Jennifer Jones v. Jimmy Jones, 179 Cal.App.3d 1011 (1986)
CASE: Daughter sues her father for college money.
FACTS: Soon after turning 18, the plaintiff sued her father for support while she pursued a journalism degree at Northern Arizona University (GO LUMBERJACKS!). She alleged that she would work part-time during school, but that this income would not cover her costs and that her mother did not have the means. She sought $3,600 per year from her father, who contended that he could not afford to pay that much obn a salary of $60,000. The trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer to the complaint.
QUESTION: May a child who has reached the age of majority and who is not physicially or mentally disabled bring an action against her father to compel him to pay for her college education?
PLAINTIFF ARGUES: - Under the California Civil Code, a parent has the obligation to support certain children even after they reach the age of majority: "It is the duty of the father, the mother and the children of any such person in need who is unable to maintain himself by work, to maintain such person to the extent of their ability.
- The Civil Code provides: "The father and mother of a child have an equal responsibility to support and educate their child in the manner suitable to the child's circumstances, taking into consideration the respective earnings or earning capacities of the parents. The father as well as the mother of a child must give him support and education suitable to his circumstances."
COURT SAYS: Affirms trial court (finding for the father).
HOLDING: A child who has reached the age of majority and who is not physicially or mentally disabled cannot bring an action against her father to compel him to pay for a portion of her college education.
RATIONALE:
- The statute forcing parents to support children or other family members after they reach the age of majority only refers to those who cannot work or who are unable to be self-maintaining by work. In this case, the girl had a job and was able to support herself. College is not considered a necessity, but high school is. By ruling otherwise would "open the floodgates to litigation to disgruntled children seeking indefinite funding of an open-ended education."
- To hold otherwise would be to allow a minor of employable age to deliberately flout the legitimate mandates of her father while requiring that the latter support her in her decision to place herself beyond his effective control.
- "Child" in the second statute refers to minor children. Further, it was limited by another statuted, which provides: "The duty imposed by Section 196 shall continue to exist as to any unmarried child who has attained the age of 18, is a full-time high school student, and resides with a parent, until such time as he or she completes the 12th grade or attains the age of 19, whichever first occurs."
T O P
|