"The case"

The plaintiff zhang so-and-so, the defendant li mou a former husband and wife, have a son after marriage, named zhang smile, 16 years old. Originally, the defendant after the husband and wife's emotional discord and the agreement divorce, and dealt with the divorce procedures, the two parties agree that a smile is raised by the plaintiff, the cost each half undertakes. After the divorce, zhang xiaolao failed to reach the admission score line of a high school. The plaintiff paid 20,000 yuan for the "school fee" in accordance with the school regulations without consulting the defendant. After the plaintiff demands that the defendant share the cost, the defendant considers that the expense is beyond the scope of his ability and is not part of the legal provisions. The two parties failed to negotiate, and the plaintiff appealed to a court.

"Differences"

Should the defendant share the cost of the student's choice?

The first opinion is that the marriage law interpretation (1) stipulates that article 21 of the marriage law refers to the "maintenance fee", including the cost of the child's living expenses, education expenses and medical expenses. In addition, article 37 of China's marriage law stipulates that after the divorce, the other party shall bear the necessary living expenses and education fees. The choice of school fee is a kind of education fee, and the school is open to the plaintiff's receipt to clearly record this charge, from the benefit of the study of a certain study growth consideration, the defendant should bear the plaintiff's education fee.

The second opinion is that, after the divorce, the other party should bear the necessary living expenses and education fees. School choice fees as some of cross-regional students or admission of planned admitted students enroll, exceed the relevant laws, regulations or rules of charging extra charge a fee, is uneven distribution of education resources in our country, many parents for their children receive better education under the background of created a kind of abnormal charge, the necessary education costs do not belong to the law.

"T"

The author thinks that, school choice fees as some on the cross-regional or their entrance examination records of plan to admit a line to enroll students with more than the relevant provisions of laws, regulations or policies standards are the extra charge a fee, is education resources distribution imbalance in our country, many parents for children under the background of quality education and for better school created a kind of abnormal phenomenon of fees and charges. As a social problem which is not conducive to the healthy development of education, this kind of charge has always been the object of the state prohibition and investigation. Therefore, it does not fall under the category of necessary education expenses stipulated by the marriage law. The plaintiff has failed to reach the admission score line in the plan of a secondary school, and the plaintiff can go to the rest of the secondary school without having to pay the cost of choosing a school. However, the plaintiff, in the absence of negotiation with the defendant, insisted on choosing the school fee for the school and paying the basic education fee, which has the character of school choice. The plaintiff demands that the defendant share the cost, and there is no legal basis. Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit request should not be supported, so the plaintiff's lawsuit should be rejected.

If parents cost burden for this dispute and appeal, although the party pay the school selection fee for their children care for their children's starting point is the accordance with affection and justified, but due to the school selection fee charged by illegality and court legal documents to the public the specification and declare functions, the court should not take legal action to clamp down on the cost allocation of burden, or it will form the support from the judicial level or in a disguised form the charges by the error of orientation.