Opinion ID: 2509669
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Son's Private School Education

Text: Wife claims the family court erred in declining to require Husband to contribute to the expenses of Son's private school education. We agree. Section 63-5-20(A) of the South Carolina Code entitled Obligation to Support requires a divorced person to provide a living standard for the [child] substantially equal to that of the person owing the duty to support. S.C.Code Ann. § 63-5-20(A) (Supp.2010). In Miller v. Miller , this Court reiterated that family courts should award support in an amount sufficient to provide for the needs of the children and to maintain the children at the standard of living they would have been provided but for the divorce. 299 S.C. 307, 312, 384 S.E.2d 715, 717 (1989). This may include contributing to private school expenses where appropriate. See Rabon v. Rabon, 288 S.C. 338, 340, 342 S.E.2d 605, 606 (1986) (ordering an increase in child support to cover private school tuition because the children would benefit from enrollment at a [private school,].... [f]ather [was] in good health, earn[ed] a high income and [was] capable of meeting the increased expenses); LaFrance v. LaFrance, 370 S.C. 622, 657, 636 S.E.2d 3, 22 (Ct.App.2006), overruled on other grounds by Arnal v. Arnal, 371 S.C. 10, 636 S.E.2d 864 (2006) (requiring the husband to contribute fifty-seven percent to child's private school tuition because the parties historically placed the child in private school, it was in the best interest of the child, and it was within the financial ability of the husband). In the present case, Son has attended Heathwood Hall since kindergarten, and the Record does not suggest it would be detrimental or against the child's best interest to continue to attend Heathwood Hall. Rabon, 288 S.C. at 340, 342 S.E.2d at 606; LaFrance, 370 S.C. at 657, 636 S.E.2d at 22. We see no reason here to upset the status quo. Given Husband's income and high standard of living, Husband can afford to contribute approximately $6,000 towards Son's private education to maintain [Son] at the standard of living [he] would have been provided but for the divorce. Miller, 299 S.C. at 312, 384 S.E.2d at 717; see also S.C.Code Ann. § 63-5-20(A). Thus, we reverse the family court and order Husband to contribute fifty percent of the cost of Son's tuition at Heathwood Hall.