I/m not too
impressed with the parents or grandparents based on that article. I'm sure I would have the same feeling about the girl if I saw her comments.
This appears to be based on a New Jersey Supreme Court decision -
Newburgh v. Arrigo. A subsequent case Black v Black decided that the amount parents must pay is not limited to state school tuition. From the Newburgh decision:
In general, financially capable parents should contribute to the higher
education of children who are qualified students. In appropriate
circumstances, parental responsibility includes the duty to assure
children of a college and even of a postgraduate education such as law
school.
I found this set of considerations in deciding such cases.
Whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed toward the costs of the requested higher education;The effect of the background values and goals of the parent on the
reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education;The amount of the contribution sought by the child for the cost of higher education;The ability of the parent to pay that cost;The relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course of study sought
by the child;The financial resources of both parents;The commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education;The financial resources of the child, including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust;The ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation;The availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans;The child's relationship to the paying parent, including mutual
affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice
and guidance; andThe relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to the overall long-range goals of the child.
