Sure if they had a contractual agreement to pay for her school, they should stick to that.
But if they change their minds, they should be able to change the contract by consensus.
The problem here is they don't agree what to change the terms to.
The parents don't agree to pay under the terms she wants.
She is not willing to change the terms to what they want in order for them to pay.
The conflict is mutual.
You can't force people to give unconditionally.
If there are conditions attached, the people need to work those out MUTUALLY.
OK so is the boyfriend willing to help pay for her school?
Are they willing to work to pay back the costs if they borrow money up front?
If they are willing to accept responsibility, why not support them in doing so?
This sounds like an ideal opportunity to teach a young couple financial independence
and the freedom that comes with it when you choose whom to borrow from.
WTF? A "young couple?"
She was DATING him, and she's NOT living with him!
She worked her ass off all through a school her parents PICKED for her, achieved high honors and earned a ******* twenty grand scholarship! THEY promised her that if she worked hard in school they would help her go to a good college. THEY decided that they didn't like who she was dating and now want to dump her like yesterdays trash, and everyone here acts like SHE'S the asshole.
BTW any two people can still count as a couple.
if they are NOT dating mutually exclusively
and are NOT that serious, I don't see the issue with letting that interfere with her school.
If they are just casually dating, they could wait until she is done with school if she really has no other way to pay.
Maybe I'm biased: I had to give up visiting my family to work two jobs to pay costs of trying to work out damages done to a historic district where there is no legal help to handle the degree (even gave up the years I could have had kids); because I was the only one willing to pay to support the community recovering from political abuses no one else would touch.
I only get to see my family in other cities or states maybe once a year if I can arrange it, and I have missed watching my nephews grow up while not being able to have kids of my own. I had to face the reality my boyfriend may end up marrying someone else, because these issues have dragged for years without redress of grievances or any compensation.
The damages done to the community were not my fault, but I was the only one willing to help pay until these grievances are redressed, so it landed on me in the meantime.
I figured it was like how Vets go to war and lose their health, minds or even the breadwinner of their families, defending rights and freedoms as worth the sacrifice.
I believe the principles at stake outweighed all else, or I wouldn't have done all this.
So my standard of taking responsibility for defending something from injustice is a bit different from other people. After seeing damage done by this system of not solving problems unless a court orders it, I believe in mediation as the best, inclusive way to protect all interests equally to prevent damage, instead of lawsuits that cost everyone too much, where damage to relationships cannot be undone, and are too easily abused to force an outcome without resolving the root conflict. It is unreal to me what people will spend on lawyers to sue over things that could be easily mediated. Especially compared with the wrongs committed over centuries, abusing taxdollars to destroy national history that is irreplaceable, left unaddressed because the legal system is not equipped to handle that.
It's just hard for me to imagine not trying to mediate what seem to be simple issues, next to extensively complicated cases, covered up by denial, that I've been pushing to mediate.
Sorry if my bias shows here. I'd either make the world's worst, cruelest judge by ordering people to mediate until consensus is reached, and save all their money for the solution.
Or make the most popular judge because everyone's consent would be equally protected and included in the decision or I wouldn't approve a ruling. Mediation and consensus would either be people's worst nightmare or their saving grace, but that's what I believe in.
I have just seen too much damage done, and sick of paying the costs of cleaning up after.
