McLeod v. Starnes
396 S.C. 647, 723 S.E.2d 198 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A family court order requiring a divorced parent to contribute to an adult child's college expenses does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of preventing children of divorce from being denied educational opportunities they would have otherwise received.
Facts:
- Kristi McLeod (Mother) and Robert Starnes (Father) divorced in 1993, with Mother receiving custody of their two children.
- Over the subsequent years, Father's annual income increased dramatically from approximately $29,000 to nearly $250,000, while Mother's income remained significantly lower.
- In 2006, their son, Collin, reached the age of majority and enrolled in college.
- Father initially supported Collin's college attendance, promising in writing to repay his student loans, cosigning a loan, and telling Collin he would help with other expenses.
- Based on these assurances, Mother acquiesced when Father unilaterally reduced his weekly child support payments.
- Father subsequently failed to uphold his promises to contribute to Collin's college education.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristi McLeod (Mother) filed an action against Robert Starnes (Father) in family court seeking college expenses for their son Collin and an increase in child support for their son Jamie.
- The family court issued a temporary order requiring Father to contribute $400 per month towards Collin's college expenses.
- Following a final hearing, the family court dismissed Mother's claim for college expenses, ruling that such an award would violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- The family court also reduced Father's child support obligation for Jamie and awarded Father a credit for overpayment of support made under the temporary order.
- Mother (appellant) appealed the family court's final order directly to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
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 family court order requiring a divorced parent to contribute to an adult child's college expenses, under certain exceptional circumstances, violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hearn
No, a family court order requiring a divorced parent to contribute to an adult child's college expenses does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. This decision overrules the recent precedent of Webb v. Sowell, which the court now believes was wrongly decided because it improperly inverted the burden of proof required under rational basis review. The court found that stare decisis does not command adherence to a single, recent precedent that is in palpable error, especially on a constitutional question. The classification of divorced versus non-divorced parents is supported by a rational basis: the state's legitimate interest in ensuring children are educated and in mitigating the educational and economic disadvantages that children of divorce may face. The court reasoned that the acrimony of divorce can impact a parent's normal sense of obligation, and the rule established in Risinger v. Risinger aims to provide for children who would have received a college education but for their parents' divorce.
Dissenting - Justice Beatty
Yes, an order requiring a divorced parent to pay for college expenses would violate the Equal Protection Clause, but the court should not even reach that issue. The dissent argues that the family court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to compel a parent to pay for post-secondary education. The governing statute, § 63-3-530(A)(17), allows for child support beyond age 18 only for high school completion, disability, or other 'exceptional circumstances,' but makes no mention of college. The Risinger court's interpretation of 'exceptional circumstances' to include college was a judicial overreach that expanded the court's jurisdiction beyond legislative intent. Even if jurisdiction existed, the rule creates an unconstitutional classification that treats divorced parents and their children differently from intact families without a rational basis, granting a legal entitlement to one group that is denied to the other.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant and rapid reversal of precedent, overruling Webb v. Sowell less than two years after it was decided. It reinstates over thirty years of South Carolina family law doctrine established by Risinger v. Risinger, affirming that family courts can order divorced parents to pay for their adult children's college education. The case serves as a powerful example of a court prioritizing its interpretation of constitutional principles over the doctrine of stare decisis when it believes a recent ruling was a 'palpable error.' This holding solidifies the legal reasoning that the state's interest in protecting children from the potential disadvantages of divorce provides a rational basis for treating divorced parents differently than married parents regarding this specific obligation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: McLeod v. Starnes (2012)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"