/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
Actually, that isn't a very intelligent thing for the judge to say. It's not about setting precedent, you CAN'T set precedent even if you wanted to because there is no law to set that precedent on. Once one reaches the age of majority there is no further legal obligation for the parents to provide for another adult. This whole case should have been thrown out already on Summary Judgment.
Our family code is different in our country. Here you can't kick out your child just because they turn 18, which means as long as they live under your roof and are still in school, parents are still responsible for them economically. In the case of divorce, the child could still receive support. While it seems unfair for parents, the law also protects them in the future. Parents of retirement age should be taken care of by their children if said children have means to do so (good salary) and parents are only receiving the most modest retirement package (basic pension from the state). If children refuse, the parents can sue them for parental support.