Divorced parents can be ordered by the Family Court to pay educational support for their offspring even after they reach age 23, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The court ruled for the first time that state law does not put a cap on educational support at age 23.

The justices upheld a Family Court judge’s 2006 ruling that ordered a father to pay support for a blind 25-year-old daughter who was pursuing a college education in hopes of becoming a flute teacher. Her mother, Rosemarie Jaylo, had been awarded custody.

The Family Court generally terminates child support at age 18 or, if the child is pursuing an education, at age 23.

The 19-page unanimous opinion written by Associate Justice James Duffy said the ruling isn’t meant to be a "sea change" in the way Family Court treats educational support.

Duffy wrote that it is anticipated the Family Court will consider "all relevant factors," including the financial condition of the parents, the length of the college or educational program and the ability of the adult children to contribute to their educational expenses.

Steven Kim, lawyer for Jaylo, called the decision "very significant" because it "recasts" the way Family Court has been dealing with child support.

"I think what the Supreme Court did was eliminate an artificial limitation on adult child support that was traditionally enforced by the Family Court," he said. "The Supreme Court recognized that the Family Court discretion is much broader than that."

The opinion said the Jaylo case presented a "unique and compelling basis" for continuing the support even after the daughter reached 23.

Kim, whose law practice concentrates on divorces, said he anticipates more parents will seek support for their adult children beyond age 23 because "the playing field just got bigger."

But support will not be granted automatically and is still up to the discretion of Family Court judges, who must consider each case individually.

Kim suggested that judges could order such support from middle-income parents of students older than 23 but not for an adult child who just hangs around the house.

The case before the court involved a 1996 divorce between the father, Aldo Jaylo, and Rosemarie Jaylo. The father was ordered to pay child support until the daughter either graduated from post-high school education or until she reached age 23.

In 2005 the mother asked the Family Court to reinstate child support, which was granted the following year by then-Family Court District Judge Karen Radius, who ruled that the father was responsible for $525 a month for the daughter’s education.

The father appealed, arguing that a cap at age 23 was established by Hawaii court decisions, the legislative history of child support laws and state child support guidelines.

The high court rejected those arguments and ruled that Radius did not abuse her discretion with her ruling.

The father’s lawyer, Robert Harris, could not be reached for comment.