I can only hope he gets satisfaction in court that the judge awards him alimony payment and that she has to pay for the sons education garnished out of her wages as any right thinking judge would have just as low an opinion of her as the audience.
The law in many states does not require parents to provide for their children's education after the child turns 18, even if one or both parents have plenty of money. In other states the age may be 19 or 20. Often, divorce courts encourage or order the parties to come to an agreement on college tuition and student expenses for any children under the state's legal age mentioned above. If the child is already above the prescribed age, the court may lack any authority to force either parent to fund college or any other expenses that realate to that particular child. So, it really all depends on the state law. This may be why Pat Cheever indicated that she had already cautioned Scott that they may not be able to afford the balance of his Stanford tuition.
Courts are most likely to award alimony to the spouse who has the least income or the least means to earn a living commensurate with their pre-divorce standard. Basically you have to convince the court that you need and deserve alimony. The divorce court ultimately decides whether or not to order a party to pay alimony, as well as the amount and the duration of the obligation.
In any case, Pat did indeed seem remarkably selfish. She appeared determined to place her own happiness ahead of her marriage to Frank, and seemed almost indifferent about Scott's dream of attending Stanford. Would a divorce court be sympathetic to her? Probably not, but it also may have lacked authority to order her to pay anyone anything. In fact, after Frank re-enlisted, it is possible that he could have been ordered to pay her alimony, especially if Frank had been the primary bread winner during their marriage and if his current income was more than Pat's. Divorce can be a very tricky experience that may not be entirely fair in every single case. The state law and the judge hearing the case always matters.
reply
share