133 Conn. App. 397
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- 2007 dissolution judgment incorporated a settlement that retained jurisdiction to allocate the child’s college expenses under § 46b-56c.
- 2009 defendant moved for modification seeking $160/week for higher education expenses; court ordered $100/week until the child’s eighteenth birthday, then payments to the institution and potential increase to $160 if plaintiff worked; order lasted one year from July 1, 2009.
- 2010 defendant filed another modification seeking increased educational support and continuation through college; hearing held September 7, 2010.
- During the hearing, plaintiff, injured and financially strained, proposed turning savings bonds into cash to satisfy some expenses; court addressed arrearage and allocations.
- Trial court found an arrearage of $500, ordered bond-to-cash conversion, and ordered both parties to contribute roughly $9,334.50 for the sophomore year, noting plaintiff’s income situation and apparent willingness to support education.
- On appeal, Glenn challenges (1) constitutional equal protection under § 46b-56c, (2) absence of an express threshold finding under § 46b-56c (c), and (3) the amount of the educational contribution; the appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 46b-56c | Glenn asserts equal protection violations for divorced/unmarried vs. intact families. | Glenn did not preserve the claim for review, and the issue is not properly before the court. | Claim not reviewable; affirmed (no consideration of preservation defect under Golding and plain error absent). |
| Threshold finding of support if intact | Court failed to expressly find that parents would have supported college expenses if the family remained intact. | Failure to express the finding was harmless given evidence of parental support and settlement agreement retaining jurisdiction. | Harmless error; there was sufficient evidence of support and intent to provide; no reversal. |
| Amount of contribution | Order based on speculative lump-sum awards and overbears plaintiff given current finances. | Trial court reasonably allocated based on earnings parity and potential future awards; discretion should be affirmed. | No abuse of discretion; financial order reasonable and supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sander v. Sander, 96 Conn.App. 102 (2006) (express finding required under § 46b-56c(c); harmless error if supported by record)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (constitutional error preserved for review when unpreserved errors are raised on appeal)
- State v. Elson, 125 Conn.App. 328 (2010) (unpreserved constitutional claims generally not considered; fairness concerns)
- Adamo v. Adamo, 123 Conn.App. 38 (2010) (appellate review limitations for unpreserved issues)
- Noonan v. Noonan, 122 Conn.App. 184 (2010) (principles of appellate review of financial orders; preservation considerations)
- Tobet v. Tobet, 119 Conn.App. 63 (2010) (allocation of educational expenses; organizational context for § 46b-56c decisions)
- Perricone v. Perricone, 292 Conn. 187 (2009) (Golding framework and constitutional error analysis in civil cases)