Case Summary
Appellee/Respondent, Bradley H. Carr (Bradley), appeals the trial court's order, requiring him to pay all reasonable and necessary tuition, room and board, fees, books and supplies for his daughter's college education. We affirm.
Issues
I. In an action to modify the support provisions of a divorce decree, was the portion of expenses assigned to Bradley proper under the Indiana Child Support Guidelines and did the trial court abuse its discretion in so apportioning those expenses?
II. Does Ind.Code §+81-1-11.5-12(b)(1) violate the Due Process and Equal Proteetion Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Facts
Bradley and Suzanne Carr were divorced in 1972. Suzanne was awarded custody of their minor child, Jody. Bradley was ordered to pay twenty dollars ($20.00) per week in child support. In November, 1980, Brad's child support was increased to forty dollars ($40.00) per week. Jody is now enrolled at Indiana University with education expenses amounting to six thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars ($6,780.00) per year.
Bradley is employed at Fairfield Manufacturing and in 1989, had gross income of twenty-five thousand four hundred ninety-eight dollars and forty-two cents ($25, 498.42). As of July 1, 1990, he also had a savings account containing five thousand one hundred thirty dollars and sixty-seven cents ($5,130.67), a retirement account of sixty-four thousand three hundred forty-seven dollars and fifty-seven cents ($64, 347.57) as well as a pension through his employer. Suzanne is employed by Cold-well Banker, as a real estate broker, and her 1989 income tax return reflects a gross income of twenty-six thousand three hundred thirty-seven dollars and seventy-two cents ($26,837.72). The evidence further showed that her 1990 income will decrease by approximately six thousand dollars ($6,000.00). Suzanne has land valued at fifty-six thousand dollars ($56,000.00) with a mortgage of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Bradley owns land that he has invested twenty-six thousand dollars ($26,000.00) for improvements and for the purchase of a double-wide mobile home.
Based on the evidence presented, the court ordered Bradley to pay all reasonable and necessary tuition, room and board, fees, books and supplies for Jody's college education. Suzanne was ordered to pay all of Jody's miscellaneous college expenses. The parties agreed that this college award be limited to a period of four (4) years. It is from this order that Bradley appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I
Bradley first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring him to pay for Jody's college education. We note that modification of a child support order is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is no substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial court. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Neudecker v. Neudecker (1990), Ind.App., 566 N.E.2d 557, 560, affirmed (1991), Ind., 577 N.E.2d 960.
IC. 31-1-11.5-12(b) authorizes the trial court to award, as child support, sums for a child's education, taking into account the child's aptitude and ability, and the parent or parents' ability to meet educational expenses. Id. at 560. Bradley does not argue that he is unable to pay for Jody's expenses or that she does not have the aptitude or ability to obtain a college degree. He argues that the trial court should have ordered Suzanne to pay half of Jody's educational expenses citing the Indiana Child Support Guidelines' division of the basic support obligation based on the parent's proportional share of income. However, Child Support Guideline 8(E)(8) provides that the trial court has the discre*968tion of including educational expenses when calculating the basic child support obligation or the court may order the educational expenses as a separate award, as was done here.
Bradley further argues that the trial court should have put some burden on Jody to take out student loans, enroll in work-study programs or seek part-time jobs during the school year. However, it is within the trial court's discretion to tailor a child support award to the circumstances. Providing the noneustodial parent a role in the child's education is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the proper place for Bradley to address the issue of Jody's responsibility in the financing of her education, was at the trial court level. See Neudecker at 564. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
II
Bradley next asserts that I.C. 81-1-11.5-12(b)(1) violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He asserts that it is unconstitutional ly vague because it gives the trial court complete discretion in awarding educational expenses and lays out no guidelines for the trial court to follow. He further states that it unnecessarily impinges upon the parent's fundamental right's in child rearing and impermissibly discriminates between married and unmarried persons. Until recently, these points had not been addressed in Indiana law. However, this court in Neudecker, supra, considered Bradley's contentions and determined that this statute does not violate either the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. In light of the comprehensive and thorough analysis in Newdecker, there is no further discussion needed on this issue.
Affirmed.
SHIELDS, J., concurs. MILLER, J., dissents with separate opinion.