## Facts

- Cherry R. Bayliss (mother) and John Martin Bayliss III (father) divorced in 1981; their son Patrick was 12, and the mother received custody with the father ordered to pay child support.
- Patrick attended private high school, graduated with honors, and was accepted to Trinity College.
- In January 1988, when Patrick was 18, the mother sought modification of the divorce judgment for increased support; after Patrick turned 19 (Alabama’s age of majority), she amended to request an order requiring the father to pay Patrick’s college expenses.
- The mother alleged Patrick would remain “dependent” after 19 and could not obtain a college education without the father’s support.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a divorce or modification proceeding, an Alabama trial court has jurisdiction to order a parent to pay post-minority support for a child’s college education when the request is filed before the child reaches the age of majority.
2. What factors govern a trial court’s discretionary decision to award (or deny) post-minority educational support.

## Decision

- The trial court denied increased alimony and ruled the father had no legal obligation to pay post-majority college expenses.
- The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, applying prior authority that parents generally have no duty to support or educate a child after majority absent disability or an agreement.
- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that a trial court does have jurisdiction in divorce and modification proceedings to order post-minority college-education support when the application is made before the child turns 19.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s rule.

## Legal Principles

- In divorce or modification actions, a trial court may award sums from either or both parents’ property and income for a child’s post-minority education, provided the request is filed before the child reaches the age of majority.
- The decision to award post-minority educational support is discretionary and must consider all relevant, reasonable, and necessary factors, with primary attention to:
  - the financial resources of the parents and the child; and
  - the child’s commitment to, and aptitude for, the requested education.
- The court may also consider:
  - the standard of living the child likely would have enjoyed if the marriage had remained intact; and
  - the child’s relationship with the parents and responsiveness to parental advice and guidance.
- The rule does not create an automatic duty to pay college expenses; it authorizes a case-specific order based on the evidence and equitable considerations.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court held that divorce courts may require parents to contribute to a child’s post-minority college education if the request is made before the child reaches majority and the child’s and parents’ circumstances justify an award under specified factors, reversing the contrary appellate ruling and remanding for reconsideration.


Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So. 2d 986 (Ala. 1989)