Court: Divorced parents can be made to pay tuition Justices rule that a law regarding college costs does not apply only to married couples living apart

Friday, April 27, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Peter Farrell of The Oregonian staff

Divorced parents can be required to pay college tuition for their children even though no law forces married parents to send their children to college, Oregon's Supreme Court said Thursday.

The decision upheld a Court of Appeals ruling that overturned a 1997 Multnomah County decision in which a judge refused to order a father to pay tuition for a child older than 18 on the grounds the law discriminated among parents.

"I think this a victory for the children of the state of Oregon," said Gregory B. Soriano, who with Dawn M. Lagrone argued the case for Marianne Ellen Groom of Portland. She sought tuition support from her former husband, Dennis Crocker of Portland.

Soriano said the decision would benefit thousands of Oregon children. "I'm real happy for those kids -- they can get an education."

Lawrence D. Gorin, who represents the father, said only 15 states have similar laws, and the rest do not have big problems without one. He said Crocker "has made all the child support payments he was ever ordered to make" and had agreed to support his three daughters until they were 22, "beyond what the law mandated."

The unanimous opinion by Justice W. Michael Gillette said the state adult-child support law did not violate either the federal or state constitutions because the discrimination it allows has a rational basis. It said that while it is true the state law applies only to married parents who do not live together, the special class it creates is one the Legislature had the authority to designate.

"A legislator rationally could believe that households in which the parents do not live together might need judicial assistance in making educational decisions," Gillette wrote, because the breakup itself suggests disagreements.

But Crocker questioned whether government should get involved in such decisions, Gorin said, thinking it is discrimination when married parents can decide how much and under what conditions they will pay for college.

Groom, Crocker's former wife, said her daughter, Elizabeth, the focus of the case, will graduate in June with honors from Santa Clara University in California. An older daughter is in dental school, the youngest is a University of Oregon freshman. She said she and Crocker had always pointed the three toward college.

"That's why this is so disturbing," she said. "It's not like it's something new that I thought up. College has always been a high priority. I have three intelligent girls."

She said Crocker had offered to pay college costs at Portland Community College for her children, who all got scholarships and earned work-study money as well as taking out loans, she said.

Groups representing Oregon fathers called the decision unfair.

"The sad thing about this is that it misses the point," said James Pierce Whinston, a deputy director of the New York-based National Center for Men and president of the Oregon chapter. "If we have policies that encourage both parents to be involved, we don't need laws like this. It is only when one parent has been marginalized or feeling left out that that party may not feel inclined toward paying college tuition."

Mike Fogle, a spokesman for Dads Against Discrimination in Portland, said the court did not take into account the burden on fathers who might have supported their children for as long as 18 years. "We're getting 10 to 15 calls a day from guys who aren't getting to see their kids," he said, "and we don't advertise."

Many divorced fathers "can't afford savings, can't afford a new life," he said. "Guys just can't understand this," he said, "because when they grew up, their parents didn't have to pay for them to go to college."

Courts in other states have decided similar cases in favor of the college support, but Gorin said a Pennsylvania decision found unconstitutional discrimination. He said it was too soon to say whether Crocker would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

-- (jerks.in.robes@power.hungry), April 27, 2001

Answers

Oregon has been a fascist paradise for 20 years now. As a native, I can tell you that it didn't use to be like it is. Primarily it was caused by the vast influx of liberal Californians moving north. The Oregon gov't now inserts itself into nearly every aspect of life in that state. Their "childrens'" programs are particularly heinous, inflicting massive trauma on thousands of innocent residents, there being absolutely NO checks and balances in their "system".

Himmler would be proud...

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

Dennis: "Oregon has been a fascist paradise for 20 years now."

Actually, it has been moving in a more conservative direction over the past 20 years, along with the rest of the USA.

Dennis: "As a native, I can tell you that it didn't use to be like it is. Primarily it was caused by the vast influx of liberal Californians moving north."

As a fourth-generation native (depending, of course on selecting the correct lineage), I can tell you that it didn't use to be like it is.

Primarily it was caused by the vast influx of conservative (Orange County type) Californians moving north. They brought with them a tendency to vote for every tax restriction that was offered on the ballot, from school levies going down, to a host of initiatives brought by Bill Sizemore, a local shill for conservative millionaire businessman Loren Parks, or Don MacIntyre, a well-meaning but narrow-visioned tax activist.

Dennis: "The Oregon gov't now inserts itself into nearly every aspect of life in that state."

Gawd! I wish the general poppulation on this board wouold have the slightest interest in local Oregon politics. Suffice it to say that the same initiative (Measure 5) that reduced local school support by over 30% ALSO threw the funding and regulation of schools to the state level, thereby crippling the general fund and effectively reducing local control of schools. Dennis is full of horseshit and he is too far removed from reality to know it.

Don't get me started on Measure 11, which mandated the building of at least 5 expensive new prisons to house not much more than drug offenders.

Dennis, you can claim local patrimony. Do you have a f-ing clue about what has been happening here since Bob Straub left office?

(I had to come out of seclusion for this outrageous representation of "Oregonian" sentiment. I can't let DO speak for this state. Don't expect many similar reversions.)

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 27, 2001.

Brian,

Obviously, you are not really aware of the objective reality of Oregon politics. Until about 5 years ago, the preceeding 15 had seen Oregon omplement every welfare and spending frenzy the politicos could think of. Oregon has been ruled almost exclusively by Democrats for that same period.

The people finally got fed up with havinf the 2nd or 3rd highest property tax rate in the country, as well as one of the highest income tax rates, and rebelled. Good for them.

And let's not forget the $350 M-M-MILLION state archives building in Salem, which had absolutely NO oversite or spending controls at all, and was spearheaded by then-sec-state Barbra Roberts. And as punishment for that sin... she was eleceted governor!

One of us doesn't know Oregon's political climate, but it's NOT me...

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

This reminds me of the engineer's joke about describing the size of the micro. It's very very tiny compared to the macro, but bogglingly huge compared to the nano.

Watching John Birch II argue that his state is hopelessly liberal, while Karl Marx Jr. bemoans the terrible conservative trend, is much the same. A normal outsider would tend to conclude that Oregon is much like everywhere else, basically.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 27, 2001.

More proof that I am not Dennis Olson: I have never even been to Oregon!

Getting back to the ruling, this would seem to say that every child is owed a college education by his or her parents. I think that this is ludicrous. Since I paid my own way through college, does that mean that I can sue my parents for tuition?

I suppose that according to the Oregon Supreme Court's logic, Ms. Elizabeth Groom will also win her upcoming suit to have her father pay for her $50,000 wedding. After all, her parents are divorced, don't you know?


Brian McLaughlin,

I don't have a clue about Oregonian politics, but this particular court seems as liberal as they come.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 28, 2001.

Let's see. I post for the first time in 4 months and within the hour Flint is calling me "Karl Marx, Jr."

Thank you, Flint! Thanks to your swift action, I now remember why I left this place. Getting involved in the "debate" here is like auditioning for a Punch and Judy show. The best part I could hope for is Mr. Punch. Flint, it would be churlish of me to compete with you for that part, as I wouldn't really want it if I won it.

Once more you have taught me wisdom, if unwittingly. You drink, you joyously vomit on me, and now you offer me the cup. What could I possibly say to that?

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks I'm not that thirsty right now. Drink hearty, Mr. Punch! Bye.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 28, 2001.

Brian, ignore Flint unless you are in the mood to interact with him, we do, Some of his arguements are so far off the wall that no one can grasp the purpose behind his posting. it makes for good comedy, large and small discussions, and great screamfests. You need not reply to his posts, just converse with others in the thread if yo choose.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 28, 2001.

Cherri,

Put the stones down.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 28, 2001.

J,

Pull your pants up.

-- B (b@b.com), April 28, 2001.

B: ROFLMAO, good one, say havent I heard that before?

Brian, dont left Flints INFAMOUS wisdom run you off. Bow to the king of Great Wisdom and then ignore him.

BTW, sometimes and I do mean SOMETIMES he even throws in a joke believe it or not, but I think its just for me. Only cuz everyone knows I'm the forum idiot and it does take me awhile. :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 28, 2001.

Sheesh! Talk about people who carry incredibly delicate sensibilities around on their shoulders.

Politically, Brian is known to be extremely liberal. He was a Nader supporter. Equally, Dennis is known to be so conservative he sees government conspiracies out of the corners of both eyes.

So is it any surprise that they look at the same state government (which is indeed pretty normal), and see the opposite of one another? It sounds like they're fighting over whether an object halfway between them is to the east or to the west!

The entire post was intended as humor, an observation about perspective and frame of reference. If Brian can't see that and chooses to affect mortal offense (to his imagined admiring audience), then no wonder he can't take what he gives out.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 28, 2001.

B,

My advice to Cherri was in reference to those who live in glass houses not throwing stones, as she routinely does everything that she accuses Flint of doing.

I fail to see the wit and/or humor in your advice to me. Maybe you could explain your post to me so that I can determine whether or not you actually are witty. Or since sumer seems to find it quite funny, maybe she can explain it to me.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 28, 2001.

Hey J-boy!! I'm still waiting for your Nazi goons to show up, where the hell are they?

Why don't you report B to the FBI, surely his remark is grounds for execution in your paranoid Nazi world!

If that doesn't stop him, you can always cry to your Mommy!!

LMAO!

-- conservatives are worthless shits (and J is @ the bottom of. the dung heap), April 28, 2001.

J: we use to say in the old dayz: Its over your head and under your diaper. NOW, pull em up. LMAO.

BTW, nice to see worthless didnt get his ass carted off yet. hee hee.

Flint, explain it to your friend, will you?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 28, 2001.

sumer,

Oh yes, that is truly witty.


worthless shit,

I am not privy to the time table of the Secret Service. If you are in a hurry, why don't you call them and invite them over for a shootout?

By the way, after backing out on your threat to kill me, and showing just how much of a blowhard coward you are, how is it that you are not too embarrassed to still post here?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 28, 2001.

Why dont you invite them over for a shoot out? Good one ...LOL.

Perhaps here @ WW West we'll have them begin at sundown. :0

too funny.

ok J, you DO have a sense of humor. :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 29, 2001.

I think what Brian meant to say is that he has always been around here, but under different handles. What idiot would believe that he had just magically appeared to respond to this Oregon bashing thread? Excepting sumer of course.

-- The (one@who.knows), April 29, 2001.

Yeah I did believe Brian, see I do trust what he wrote.

Perhaps hooked on phonics may be able to assist you to do the same?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 29, 2001.

What a surprise. "Dennis Olson" comes onto two threads and within minutes "J" comes back crowing about how he's not Dennis Olson. On one thread, another person came on claiming to be Dennis and saying that he has no interest in posting here and was going to post once, saying anyone posting as him is not actually him.

All of this goes to show you that you can't believe that anyone is anyone, or is not anyone, they claim to be. Like me for instance. I'm not Tarzan, but I'm posting as him to show how easy it is to pretend to be someone else.

As for the J vs. Dennis Olson controversy, I don't think this thread or the other thread are any proof whatsoever that J isn't Dennis. One thing is certain: they have the same posting style and the same lame excuses for domestic terrorism. In J's case, he thinks anyone who works for the government deserves to die and in Dennis' case, he thinks only members of the military deserve to die. To my mind, whether or not they're different people is a pointless argument, they both suffer from the same mental illness.

-- Not Necessarily Tarzan the Ape Man (NOTtarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 29, 2001.

To my mind, it would be much better if Dennis himself were to die. This would free up enough food to feed the West side of Cleveland.

-- What am I bid (4@this.kid?), April 29, 2001.