dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the trial court abused its discretion in requiring Bradley to pay all the expenses of his daughter's college education-room and board, tuition and books-without considering the availability of student loans.
Our supreme court has held that it is not a denial of equal protection to require noncustodial parents to bear the reasonable cost, or a portion thereof, of their children's college education. Neudecker v. Neudecker (1991), Ind., 577 N.E.2d 960, aff'g (1991), Ind.App., 566 N.E.2d 557. However, the trial court must determine whether it is appropriate to include a payment for college expenses in a modification of a support order, and the party seeking to include such payment must have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the modified order is reasonable considering the factors in Ind.Code 31-1-11.5-12(a) and (b). Neudecker, supra, at 962. This includes a determination as to the " 'standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved' [which] means whether and to what extent the parents, if still married, would have contributed to the child's college expenses." Id., quoting IC 81-1-11.5-12(a)(2). The Mother in Neudecker sought to modify the child support order to require Father to pay all the costs for their older child's college education. At the time, Mother, a nurse, earned approximately $81,000 per year, and Father, a mortgage broker, earned approximately $200,000 per year. Considering Father's income, it is reasonable to conclude that had the parties remained married, he would have paid the costs of his children's education. However, in the present case, Bradley's income is only $25,000 per year, and Suzanne's income is approximately the same. It is not so clear that, had they remained married, Bradley would have paid all of the child's educational expenses.
A parent who pays for the child's college expenses is often required to make an enormous sacrifice, using funds acquired for retirement or foregoing pleasures or even his own basic needs, while the child reaps *969the benefit.1 Such is the case here where Bradley will be required to liquidate his own retirement funds or obtain loans to meet the 200% increase in his child support payments required by the trial court's order. In my opinion, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Bradley to pay all of his daughter's college education expenses-books and tuition, room and board-without considering the availability of student loans or daughter's ability to work during vacations to contribute to her own educational expenses.2 The Commentary to Ind. Child Support Rule 8(E) reads:
"If the additional expense is for higher education, the court should consider scholarships, grants, student loans, summer and school year employment and other cost-reducing programs available to the student. The student should be expected to actually apply for available aid, and a failure to do so should be considered when establishing educational expense."
See e.g. Platt v. Platt (1974), 227 Pa.Super. 423, 323 A.2d 29, (abuse of discretion for the trial court to order the father to pay all educational expenses for his child without considering the earnings of the wife and the child).
I would reverse and remand to the trial court to reconsider the availability of student loans and to redetermine the proportion of the college expenses which Bradley must pay.
. As reported in What's it Worth?, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census Current Population Report, Series P-70, No. 21, October 1990, the then current average monthly earnings for a high school graduate was $921; while an individual with a four-year bachelor's degree could expect to earn nearly twice that amount-approximately $1,829.
. The trial court's order contains a provision that the amount of support Bradley pays will be "reduced by any nom-repayable grants, scholarships or other benefits awarded to said child as a result of said enrollment at a college or university." R. 23, emphasis added.