Opinion
UWYFA064010011S
02-17-2016
Gerald Stallings v. Travelyn Stallings
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER POSTJUDGMENT #144
Robert Nastri, Jr., Judge.
The defendant's December 18, 2015 Motion for Order--Postjudgment came before the court on January 19, 2016. Both the plaintiff, Gerald Stallings, and the defendant, Travelyn Stallings, were represented by counsel. In her motion, the defendant seeks an order for postmajority educational support for the parties' only child, Shariya Stallings. Shariya was born on February 17, 1997; she reached the age of majority in 2015. Shariya is currently in her second semester as a full-time, first-year student at Eastern Connecticut State University.
The parties' marriage was dissolved on December 13, 2006. The judgment of dissolution incorporated the parties' agreement of the same date. The agreement provided that " [e]ither parent may file a motion or petition for an educational support order at a subsequent date." The court retained jurisdiction over educational support orders pursuant to General Statute § 46b-56c.
Although Shariya has qualified for substantial financial assistance, the defendant asserts that Shariya needs an additional $3,000 to pay for the current semester. The plaintiff objects on the ground that he has insufficient information to assess his daughter's financial needs. The plaintiff has filed a Motion for Contempt (#139) and a Motion to Compel Discovery (#140) in order to obtain the information that he believes is required for him to make an informed decision regarding payment of his daughter's college expenses. The plaintiff also claims that he is entitled to obtain some of the information he needs directly from the University, but that his daughter has refused to authorize the University to release her financial information to him.
The plaintiff notes that the defendant sought $12,000 for Shariya's educational support from him last semester but that he later learned through discovery that his daughter's educational expenses had been met fully. This is the second time this issue has arisen between the parties in their daughter's first year of college.
These motions have not yet been heard by the court.
DISCUSSION
" Pursuant to § 46b-56c(b)(1), the court may enter an educational support order if a parent has moved or petitioned the court to do so." Robinson v. Robinson, 86 Conn.App. 719, 725, 862 A.2d 326 (2004). " Under § 46b-56c, whether an educational support order is warranted in a particular case is vested to the sound discretion of the trial court." Kleinman v. Chapnick, 131 Conn.App. 812, 819, 30 A.3d 3 (2011). " [U]pon motion of a party and after making certain subsidiary findings, a court may issue an educational support order for college age children." Crews v. Crews, 107 Conn.App. 279, 302, 945 A.2d 502 (2008), aff'd, 295 Conn. 153, 989 A.2d 1060 (2010).
General Statutes § 46b-56c(b)(1) provides in relevant part: " On motion or petition of a parent, the court may enter an educational support order at the time of entry of a decree of dissolution . . . and no educational support order may be entered thereafter unless the decree explicitly provides that a motion or petition for an educational support order may be filed by either parent at a subsequent date. If no educational support order is entered at the time of entry of a decree of dissolution . . . and the parents have a child who has not attained twenty-three years of age, the court shall inform the parents that no educational support order may be entered thereafter. The court may accept a parent's waiver of the right to file a motion or petition for an educational support order upon a finding that the parent fully understands the consequences of such waiver."
An initial threshold requirement is that it is more likely than not that the parents would have provided support to the child for higher education if the family were intact. General Statutes § 46b-56c(c).
" To qualify for payments under an educational support order, the child must . . . (4) make available all academic records to both parents during the term of the order." General Statutes § 46b-56c(e). The plaintiff argues that the term " academic records, " as it is used in subsection (e) of § 46b-56c, includes financial information relating to his daughter's college education. In response, the defendant counters that she has provided the plaintiff with all the information she has regarding Shariya's college finances and that " academic records" are commonly understood to have to do with a student's grades and academic progress.
The parties fail to offer any authority for the positions they advance.
While the parties argue over the definition of " academic records, " the simple fact remains that without the pertinent financial information, the plaintiff has no basis on which to evaluate his daughter's financial needs. At issue here is whether a child can withhold relevant financial information relating to her college expenses, such as the cost of tuition or loans, grants, or scholarships she has received or that are available to her, yet expect her parent to contribute to her educational needs. Section 46b-56c(f) provides that the educational support order can include a variety of " necessary education expenses" beyond tuition, such as fees, room and board expenses, books, and medical insurance. Without the relevant information detailing these expenses, the court cannot provide an educational support order that reflects the actual costs of Shariya's education.
Cases from states with similar support statutes, although not binding, are instructive on the issue of college financial record disclosure. Most notably, the Missouri child support statute provides, in relevant part: " To remain eligible for such continued parental support, at the beginning of each semester the child shall submit to each parent a transcript or similar official document . . ." Mo. Ann. Stat. § 452.340.5 (West 2014). While the disclosure of financial records is not mandated by the statute, Missouri Appellate Court cases have addressed a child's refusal to disclose the required academic records. " Although the statute speaks in terms of the child providing the requisite information, it has been interpreted to mean that the statutory requirements are satisfied if either the child or the child support obligee provides the mandated information to the child support obligor . . . There is no public policy reason that the continued eligibility for parental support should turn on who actually mailed the required information to the non-custodial parent." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Division of Family Services ex rel. Lair v. Portincaso, 347 S.W.3d 596, 599 (Mo.Ct.App. 2011). " The fact that [the child] did not directly mail the documents to [the father] herself does not disqualify her from being eligible for continued support." Spencer v. Spencer, 126 S.W.3d 770, 774 (Mo.Ct.App. 2004). " The critical requirement is that the child support obligor receive the necessary records." Division of Family Services ex rel. Lair v. Portincaso, supra, 347 S.W.3d 599.
Accordingly, in Missouri, the child may disclose the mandated records to an intermediary, like the child's custodial parent. That intermediary will then disclose the records to the noncustodial parent. If the child does not provide the parents with the requisite documentation of academic records, " the trial [court has] discretionary authority to terminate, rather than simply abate, a parent's obligation to pay child support [in the form of educational expenses]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Brown v. Brown, 370 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Mo.Ct.App. 2012).
Similarly, in Illinois, the statute providing for support of nonminor children and educational expenses requires the child to consent to his or her parents having access to academic records, such as transcripts and grades. 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/513 (West 2015). The statute specifies that a child's " [f]ailure to execute the required consent may be a basis for a modification or termination of any order entered . . ." 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/513. While the mandated disclosure under the statute does not apply to nonacademic records, the Illinois Appellate Court held that it is " certainly within the court's discretion to require documentation regarding [college] expenses . . ." In re Marriage of Paidi, 2015 IL App (1st) 133429-U (Ill.App.Ct. 1st Dist. 2015) (unpublished), appeal denied, 397 Ill.Dec. 456, 42 N.E.3d 371 (Ill. 2015).
In Tennessee, parents may voluntarily take on greater support obligations than the law requires and such an obligation can be enforced as a matter of contract. Hathaway v. Hathaway, 98 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002). In these cases, the trial court can order a parent to " complete and provide [the other parent] with any and all documents, applications, and things pertaining to the [college] education of the parties' children . . . including, but not limited to any requests for financial information, financial aid, or scholarships necessary for same." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Corder v. Corder, 231 S.W.3d 346, 355 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2006). A parent's request for access to a child's college financial records " would be reasonable if [the parent] had an obligation to continue paying a portion of her [child's] college expenses." Lopez v. Taylor, 195 S.W.3d 627, 637 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2005).
When a court must determine whether the college expenses a parent is obligated to pay are reasonable, several states will consider " the financial resources of the child . . . [and] the cost of the school . . ." Mandel v. Mandel, 74 Mass.App.Ct. 348, 906 N.E.2d 1016, 1022 (2009). See also Dyke v. Scopetti, 121 A.3d 684, 693 (Vt. 2015); Kail v. Kail, Docket No. A09-558, (Minn.Ct.App., December 22, 2009). Implicit in these holdings is the requirement that a court have access to records that detail tuition costs and financial resources available to the child in order to create and enforce an appropriate educational support order.
In the present case, Shariya refuses to allow the plaintiff direct access to her financial information at Eastern Connecticut State University. Pursuant to § 46b-56c, this court must make a reasonable finding of Shariya's college expenses before issuing an educational support order. Specifically, § 46b-56c(c) requires the court--after making the appropriate preliminary findings--to determine whether to enter an educational support order by considering " all relevant circumstances, including: . . . (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 . . ." The court cannot consider those factors solely by reference to a report card. The court must have access to Shariya's college financial records, including the cost of tuition, loans, grants, or scholarships received or available, to determine the total amount of her college expenses and the resources available to her to meet those expenses.
Accordingly, the court finds that the term " academic records" as used in § 46b-56c(e) encompasses financial information kept by the university and imposes upon Shariya the obligation to provide both parents with full access to all information regarding her college expenses and the financial resources available to her. If Shariya does not make the relevant financial information available to her father, she does not " qualify for payments under an educational support order" pursuant to § 46b-56c(e). The court is mindful that it does not have jurisdiction over Shariya. In the absence of her willingness to provide both parents with full, unfettered and direct access to information relating to her college expenses and the resources available to her to meet those expenses, the court declines to issue an educational support order requiring her father to contribute to the costs of her college education.
Order
The defendant's motion for order postjudgment is denied without prejudice subject to the plaintiff receiving access to Shariya's financial information consistent with this decision.