Opinion ID: 1834081
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limitations Based on Tuition Costs

Text: Lane's final argument is that his obligation should extend only to the cost of attending law school at the University of North Dakota, the other school at which Teri Lynn was accepted. This court has never directly faced this issue. Other courts, however, have faced similar problems and we find Pennsylvania's approach persuasive. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has stated that [w]e are reluctant to formulate a rule which would, in all cases, prevent a child from attending the college of his choice simply because it is more expensive than the state-supported university. On the other hand, we do not believe that the child should have absolute discretion in selecting a college, and thereby unilaterally increasing the father's support obligation. The determination of whether such an additional burden should be imposed on the father is a matter for the trial court. Commonwealth v. Larsen, 211 Pa.Super. 30, 234 A.2d 18, 20 (1967). We recognize that in situations like this a balance must be struck. In 1978 we noted the ever increasing necessity of a college education ... as well as the tremendous escalation of the costs of securing such an education. Davis, 268 N.W.2d at 778. Balancing these countervailing forces is a job for which the trial court is uniquely qualified. Among the issues that should be analyzed and ascertained by the trial court are what advantages are offered by the more expensive college in relation to the child's individual needs, aptitude, ability, and the child's anticipated vocation. It must then weigh these advantages against the increased hardship that would be imposed on the [parent] to determine whether the additional expense is reasonable under the circumstances. We realize that a judge who sees and hears the witnesses in a case such as this is in a better position than this Court to decide this problem.... Larsen, 234 A.2d at 20. See also Rohn v. Thuma, 408 N.E.2d 578, 583 (Ind.Ct.App. 2nd Dist.1980) (stating that [c]ertainly, there are some instances in which a father would not be overburdened by the cost of a private school and where his child's lifestyle, intellect, and chosen vocation make a private education appropriate); and Elizer v. Elizer, 36 Ill.App.3d 552, 344 N.E.2d 493, 495 (Ill.App.Ct. 5th Dist.1976) (determining that the amount to be paid for educational expenses depends upon the needs of the children and the ability of the [parent] to pay). The trial court here found that Lane did not refuse to allow Teri Lynn to attend school out of state, but did refuse to cooperate in helping her to secure student loans, and refused to contribute any money toward her education. This, coupled with the fact that Lane presented nothing which would lead the trial court to believe that he is lacking the means to make such a contribution, led to the trial court's conclusion. Findings of fact of the trial court will not be disturbed absent a showing that they are clearly erroneous. N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a). We have reviewed the court's findings and they are not clearly erroneous. Affirmed. MESCHKE and SANDSTROM, JJ., concur. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and LEVINE, J., concur in the result.