at issue in this case is simply whether or not the trial court had the authority to order my client to pay for his daughter's college expenses when the parties were divorced in georgia the georgian law does not allow only that georgia does not have a statute similar to our section five thirteen have allowed or to order parties to pay for children's college educations that being said i believe there are two grounds under which the court having the authority to move forward with a modification of the support order one that neither of the child nor the parents highly was that an issue would state my client continued to reside in georgia m jones and the child moved to illinois that requirement was not fulfilled a second that the petitioner that is seeking the modification is it not resident of illinois ms jones admitted in her very e eat at the trial court level because i did accept service on my client's behalf and i have not contesting that at this point however those two other requirements were not met i brought them up in the trial court they were just sort of passed over longer the court i think it's fairly straightforward under the statute under out of the you know form of interstate family support act that this or the trial court should have looked to illinois which the family support act is which would then have taken it to georgia law under georgia law there is no statute there requires parents to pay for college i have cited it at least five cases in my brief that indicate that the requirement for support for parents and at the age of majority that aging in georgia is eighteen under no circumstances is a court will allow to order a divorced parents to pay for college those cases state that if the parties six thirteen all you can do is enforce but then if you look to the other sections then you have to actually have to look at whether or not all  other u sorry what the trial court seems to have been missing is that the uniform interstate family support act is illinois one last and that statute points us to georgia law so it's not a matter of does one know a lot fly or not it does and that law the worst is or should have forced the trial court to then go look at the georgia statute when making its decision second as far as the jurisdiction issue the jurisdiction issue with any woman was a little bit different in that case both parties and the child had moved to illinois so the court did find that under six eleven a it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the kids and the parties there to that is not the same here my client continues to reside in georgia so one of the requirements under six eleven a is not fulfilled as far as the subject matter g and finally to address the public policy argument there is no conflict between illinois public policy and the application of the family support activist section five thirteen is still not public policy and it is discretion to say otherwise would turn the wording of that second from may to a shout if the legislature wanted to incorporate the same best interest standard and the protection of minor children into the college statute it could have written it that way but it did supreme court has found on numerous occasions that by thirteen is entirely discretionary there is no requirement that a court order parents to pay for college and the other thing that i think should be taken consideration is that if this court were to find that my client could be ordered to pay for college and some sort of public policy argument that would be opening the door to form shopping people would get divorced and other states that don't have similar provisions like we have here as five thirteen you can then move to illinois say reference this case and get