Blue v. Blue
616 A.2d 628, 1992 Pa. LEXIS 509, 532 Pa. 521 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Pennsylvania common law, a parent's duty to provide financial support for a child ceases when the child reaches the age of majority (18) or graduates from high school, whichever occurs later, and does not extend to providing for a college education.
Facts:
- Reginald V. Blue's parents separated while he was attending Pennsylvania State University.
- Prior to the separation, Reginald's parents jointly paid for all of his college expenses from their combined incomes and did not require him to seek financial aid.
- Reginald's father testified that he and Reginald's mother had saved funds through stocks and IRAs specifically to pay for Reginald's college and post-graduate education.
- Due to the emotional trauma of the separation, Reginald took a leave of absence from Penn State.
- During his leave, Reginald worked two jobs, earning approximately $6,265.
- While the divorce was pending, Reginald's father purchased a new, more expensive home with his girlfriend, increasing his monthly mortgage payment by approximately $900.
- When Reginald was re-accepted to Penn State, he had to postpone his return for a semester because he lacked the funds to pay for tuition, room, and board.
Procedural Posture:
- Reginald V. Blue filed a complaint for support against his father in a trial court, seeking financial assistance for his college education.
- The trial court ordered the father to pay $4,600 per year for college but required Reginald to apply for loans and grants, which would reduce the father's obligation.
- The father appealed to the Superior Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the support award but reversed the requirement that Reginald seek financial aid, holding that parents have the primary responsibility for college expenses.
- The father was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a parent have a legal duty to provide financial support for their adult child's college education?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Zappala
No. A parent does not have a legal duty to provide financial support for their adult child's college education. The common law duty to support a child ends when that child reaches the age of majority (18). While lower courts had assumed such a duty for college existed, this court finds no basis for it in either statutory law or binding case precedent. The court's prior decision in Emrick v. Emrick was based on the enforcement of a private agreement between parents, not the creation of a general legal duty. The court distinguished a college education from the 'necessity' of a basic high school education, holding that the parental duty of support extends only until a child is 18 or graduates high school, whichever is later. Creating a broader duty to fund higher education is a policy decision for the legislature, not the judiciary.
Dissenting - Justice Larsen
Yes. The dissenting opinion would affirm the lower court's holding that parents have an obligation to provide college support for their children. However, the dissent disagrees with the Superior Court's conclusion that the parent's obligation cannot be reduced by the child's own financial aid, stating that parents should receive credit for any grants, scholarships, or loans the child obtains.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant departure from the developing case law in Pennsylvania's lower appellate courts, which had been moving toward recognizing a parental duty to fund higher education. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania established a firm, bright-line rule, tying the end of the support obligation to the age of majority and completion of high school. By explicitly rejecting a common law duty to pay for college, the court shifted the responsibility for creating such an obligation to the legislature, thereby halting the judicial expansion of parental support duties into a child's adult years. This case clarifies that, absent a contractual agreement, a parent's financial responsibility ends at high school graduation.
