Court Opinion

ID: 9676423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:24:10.896375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:48.579707
License: Public Domain

HABHAB, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority in all respects except that part of Division II which relates to what constitutes a “full-time student.” Those words appear in section 598.-1(2), and from that section it is clear that it is a condition that must be met before a parent is under an obligation to contribute to the support of a child between eighteen and twenty-two years of age.
I differ with the majority only to the extent that I believe the question as to whether a student qualifies as “full time” should be answered in accordance with the standards adopted by the college, university, or area school attended. If, according to that institution, the student carries sufficient academic hours to qualify as a full-*863time student, then that is the measurement we' should use in our determination. Likewise, we should use the same measurement if the academic hours carried by the student do not qualify him or her as full time.
SACKETT, J., joins this concurrence in part and dissent in part.