Marlene Bergeron v. Gwynn X. Lamont (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's motion for modification seeking an educational order for the benefit of the child, ML and on a motion for contempt.

A hearing was held on April 29, 2013.   Plaintiff is represented by counsel and defendant is a self-represented litigant.

The court has considered the statutory criteria, as well as the evidence, proposed orders, applicable case law, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and arguments of the parties in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders that issue herein.

Specifically, General Statutes § 46b–56c provides in relevant parts as follows:  (c) The court may not enter an educational support order pursuant to this section unless the court finds as a matter of fact that it is more likely than not that the parents would have provided support to the child for higher education or private occupational school if the family were intact.   After making such finding, the court, in determining whether to enter an educational support order, shall consider all relevant circumstances, including:  (1) The parents' income, assets and other obligations, including obligations to other dependents;  (2) the child's need for support to attend an institution of higher education or private occupational school considering the child's assets and the child's ability to earn income;  (3) the availability of financial aid from other sources, including grants and loans;  (4) the reasonableness of the higher education to be funded considering the child's academic record and the financial resources available;  (5) the child's preparation for, aptitude for and commitment to higher education;  and (6) evidence, if any, of the institution of higher education or private occupational school the child would attend.

(e) To qualify for payments due under an educational support order, the child must (1) enroll in an accredited institution of higher education or private occupational school, as defined in section 10a–22a, (2) actively pursue a course of study commensurate with the child's vocational goals that constitutes at least one-half the course load determined by that institution or school to constitute full-time enrollment, (3) maintain good academic standing in accordance with the rules of the institution or school, and (4) make available all academic records to both parents during the term of the order.   The order shall be suspended after any academic period during which the child fails to comply with these conditions.

The parties are the parents of a child, ML, born August 11, 1994.   There is no relationship between plaintiff and defendant.   The defendant father has no relationship with his son and has seen him three to four times in the past five years.   There is little to no communication between them.   Defendant has a total of five children.   Three of his children, of other relationships, are older than ML and have all graduated from, or attend private colleges.   Defendant has encouraged and has contributed financially to these children's post-secondary education.   The defendant's youngest child is seven years old.

In the summer of 2011, while the parties were in court, plaintiff communicated to defendant that ML would be attending college commencing in the fall of 2012.   Plaintiff related that defendant was considering Quinnipiac University, University of Hartford, Sacred Heart University and Central Connecticut State University.   Defendant expressed no objection.

ML matriculated at Central as a full-time student residing on campus in the fall of 2012.   Plaintiff apprised defendant of the steps she took in an attempt to secure financial aid for ML, provided defendant with a copy of ML's grades and informed him that ML intends to major in civil engineering.   The total cost for ML's tuition, board and books for the academic year 2012–2013 is $21,853.   Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the defendant to pay one-half of the educational expenses.

Defendant's objections to paying half of his son's educational expenses are without merit, and the court does not find defendant's testimony as to his alleged dire financial status credible.   Defendant has alternatively claimed that he should have filed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid on behalf of ML even though he has never been the custodial parent;  that ML should contribute to his own educational expenses;  ML should have applied for an unsubsidized student loan at a 6.8% rate of interest;  or, ML should have applied to a private college as his chances of receiving financial aid would have been greater.

Defendant does not object to ML attending college.   Rather, defendant alleges that he is financially unable to contribute to ML's education and that his sole means of support is $1,528 in monthly social security benefits.   The court finds that defendant is the owner of a residence in Glastonbury valued at $777,500 and he is able to maintain the costs associated with the home, including remaining current on his property taxes estimated to be $16,000 annually.   Defendant is able to make credit card payments in the minimum amount of $2,400 per month.   Defendant owned a 2006 Ford GT, 2006 Lexus LX470 in 2011.   The assessed values of the vehicles were $106,000 and $27,000, respectively.   Defendant also owned a sailboat with an estimated value of $185,000.   Although defendant claims these items were sold, he is unable to provide the particulars of the sale, including the sale price.   More importantly, he is unable to state where the funds were deposited or diverted.   Plaintiff was able to elicit testimony relative to the sale of real property in Maine, and of a Debt Settlement Agreement with Webster Bank which may have resulted in a financial gain to the defendant.   Defendant did not provide details of the Maine property sale or of his dealings with Webster Bank.

The court finds the defendant willfully failed to provide financial documentation requested by the plaintiff and thus impeded the plaintiff's ability to litigate her motions for modification and contempt.   During the course of the hearing, defendant was not forthcoming about his financial status and proffered no financial documentation.

Plaintiff also filed a motion for contempt for defendant's failure to provide medical insurance for the benefit of ML as ordered by the court on June 8, 2006.   Defendant procured insurance for ML with Anthem Blue Cross of Connecticut, although he allowed the policy to lapse on several occasions due to nonpayment of the premium.   The plaintiff has paid a total of $2,426.32 to continue ML's coverage.   The court entered an additional order on September 11, 2012 requiring defendant to pay $602.58 for medical insurance expenses.   Defendant has willfully failed to comply with the court order of September 11, 2012.

ORDERS

1.  Defendant shall pay to plaintiff the sum of $10,926.50 for the academic year 2012–2013 at Central Connecticut State University.

2. Defendant shall pay to plaintiff one-half the tuition, room and board, and book fees for the academic year 2013–2014 at Central Connecticut State University.   Half the tuition is payable to plaintiff on or before July 1, 2013 and the second half shall be payable on or before December 1, 2013.   The total payment shall not exceed the equivalent charge at the University of Connecticut for an instate student.

3. Defendant shall pay to plaintiff $3,032.90 for past medical insurance premiums paid by plaintiff.

4. Defendant shall pay to plaintiff one-half of medical insurance premiums incurred for the benefit of ML effective immediately.

5. Defendant shall pay plaintiff's attorneys fees in the amount of $7,500 on or before June 14, 2013.

6. Payment for order numbers 1 and 3 shall be made on or before September 6, 2013.

Ficeto, J.

Ficeto, Anna M., J.