## Facts

- The parties divorced in 1993; the mother received custody of two children, and the father was ordered to pay child support.
- The original support obligation was set at $212 per week, later reduced by agreement to $175 per week, plus 35% of the father’s annual bonus.
- At divorce, the father earned about $29,000 annually plus a bonus; by 2007 his salary exceeded $120,000 with a bonus near $30,000, and by 2008 his salary was nearly $250,000.
- The mother’s income ranged from under $12,000 to about $40,000 per year; she did not seek earlier modification, asserting she lacked knowledge of the father’s increased earnings.
- In 2006, the older child reached majority and enrolled in college with financial aid; the father supported the child’s college plans and made written commitments to assist with education-related costs, including repayment of student loans.
- At the same time, the father unilaterally reduced weekly child support from $175 to $100; the mother acquiesced based on his representations about supporting college expenses.
- The father did not consistently pay the 35% bonus-based support and did not fully satisfy his stated college-related commitments.

## Issues

1. Whether a family court may order a divorced, noncustodial parent to contribute to an adult child’s college expenses without violating equal protection.
2. Whether the family court erred in reducing support for the younger child based on income calculations and credits for alleged overpayments.
3. Whether the family court abused its discretion by denying the mother attorney’s fees and costs.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed and remanded.
- The court overruled *Webb v. Sowell* and held that college-expense awards against divorced parents are not categorically barred by equal protection.
- The court reversed the reduction of child support for the younger child, finding error in the financial calculations and the treatment of credits.
- The court reversed the denial of attorney’s fees and directed reconsideration on remand in light of the parties’ financial disparity and the outcomes achieved.

## Legal Principles

- Equal protection challenges to college-expense orders for children of divorced parents are evaluated under rational-basis review because no suspect class or fundamental right is implicated.
- A family court may, in appropriate circumstances, require divorced parents to contribute to post-secondary education expenses; such orders are assessed case-by-case rather than barred as a matter of constitutional law.
- In determining whether to order college-expense contributions, courts may consider factors including the child’s aptitude for college, the child’s ability to contribute through aid or work, the parents’ ability to pay, and the parent–child relationship.
- Child support determinations require accurate income findings and appropriate application of credits; material errors in financial calculations may constitute an abuse of discretion.
- Attorney’s fees in domestic matters are discretionary and commonly depend on ability to pay, financial conditions, beneficial results obtained, and the effect of fees on the parties’ standard of living.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of South Carolina restored prior law permitting college-expense contributions by divorced parents under rational-basis review, reversed an erroneous child-support reduction and fee denial, and remanded for recalculation and reconsideration consistent with the reinstated standards.


McLeod v. Starnes, 396 S.C. 647, 723 S.E.2d 198 (S.C. 2012)