## Facts

- Rolland Phillip Neudecker (father) and Wendy Elizabeth Neudecker (mother) divorced under a 1975 dissolution decree awarding custody of two children to Wendy and ordering Rolland to pay weekly child support.
- In 1988, Wendy petitioned to modify support; the case was tried in 1989 when the children were 18 and 16.
- The trial court substantially increased support and required Rolland to pay all costs for the older child’s college education for four years following high school.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed.
- On transfer, Rolland challenged (1) the support modification as an abuse of discretion and (2) the constitutionality of Indiana Code § 31-1-11.5-12(b)(1), which permits inclusion of post-secondary educational expenses in support orders.

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana Code § 31-1-11.5-12(b)(1), authorizing courts in dissolution actions to order parents to pay post-secondary education expenses, is unconstitutional for vagueness.
2. Whether the statute violates equal protection by treating children of divorced parents differently than children of married parents.
3. Whether the statute impermissibly infringes a parent’s substantive due process right to direct a child’s upbringing and education.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in increasing support and ordering payment of college expenses under the statutory factors.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the educational-expense provision is constitutional and may be applied in dissolution-related support orders.
- The court concluded the statute is not unconstitutionally vague because it provides notice and guides discretion through enumerated factors (parental resources, child’s educational needs, and expected pre-dissolution standard of living).
- The court rejected the equal protection challenge, finding a rational basis for addressing the economic and custodial circumstances associated with dissolution actions.
- The court rejected the substantive due process challenge, reasoning that the statute authorizes financial contributions, not control over educational choices, and operates through individualized determinations.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the modified support and college-expense order.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana dissolution courts may order parents to contribute to a child’s post-secondary educational expenses when authorized by statute and supported by statutory considerations.
- A statute is not void for vagueness when it provides sufficient notice of potential obligations and includes standards that channel judicial discretion.
- Different treatment of divorced families in support legislation does not violate equal protection if the classification is rationally related to legitimate state interests in child welfare and support.
- Requiring financial contributions for education in the dissolution context does not necessarily violate parental substantive due process when it does not mandate educational choices and is determined case-by-case.
- Child support and educational-expense determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be upheld when grounded in the statutory factors and the record.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court upheld an order increasing child support and requiring the father to pay college expenses, and it sustained the constitutionality of Indiana’s statute permitting post-secondary educational support in dissolution cases against vagueness, equal protection, and substantive due process challenges.


Neudecker v. Neudecker, 577 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. 1991)