211 Conn.App. 357
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background:
- Parties divorced in 2008; dissolution court reserved jurisdiction to address postsecondary educational support under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56c.
- Daughter Hannah pursued health‑science studies; applied to multiple schools and matriculated at Quinnipiac University with an academic scholarship in fall 2017.
- Defendant (mother) notified plaintiff (father) of college visits, applications, and requested his completion of noncustodial financial aid forms via the Our Family Wizard platform and e‑mail beginning in Hannah’s junior year.
- Plaintiff did not meaningfully engage: he did not discuss Hannah’s preferences, suggest alternatives, timely provide financial information, or attend visits; he later testified UConn would have been preferable.
- Defendant filed a postjudgment motion for postsecondary educational support; the trial court found plaintiff excluded himself, that statutory criteria were met, and ordered plaintiff to pay (inter alia) two‑thirds of future college expenses (subject to statutory caps).
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing (1) misconstruction of § 46b‑56c(d), (2) improper reliance on dissolution findings, (3) improper consideration of his relationship with Hannah, and (4) insufficient evidence that defendant attempted to include him.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction and application of § 46b‑56c(d) (parental participation/agree requirement) | Section requires both parents to participate and agree; absent agreement plaintiff cannot be ordered to contribute | Plaintiff failed to participate; statute allows court to resolve disagreements and impose support when a parent refuses to participate | Court: “shall participate and agree” is mandatory, but plaintiff excluded himself; court may resolve the matter and properly ordered support |
| Whether defendant had to seek an order resolving college choice before seeking support | Defendant should have sought a preexisting order resolving the selection before moving for support | Defendant was not required to seek a hypothetical preemptive order; plaintiff’s nonparticipation prevented any agreement | Court: Defendant not required to seek a prior selection order; plaintiff’s refusal to participate did not excuse him from support and court properly exercised its authority to resolve the issue |
| Whether trial court impermissibly relied on dissolution findings/fault | Court improperly predicated support order on prior dissolution findings and fault | Historical context relevant to explain communication difficulties and why court needed to resolve selection dispute | Court: Background findings provided context but order rested on plaintiff’s nonparticipation and statutory criteria, not on prior fault |
| Whether defendant attempted to include plaintiff in the process | Defendant only told plaintiff about schools and sought reimbursement; did not meaningfully seek involvement | Defendant sent repeated Our Family Wizard messages and e‑mails from junior year through senior year requesting participation and financial info | Court: Finding that defendant tried to include plaintiff is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Schreck v. Stamford, 250 Conn. 592 (statutory construction review is plenary)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (applying statute to facts is a question of law)
- Bender v. Bender, 292 Conn. 696 (statutory interpretation—ordinary meaning controls)
- Weems v. Citigroup, Inc., 289 Conn. 769 (test for mandatory vs. directory statutory language)
- In re Jusstice W., 308 Conn. 652 (words given ordinary meaning; ambiguity analysis)
- LeSueur v. LeSueur, 186 Conn. App. 431 (clearly erroneous standard for factual findings)