 03-05-2014 14:28
From: Hanan Isaacs
Subject: NJ Teen Sues Parents for Allegedly Kicking Her Out
Curt (and others)
If the value of higher education is so elevated, then why restrict its mandate to adult dependent children of divorcing parties?
If the value of higher education is not elevated enough to impose on intact households, then why force divorcing parties to fund it?
As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
What do we call a foolish inconsistency? A violation of equal protection under the law, perhaps.
Hanan
-------------------------------------------
Hanan Isaacs Esq.
Kingston NJ
(609)683-7400
-------------------------------------------