Copyright © 2002, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved.
Parental involvement in school selection
Report on bills favorably reported by Committee
House of Representatives, April 26, 2002
House of Representative, May 6, 2002
2002 Conn. Acts 128 (Reg. Sess)
This is a preliminary compilation of the legislative history of P.A. 02-128.an act concerning educational support orders. It was compiled from the unedited text and no official page numbers were available.
Public Hearing. On March 4, 2002, a public hearing was held before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary at which David Hemond, Leslie Brett, Rep. Urban, Gerald Roisman, Amy Miller, Beverley Brakeman, Kate Hoakensen, Linnea Lindstrom, Patricia Walsh, Kelly Walsh and Josh Lyons gave oral testimony in support of Substitute for Raised House Bill No. 5088. Written testimony was not available at the time of this compiliation.
Committee Report. The bill was subsequently given a joint favorable report by the Joint Committee.
Floor Debate. An amendment (Schedule A) was offered and following debate on the floor of the House of Representatives was passed temporarily with this amendment on April 26, 2002. On May 6th a second amendment (Schedule B) was offered and on May 6, 2002 and following debate passed the bill as amended by both House amendments.
Senate Action. On May 8, 2002 the Senate also passed the bill as amended by both House amendments.
Public Act. The bill was designated Public Act 02-128 and will be effective October 1, 2002.
Lawrence Cheeseman
Supervising Law Librarian
Connecticut Judicial Branch
Law Library at Middletown
One Court Street
Middletown, CT 06457
(860) 343-6560
Email: lawrence.cheeseman@jud.ct.gov
sHB 5088
AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT ORDERS
This bill permits judges and family support magistrates to order divorcing parents and fathers subject to paternity orders to support their offspring who enroll in accredited college or vocational programs after high school until they reach age 23. It specifies criteria the court must consider and conditions the parents and students must satisfy. It applies to cases where the first child support order is entered on or after October 1, 2002. Parents must ask the court to enter such orders, and can do so at any time before the child's 23rd birthday.
The bill states that it does not create a right of action by a child for parental support for higher education and that its coverage does not include support for graduate or post-graduate education.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2002
Under the bill, an educational support order is an order entered by a court requiring a parent to provide support for a child or children to attend an institution of higher education or a private occupational school for the purpose of attaining a bachelor's degree, other undergraduate degree, or other appropriate vocational instruction. Orders terminate when the child reaches age 23, or, if this occurs during the academic year, at the end of that period.
Orders may include support for any necessary educational expense, including room, board, dues, tuition, books, fees, registration and application costs, and medical and dental expenses including health insurance. The court can order that payments be made (1) to a parent to be forwarded to the college or school, (2) directly to the educational institution, or (3) otherwise as the court determines to be appropriate.
In determining whether to enter an educational support order, the court must consider all relevant circumstances. Under the bill, these include:
1. the parents' income, assets, and other obligations;
2. the child's need for support to attend school, taking into account his own assets and earning capacity;
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 likelihood that the parents would have provided support to the child for higher education if the family were intact; and
6. the child's preparation for, aptitude for, and commitment to higher education; and
7. any evidence about the school the child would attend.
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOL SELECTION
The bill requires, at the appropriate time, that both parents discuss and agree on what school the child will attend. If they do not agree, the matter may be resolved by court order.
Under the bill, to qualify for payments under an educational support order, the student must:
1. enroll in an accredited institution of higher education or private occupational school on at least a half-time basis and pursue a course of study commensurate with his vocational goals,
2. maintain good academic standing in accordance with the school's rules, and
3. make all academic records available to both parents during the term of the
order.
Orders must be suspended after any academic period during which the child fails to comply with these conditions.
The bill makes existing criteria and procedures for modifying support orders applicable to educational support orders, including the requirement that the party seeking the modification show a substantial change in circumstances.
Voluntary Agreements to Provide Support
Legislation passed last year (PA 01-135) permits courts to modify divorcing parties' written agreements for the care, education, maintenance, or support of children over age 18. That law applies to agreements made on and after July 1, 2001 that have been incorporated in or made part of divorce decrees.
Judiciary Committee
Joint Favorable Substitute
Yea 36 Nay 4
Introducer(s):
Judiciary Committee
Title: AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT ORDERS.
Statement of Purpose: To help children of divorced parents afford higher education.
Bill History:
02/08/02 REFERRED TO JOINT COMMITTEE ON Judiciary Committee
02/28/02 PUBLIC HEARING 03/04
03/25/02 JOINT FAVORABLE SUBSTITUTE
03/25/02 FILED WITH LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE
04/04/02 REFERRED TO OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH AND OFFICE OF FISCAL
ANALYSIS 04/09/02-5:00 PM
04/10/02 REPORTED OUT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE
04/10/02 FAVORABLE REPORT, TABLED FOR THE CALENDAR,
HOUSE
04/10/02 HOUSE CALENDAR NUMBER 262
04/10/02 FILE NUMBER 432
04/26/02 HOUSE ADOPTED HOUSE AMENDMENT SCHEDULE A:LCO-3781
04/26/02 BILL PASSED
TEMPORARILY
05/06/02 HOUSE ADOPTED HOUSE AMENDMENT SCHEDULE B:LCO-4634
05/06/02 HOUSE PASSED AS AMENDED BY HOUSE AMENDMENT SCHEDULE A,B
05/06/02 TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO THE JOINT RULES
05/06/02 FAVORABLE REPORT, TABLED FOR THE CALENDAR, SENATE
05/06/02 SENATE CALENDAR NUMBER 462
05/08/02 SENATE ADOPTED HOUSE AMENDMENT SCHEDULE A,B
05/08/02 SENATE PASSED AS AMENDED BY HOUSE AMENDMENT SCHEDULE A,B
05/17/02 PUBLIC ACT 02-128
05/23/02 TRANSMITTED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
06/07/02 SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR <B
Co-sponsor(s):
|
Rep. Diana S. Urban, 43rd Dist. |
Rep. Peter A. Nystrom, 46th Dist. |
|
Rep. Barnaby Horton, 2nd Dist. |
Rep. Arthur J. O'Neill, 69th Dist. |
|
Rep. Art J. Feltman, 6th Dist. |
Rep. Steven Mikutel, 45th Dist. |
|
Rep. Christopher R. Stone, 9th Dist. |
Rep. Nancy Beals, 88th Dist. |
|
Rep. Bob Godfrey, 110th Dist. |
Rep. Roger Brian Michele, 77th Dist. |
|
Rep. Sonya Googins, 31st Dist. |
Sen. Catherine W. Cook, 18th Dist. |
|
Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, 81st Dist. |
Sen. Kevin B. Sullivan, 5th Dist. |
|
Sen. Thomas A. Colapietro, 31st Dist. |
Sen. Biagio Ciotto, 9th Dist. |
|
Sen. Gary D. LeBeau, 3rd Dist. |
Sen. Bill Finch, 22nd Dist. |
|
Sen. Edith G. Prague, 19th Dist. |
Sen. Thomas A. Bozek, 6th Dist. |
|
Sen. John A. Kissel, 7th Dist. |
Sen. Win Smith, 14th Dist. |
|
Sen. Mary Ann Handley, 4th Dist. |
|
Oral Testimony
March 4, 2002
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 11:30 A.M.
PRESIDING CHAIRMAN: Representative Lawlor
MEMBERS PRESENT:
SENATORS: Coleman, Looney, Kissel,
Daily, Finch, Roraback
REPRESENTATIVES: Feltman, Farr, Abrams, Amann, Berger, Bernhard, Cafero, Cocco, Conway, Dandrow, DeMarinis, Doyle, Fox, Fritz, Godfrey, Green, Hamm, Hamzy, Hyslop, Klarides, Martinez, Nystrom, O'Neill, Powers, Rowe, Spallone, Staples, Stone, Winkler
Staff attorney with the Law Revision Commission
DAVID HEMOND: Good afternoon. I'm Dave Hemond. I'm a staff attorney with the Law Revision Commission. I'd like to testify briefly on two bills. I have submitted written testimony on both bills. First is H.B. 5088, which is, AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT ORDERS. The Law Revision Commission was asked by the Judiciary Committee to look at how to address the issue of children of divorced parents obtaining funding for college, post majority. The age of majority in Connecticut is 18. If parents are divorced, some of those children are unable to attend college because of a lack of funding. The Commission looked at this issue nationwide. It's an issue that has split jurisdictions. Twenty-nine states, including Connecticut, the basic age of majority limits the ability of the court to order support orders that would include educational support for college. Twenty-one states do have provisions that allow majority support, post majority support. We, in our written report, tried to analyze the issues of what other states have done, some of the concerns. One of the concerns is that there is no state that would require that parents generally, parents of intact families pay for educational support past the age of majority of their children. So there is an issue of having a differentiation of standards. On the other hand, it is the context, both anecdotally and there was some evidence that it is the children of divorced and single parents who are most likely to have this problem and so there is an issue of how to address that balance. And the Commission report does include a draft bill that would address that situation.
***************************************************************
REP. LAWLOR: Representative Farr.
REP. FARR: On the H.B. 5088, the educational support orders. The proposal that we've got now says that the support obligation will - for educational support, I believe, goes to 23. Is that correct?
DAVID HEMOND: That's correct.
REP. FARR: Now, if a couple has a child and that child goes away to college, and they're an intact family, and a couple of years later they get a divorce, does this say that you can then, even though the child now is, let's say 20, and the couple has never paid any of the educational costs, one of the parties can now go back and say, wait a minute, we've got to pick up this educational cost in the future? Or does this only apply to cases where the divorce occurs when the child is still a minor?
DAVID HEMOND: I believe that as it's drafted it only applies to a divorce with a child who is below the age of majority. It doesn't address a situation where the child is already at college. Although I'm not absolutely certain of that and I would have to look at the language.
REP. FARR: And do you know, is that the pattern that most states follow?
DAVID HEMOND: That is the pattern of most states, yes.
REP. FARR: So you end up with this inequity of the - you have three children and one is 18 and one 17, one is 18 and one is 20. Now if the 18 year old is still getting support because of the fact that they haven't graduated from high school, are they then eligible for an educational order, support order?
DAVID HEMOND: Again, I'd have to look at the drafting language. I'm not sure. There is clearly this underlying issue of differentiating between intact families and non-intact families. There's a secondary issue that generally speaking, once you reach the age of majority, people are held to be responsible for their own debts and this bill would not create a right for that child, post majority, to come back and apply for the post-majority order. It's a right between parents, essentially, to enforce the court with respect to the other child or with respect to the other parent to make sure that both parents contribute towards this college education. So, there are clearly some complexities here.
REP. FARR: And do you know, did you finally resolve how this affects financial aid? In other words, when people go and apply for a financial aid package, I know that the aid programs are all over the lot as to - I've been told that in some forms of aid you include your - only the income of people in the household. Some institutions include step-parents' income. Some require the income of a parent whose not in the household. If there's an order for support, does that have any impact on financial aid?
DAVID HEMOND: As you say, how the institutions do this is all over the lot. The federal institutions, as I understand it, this would not effect the rights to the federal grants or federal aid, but with respect to private institutions, they're going to look at whatever assets are available to the extent there's an award of a certain asset. Depending on the institution, they may take that into account and quite simply, different institutions do this differently.
REP. FARR: Okay. Thank you.
SEN. COLEMAN: Are there further questions? Representative Hamm and then Representative Stone.
REP. HAMM: Would you catch me up again on the law in other states? I'm trying to quickly review what you've written and I'm not clear. In those states where post-majority support is ordered, is it statutory or by case law?
DAVID HEMOND: It depends on the state.
REP. HAMM: I guess I'm just -- generally, what does the majority do?
DAVID HEMOND: In the written testimony, I did count that out and I think it's here.
REP. HAMM: You say 29 don't --
DAVID HEMOND: As I recall, it's about half and half in terms of whether it's statutory or whether it's by court order.
REP. HAMM: Or case law.
DAVID HEMOND: Yes.
REP. HAMM: And when you say 29 states have the age of majority stop at 18 or 19 perhaps with the high school, that would be the majority of states?
DAVID HEMOND: That's correct.
REP. HAMM: And so of the others, can we infer and conclude that there's a prohibition? In other words, of the 29 that say that the child support stops at the same as ours does, which is the majority, we then can infer that the majority of states do not permit post-majority support. Is that a fair --
DAVID HEMOND: What they do not permit is for a court to order post-majority support. That would be correct.
REP. HAMM: Okay.
DAVID HEMOND: Now, in the case of Connecticut, we actually have two exceptions in which a court can order a post-majority support. One is with respect to allowing a child to graduate high school, reach 19. And the other is with respect to certain disabled children. So Connecticut already has a very limited set of provisions under which we allow post-majority support.
REP. HAMM: I guess I'm just trying to figure out where we are in the scheme of what the rest of the country is doing.
DAVID HEMOND: We're basically in the majority which says that the age of majority is where the right to order support terminates.
REP. HAMM: Except for those two exceptions?
DAVID HEMOND: Except for those two exceptions. So we've slightly crossed the border, but --
REP. HAMM: So we are probably a little more progressive than the rest of the country by creating those two exceptions?
DAVID HEMOND: It depends again on whether - there are legitimate concerns to doing this. So I'm not sure whether it's progressive or not, but in terms of providing for support for some post-majority children for college, if that's progressive, then we're slightly more progressive.
REP. HAMM: Were you able to find any law review or legal periodical that had the discussion of intact families versus children of divorce?
DAVID HEMOND: There's actually quite a bit of written material. We have collected that. I'd be happy to send that to you.
REP. HAMM: If there's a good summary of the discussion as a policy matter, I would like to take a look at that.
DAVID HEMOND: What there is not -- I mean, there tend to be people who are in favor of a proposal and give you the reasons why and give you anecdotal reasons why this is something that's important. In terms of any good information out there as to what the real economics are and how the real long term impact of this, I don't think there's much of that.
REP. HAMM: Okay. Well, get me whatever you think is the best summary.
DAVID HEMOND: I will do that.
REP. HAMM: Thank you.
SEN. COLEMAN: Representative Stone.
REP. STONE: Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Dave. On H.B. 5088, you list in the bill, under Section C, those factors that the court would look to make a determination on whether to award post-majority support for college education. You list factors one through six. And I note that one of the factors, factor number five, seems to me, anyway, to be one of the more critical of the six. You don't weigh these factors in any particular order of importance, do you?
DAVID HEMOND: No, there's no weighing and again, this - the real policy of how you do this is very difficult. We discussed these factors at length. We looked at what some of the other state statutes do. But there really are arguments pro and con on such issues as whether, in fact, it's relevant. For example, looking at number five, whether, in fact, parents would have done it or wouldn't have done it. And how you measure that or how a judges gets the evidence to do that. I mean, it's really one of the problems or one of the issues that faces the proposal. We thought it was important to try and get the criteria -- the purposes of the proposal so that you can discuss it and what people thought was important.
REP. STONE: I happened to think and I've discussed this with some of my colleagues and some of the advocates that that is probably one of the more important factors and I called it the "but for test", but for the fact that there was a dissolution of marriage, the child or children would have been supported by their parents in post-majority education.
DAVID HEMOND: I think one of the issues there becomes how does the court know that after the factor at the time that they're --
REP. STONE: No question about it. Absolutely. But I guess, was there any thought of the Law Revision Commission to take that particular factor, factor number B-5, I'm sorry, C-5, taking that as sort of --taking that out and making that a threshold of determination for the court and once that determination is made, one way or the other, then move on to the criteria set forth in one through four in number six?
DAVID HEMOND: There actually was some discussion of that. This is how they ended up, but I can't really judge what's better.
REP. STONE: Do you know, if you could, what the - those who opposed taking this particular factor out and setting it up as a threshold determination by the court, do you know the reason for their opposition was, if you recall?
DAVID HEMOND: Yeah, I think one of the concerns was if you're sitting as a judge, how do you obtain information on what they really would have done in a situation where you really - judges have discretion here to decide what they think is best under these circumstances and, obviously, if you're a parent in a proceeding where the judge is trying to ask you what would you do? You're asking a hypothetical. The person may, in fact, not know themselves or it maybe contingent on a number of other factors and I think that was the primary concern.
REP. STONE: Certainly one way to determine that issue would be to ask the parents, obviously, but also the factor such as setting up educational accounts, educational IRA accounts, whether other siblings, as Representative Farr pointed out, other older siblings had been supported in college by their parents, whether the parents had gone to college, whether there was some sort of, for the lack of a better word, "family tradition" of going to college. So, as difficult as it might be, at least I consider that factor to be something that should be resolved initially before the court gets into any of the other five factors. But I guess we'll continue the dialogue and if you have any information on other aspects of the opposition, I'd like to have it, if you have some internal memorandum or something, I'd like to see that. Thanks, Dave. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you, Representative Stone. Further questions for Attorney Hemond? Representative Farr.
REP. FARR: I'm sorry to go back a second time, but as I read the bill, it talks about that the order may be entered when entering an original decree or any time thereafter. Is that what this is saying? That you could -- even after you dissolve the marriage, you could go back and seek an order?
DAVID HEMOND: I'm not certain how to read that. That language suggests to me that you might be able to do this even until the child is 23. Clearly, to 23 would be a limitation and I need to look at that.
REP. FARR: I guess it's a little concerning - a big concern to me that I think that people terminate the marriage and think they've resolved all of the issues and then one of the parties can come back years later and say oh, by the way, now let's talk about college education. Am I also correct in assuming that there's no cap in terms of obligations here? Is that correct? So that the - if you find your youngster is going to the most expensive college in the country, you maybe stuck with paying that up to the expense of -- annual expense of doing that. Is that correct?
DAVID HEMOND: There's no cap here, that's correct.
REP. FARR: Do other states have caps?
DAVID HEMOND: I believe some states do have caps, yes.
REP. FARR: And do other states allow this motion to be made after the final judgment?
DAVID HEMOND: I believe that some do not. We looked at -- there are about eight or nine other state statutes and again, in fact, I would note that we recently suggested to the Uniform Laws Conference that this might be an issue that they might like to look at as an area where we could use a model law precisely because every state does it slightly differently and so I just can't generalize on what those are in different states, but I think you're right, there are caps, there are clearly states where they say it's once you make the order at the time of the divorce, that's it. On the other hand, there are generally rights to modify orders right now and other situations.
REP. FARR: But today if you did not get an order of alimony at the time of the decree, you wouldn't be able to seek it later or modify it. As I read this, if you didn't get an order of support for higher education, you could seek it later on.
DAVID HEMOND: I think that's how this is drafted right here. Again, really this has to be looked at as a basis for discussion as to what policy issues you want to go forward with.
REP. FARR: Okay, thank you.
REP. LAWLOR: Are there further questions? If not, thank you very much.
DAVID HEMOND: Thank you.
Executive Director of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women
If I may, I'd like to turn my attention to the educational support order bill. Again, you've heard significant testimony. We support this bill which would give the courts the authority to include an order for both parents, either following a divorce or other unmarried parents to contribute to the support of college or other post-secondary education and related expenses for their children up to the age of 23. Although some divorced and unmarried parents willingly share these expenses, in other cases the burden falls heavily on the custodial parent and the child. Moreover, in some divorce disputes, the real problem is faced earlier when the parties are negotiating their divorce agreement. Knowing that the judge does not have the authority to order such support, the non-custodial parent can bargain more aggressively on this issue. At the PCSW we have heard stories from divorcing mothers who felt that they were forced to give up some other major items in the divorce. A more equitable share of the house, for example, or other assets in order to obtain an agreement for shared support later of college expenses.
If I could, I'd like to respond to a few questions that I just heard in the discussion with the prior witness. First of all, the question came up about whether the judge can order the support once the child is already in college if the divorce were to occur at that stage in life. And I think, as the bill is written, that is the case, the judge could order that, but must consider all the equitable factors that you have in this bill. If it's reasonable, if the child has expenses, if the parents are able to share those expenses and so on, it could be part of a divorce settlement just as all the other factors in the divorce proceedings could be considered.
Representative Stone, you were asking before about whether we should elevate the one factor about the "but for" factor that you referred to before about would the family, had it been intact, order the support. And I think it's important that that factor be included in this bill as one of the five that's included. I have a concern. You asked what some of the concerns might be. That we didn't want any kind of consideration that would automatically dismiss people who were less than middle class and give too easy an opportunity for judges to say this family would never send their kid to college. We know that some families who have never had a child in college before really want to send their child to college make heroic efforts to send their child to college or to some other vocational post-secondary education. So we don't want to set something up first that sort of replicates the sort of differentiation between middle class and people who are not middle class. So this family would not have sent their child to college. Therefore we don't have to consider this petition. Of course, it is still within the realm of the judge's discretion to consider a variety of factors. That's still in there, but we didn't want it to be the first threshold that might unfairly discount the petitions of some parents. And remembering also that one of the parents has to petition for this and has to make a case that they are able to contribute their share and that both parties have some ability to contribute to the post-secondary education.
Finally, I wanted to comment on the question about caps. I think that caps for the amount of money that can be awarded should be left to the discretion of judges. It's not that the award can say the child can go to any school for any amount of money, but I don't know that you would want to put an actual numerical cap in the statute because this bill, of course, has to apply equally to families of all economic statuses, those who have lots of resources and those who have less. But certainly a judge can establish a reasonable cap when he or she makes such an order.
To conclude my remarks, I just do want to say the beneficiaries of this law, if enacted, would be our children and the future of our state's economy. We really expect both parents, if they are able, to share equally in the responsibilities of raising their children and giving them the opportunities that they need. And post-secondary education is often the doorway to a successful adult life. So we hope that you'll support this bill and encourage both parents to share equally in those responsibilities.Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR: Representative Farr.
REP. FARR: I just have -- the cap issue, first of all. What used to be a standard cap that was put in agreements was that the parties would share in the educational cost, either proportionately or at some formula up to the tuition fees at the University of Connecticut. Then allowed some sort of cap if the youngster wanted to go to a private school or substantially more, the parties could agree to pay for that, but at least it was some - the parties weren't going to get stuck with having the child go to the most expensive institute in the country. I guess the other question here though is, as drafted, am I correct in saying that -- is it possible for the parties to agree in a divorce decree, for example, that there will not be any obligation for higher education costs imposed by the court? And then one of the parties comes back and says well, I've changed my mind, now I want it?
LESLIE BRETT: For the absolutely legal correct answer on that, I hope that the family lawyers who are coming after me will be able to answer. I do know that divorce decrees are modifiable and this would be modifiable, as well if one of the parties can show a significant change of circumstances. It's not a whimsical, I just want to change my mind-kind of modifiability. But there has to be some threshold requirements met. Whether you can, in advance, foreclose or waive certain kinds of agreements and have that be put in a judgement, I just don't know.
REP. FARR: Okay, thank you.
REP. LAWLOR: Are there other questions? Representative Fox.
REP. FOX: Thank you. I have a question, if I could, with respect to H.B. 5088 and I can certainly understand your frustration, your concern because I think many times in a domestic case it is the person with the primary support obligation or maintenance support of the child, that more often now is the woman who frequently has difficulty because she has to give something else up to get the education or something she has to fuss with the former partner on for many years to come. But I'm concerned also about the concept of finality. And I think when one reads the bill, in one's mind is conjured up the concept of a child or children who are in their teens and who are about ready to start looking at or going to college. But as I understand it, if, in fact I am divorced today and I have a two year old child and as part of my obligation, I am not obligated to pay for that child's education. That's going to be dealt with, hopefully, by the parents outside the court order. Some 16 years from that point, I can be looking at a motion for modification to change the obligation that I would have with respect to the college education of that child or children. Am I reading that bill correctly?
LESLIE BRETT: I'm looking at my legal experts for a little bit of help. Your question is, is it retroactive to apply to divorce agreements that are already in place today?
REP. FOX: No. I'm saying -- well, that's a good question. I hadn't thought of that one, but that certainly is a question. What's the answer to that?
LESLIE BRETT: What's the answer to that?
REP. FELTMAN: The answer to that question is no.
LESLIE BRETT: No, it's not.
REP. FOX: Okay.
LESLIE BRETT: I'm looking at a few of the family lawyers.
REP. FOX: Okay. With respect to a divorced -- let's assume it's the law as we sit here.
LESLIE BRETT: Today.
REP. FOX: Okay. I enter into an agreement --
LESLIE BRETT: Correct.
REP. FOX: -- where I am not obligated to pay for the college education of my two year old.
LESLIE BRETT: Right.
REP. FOX: Sixteen years from now I could be facing that?
LESLIE BRETT: Okay. That, I believe, I know the answer to which is that it's modifiable under the same threshold as other parts of the agreement which is that one of the parties has to show an unforeseen change of circumstances. You can't just come back and say oops, we forgot this or oops, we changed our minds. But something else has had to have happened in the family or the economic circumstances of this family that a judge would consider a change of circumstances.
REP. FOX: Like in 16 years I'm making more money?
LESLIE BRETT: Well, significantly in a way that was not foreseen, like you won the lottery.
REP. FOX: I don't think foreseen is any longer the standard. I think it's a substantial change in circumstances.
LESLIE BRETT: You're correct. Thank you.
REP. FOX: Okay.
LESLIE BRETT: I'm sorry. It has to be a substantial change of circumstances.
REP. FOX: Okay. And if, in fact -- if, in fact I had an agreement to pay what is commonly referred, for example, as the UConn clause, "x" number of dollars and my planning goes into that, sixteen years from now I could end up arguing about whether or not I've got to pay for Princeton.
LESLIE BRETT: Uh-hum. Well again, my only comment on that is that you'd have to convince a judge in the same way that people have to convince a judge now if they want to change a child support arrangement, any other child support arrangement or some other kinds of agreement that would take place later in a divorce decree. These things are possible for changes of circumstances, but they're not easy. And it's usually harder for the petitioning party to make their case unless there's some clear reason that the order should be changed.
REP. FOX: But in many instances there's no finality to the deal I thought I made.
LESLIE BRETT: Uh-hum. And if something is modifiable, that's correct. I mean, I'm imagining and this is just making some assumptions about how practice may go forward, that for many families a plan will be put in place that sets up some sort of saving accounts, some sort of purchase of a bond, something that actually puts this into play at the time that the parties divorce so that, in fact, by the time the child is 18, there will be the ability to send him or her to post-secondary education, but that doesn't answer your question. Somebody could come and say change of circumstances.
REP. FOX: I guess I'm concerned because, although I have a great deal of sympathy for your fact pattern, I don't want us or at least I would hope we would not have a major change in public policy because of those instances where this would be appropriate. And my question, what I'm leading to is whether or not you have any empirical data or statistics which would evidence when this legislation would be appropriate? In other words, I don't want to change law because of a few bad apples. I mean, there are also parents out there who don't enter into an obligation to support or pay for college education and do so. There are also those that the only way you're ever going to get them to pay for college education is if you make it part of the deal. And if we have one that can effect both the good people and the bad people, I don't know how good a public policy that is and that's a little troubling to me.
LESLIE BRETT: Representative Fox, I'd also like to suggest that even within the realm of what we might think of as good people who do make a good deal about college, the negotiation in the first place was unequal and unfair because the parties knew that the judge couldn't order the child to be -- educational support after age 18. And so deals were made that might have been imbalanced or unfair in the first place because under the guidance of the attorneys everybody bargains as best they can knowing what the court has the authority to do and what the court doesn't have the authority to do. So this would level that out even for the families who are trying their best to make a deal at the beginning of the process.
REP. FOX: I guess I'm trying to get a handle on how many instances there are like that, where the leverage is used in a bad way.
LESLIE BRETT: Yeah, I certainly don't have a number. I know I've been working with the various family attorneys who are part of this process and we hear from women all the time at the Commission on Women who are struggling about trying to get some kind of reasonable deal for sending their children to post-secondary education and don't have a number.
REP. FOX: Okay, thank you.
REP. LAWLOR: Representative Feltman.
REP. FELTMAN: Yes, just one follow-up question to the first question that Representative Fox was asking. In terms of substantial change of circumstances, wouldn't it be true that a father or a non-custodial parent, assuming it's the father, could petition the court if there was an order that was, for example, an uncapped order for to share expenses for any post-secondary school, whether it be private or public and his financial circumstances changed so that he could no longer afford that? Would he not also be able to show substantial change of circumstances to come back in and get a reduction?
LESLIE BRETT: Absolutely. Either party, of course, can petition and the change of circumstances could be on the positive side or as you say, on the negative side and that party would have as much right to petition for a change and say I just can't afford it, I lost my job, I've become ill or disabled, whatever the case may be.
REP. FELTMAN: Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR: Further questions? If not, thanks very much.
This is an ACT CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT ORDERS. I am a divorced mom. I do have a son who is in college and fortunately, my son's education is being paid for by my parents and my grandparents. However, I'm not here this morning in front of you as a mom. I'm here this morning in front of you as an economist and what I'd like to say to you as an economist is we look at resources in our economy and in essence we talk about land, labor, and capital, where one of the facets of capital is human capital and when we're looking at human capital, we're looking at the level of education within our society. The higher the level of education, the more productivity we see in our society and the more economic growth we see in our society. I'm sure you have all heard about the transition that's taking place in the economy of the United States. We are no longer a manufacturing based economy. We're looking at service based and technologically based. This requires an ever increasing level of education. Without this education, you will be lost in the global system that is developing. The United States is a leader in the technological areas, not in the manufacturing areas. (SOME TESTIMONY NOT RECORDED DUE TO THE FACT THAT TAPES WERE BEING CHANGED FROM TAPE 1 TO TAPE 2) accepted the responsibility of paying for them to continue their education, we not only do a disservice to the children, but we do a disservice to the future of our country. I cite a study by Judith Wallerstein on "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce", in which she points out that in families where the homes are intact, this problem is worked out within the family. In families where children are divorced, it is consistent that the educational level is not as high as the families that intact. These children will be left behind. They will not be as productive in our society, and we might end up paying more money down the line, as they resort to less desirable ways to earn money. So, I urge you, not from the huggie-kissie perspective, but from the economic perspective, increase productivity, economic growth, and the future of globalism, to support this bill. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
REP. LAWLOR: Thank you. Are there questions? If not, thank you very much.
REP. URBAN: Thank you.
Thank you and good afternoon. I've been asked to speak in support of and I'm happy to be in support of H.B. 5088. It's a curiosity to me that I sit here in support of this bill because when I started practicing law decades ago, the age of majority was 21 and this issue was probably pretty much a non-issue. And during the Vietnam era, historically when the thoughts were sweeping this land that if our people are old enough to die at age 18, they ought to be old enough to drink and they ought to be old enough to vote and it swept this country to reduce the age of majority to age 18. It didn't take very long thereafter to realize that the drinking age at age 18 was causing other problems. So the ramifications of reducing the age of majority to age 18 had serious implications and this issue has been festering ever since. It has not always been the law in Connecticut where the courts in the divorce cases and the dissolution proceedings could not deal with issues of education, post-high school education because, as I say, when I started practicing, the courts could deal with it and we did deal with it. Since that time when the age of majority was reduced, we still do deal with these issues, but we deal with it, as was referred to earlier, in a negotiation and discussion process. If the family has the where with all to deal with the issue, it is very much an issue that's part of the negotiation and discussion process. And while the courts can't specifically deal with it in the sense of a judge deciding that issue, the courts do deal with approving agreements and if the agreements are presented and signed by the parties, the courts approve these agreements. It puts one party or the other in a unfair bargaining position and when you understand that something in excess of 90% of all of these cases get settled and aren't decided by judges, having somebody start out in an unfair bargaining position, I think is ill-advised. This bill attempts to address that issue. I think it does address this issue. It's my information that approximately one-third of our states across this country do deal with this issue. I think it's 17 states that allow the courts in this process to deal with post-high school educational support issues. With regard to some of the questions that were posed earlier, as I happened to be sitting here listening, this bill is in the nature of a support order. So for those questions that were raised regarding the modifiability or non-modifiability, it's my belief and my understanding that support orders cannot be put in place and be rendered non-modifiable. The issues relating to children should always be reviewable and are always reviewable by the court during their minority. Since this would be in the nature of a support order, the court could review this issue so that if an agreement were made at age two to cover the next 16 or 21 years, or whatever, circumstances have changed substantially and the court ought to be able to review that and so should the parties. Sometimes circumstances change with regard -- without regard to somebody doing it intentionally. Circumstances change, as we all know. So I am speaking in support of this on behalf of myself as a practicing attorney for a long time, on behalf of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and all the other legal organizations that deal with these issues of which I'm a member or on the executive committees. That's it.
REP. LAWLOR: Thank you very much. Are there questions? Representative Feltman.
REP. FELTMAN: Attorney Roisman, thank you for coming before us to testify. What would be your suggestion with respect to children of tender years that when the parents divorce then, if there is not sufficient information about whether or not those children would be suitable for higher education at the time the parents divorced if the kids or four, five, three years old - what would be your suggestion as to how that should be handled and what opportunities the court might make available for their subsequent education support?
GERALD ROISMAN: The court would probably, in those circumstances, say come back and we will review this issue at an appropriate time. The court's not going to issue a blank check to somebody or force somebody to sign a blank check when the child's four or five years old if there's no where with all. If the case involved substantial assets to be divided, there are vehicles that can be created to ensure the educational needs of the child or children. But just as any support order may be entered, if circumstances change, the court can deal with it at the time there's a substantial change in circumstance. This bill would fit right into what the law is today except that it would now include the educational needs.
REP. FELTMAN: Do you believe there should be a -- I'd like to ask a follow-up. Do you believe there should be a place holder at the time of the decree in that case, that educational support orders maybe ordered subsequently, that unless there's some kind of place holder, such as there is with alimony, that at that point it would be considered conclusive on the point if there was no place holder in the divorce decree?
GERALD ROISMAN: I'm not sure what you mean by "place holder".
REP. FELTMAN: A place holder such as $1 a year alimony would be considered a place holder.
GERALD ROISMAN: I don't think that's necessary, but you could clarify it in that fashion, but I don't think it's necessary. Support orders don't require $1 a year order as an alimony order might because support is never forecloseable during the age of minority. Alimony can be terminated or specified or designated with rate specificity, but support orders in this state has always taken a public policy in the interest of the needs of children as compared to the needs of adults. And therefore, my understanding of the law and I believe it to be the law that you cannot foreclose support obligations or you cannot foreclose and put in place permanently visitation and custodial orders. The needs of the children are always addressed at any point during the minority.
REP. FELTMAN: So to go back to the point that Representative Fox raised earlier about whether or not a non-custodial parent entering into a divorce decree, under a new law, let's assume this law takes effect -- in terms of his or her bargaining, they would have to bargain at the time of the decree with anticipation that there maybe a subsequent request for educational support even if there's not one put in place at the time of the decree.
GERALD ROISMAN: That's correct. That's correct. But what we do now, as I think Representative Farr asked an earlier question, now what we do because we don't know where people might be in the future, we may put a cap into their bargaining process and say okay, the obligation will be each party or one of the parties will pay to the extent to what it costs to go to the -- to attend the University of Connecticut or some other institution because we can define those costs as opposed to giving a blank check to go anywhere where the range can be tens of thousands of dollars. I think I've answered the question. If not, I'll try better.
REP. FELTMAN: No, you have. Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR: Representative Farr.
REP. FARR: Good afternoon. Is it your opinion then, as this bill is drafted, that the parties could not contract -- could not agree that there would be no obligation to pay higher educational costs just as they can't agree today that there's no obligation to pay support?
GERALD ROISMAN: I believe that -- yes, because I think this is in the nature of a support order and I don't believe somebody can write away or obligate away or sign away their obligations to support a child, including in the educational field.
REP. FARR: It's really interesting when another State Representative made a comment about progressive states going towards the obligation to pay education above 18. Progressive states, back in 1972 were states that made adults at 18 and went away from 21 to 23 to 18 and now progressive states are supposedly described as those going back in that direction, which I suppose you could also say is regressive, but the interesting thing is we're going to 23, whereas at one point the obligation was 21. Why go to 23 when historically there's never been an obligation above the age of 21?
GERALD ROISMAN: Because as a practical matter, when the usual track for a student to attend college, the graduation time for college is generally age 22. If the usual and I know we don't --
REP. FARR: Unfortunately, the statistics are the average student today takes more than four years to get through. So you're talking graduation times of 23 or 23.
GERALD ROISMAN: Excuse me. I'll yield to your statistics, but nonetheless, the point is that the reason to go beyond the age of 21 is so that you don't get to age 21 and cut it off when a student's a senior in high school - I mean a senior in college and say okay in the middle of that year it's over and the last semester is dangling out there. This doesn't necessarily mean it has to go to 23. This encompasses the situation to deal with those kinds of issues. If you cut it off at an arbitrary age, which I say 21 would be, then you're leaving a part of the same issue of dangling out there as we have to deal with it today.
REP. FARR: And why don't we give a right to the student to seek this support obligation? Why do we only give the right to - I suppose an opposing parent, if you might describe it that way? I mean, this bill talks about either parent can seek support from the other. But if we're talking about a college education and saying that parents have an obligation to do that, why are we allowing a parent to negotiate that away and short change the student if we're really looking at the best interest of the children?
GERALD ROISMAN: I'm not sure you're negotiating that away, but this is in the nature of support and you are dealing with housing and clothing and food, food/shelter/clothing issues in addition to the primary thing here which is the education, clearly. I would submit that it's probably not positive public policy to put a child in a position of having to litigate something with the parent when the parents are on better equal footing and you're dealing with the question of each parent contributing to the education, even though one might be asking for a contribution from the other. The court, under this, would have the jurisdiction to deal with both parents.
REP. FARR: Okay, but that -- I'm just trying to think this process through. For support, the parents can't trade away their support for other things. The court has to review the support order. The court has to be satisfied. There are guidelines we've established for support up until the age of 18. Now we've got a situation where there are no guidelines. We've described this as a support obligation. But we allow the parents to negotiate that away, if I'm not mistaken.
GERALD ROISMAN: Well, that's a way of looking at it. I'm not sure you're negotiating something away. What you're dealing with is an issue that the courts can't deal with today and that generally, one parents is in an unfair bargaining or discussion situation. You're also dealing with a situation today that makes you deal with something that's well in advance of the present needs. If the circumstances allow you to do that, that's great, but in many cases you cannot. So this puts this back into a place where people can address the issues culturally, socially. As a private speaker referred to, you're talking about things that deal with our whole society and the benefit of things that are much bigger than any one case. But it still is in the nature of support and even the educational expenses include support items. Room and board is included.
REP. FARR: But in normal support, we have said that a parent can't go in and say look, I don't want to support - I the house or I want alimony. The court has the obligation to review the support orders. And the court has the ability to say that's not acceptable, as I understand it, that that's not acceptable and you're going to have to pay some support. Are we saying here now that the parties can agree to waive that educational thing and that the court is not going to have the ability to say well, I don't -- we're not going to accept that and we're going to order one or both of the parties to pay educational expenses?
GERALD ROISMAN: I think the way you put the question, I think you cannot sign it away in advance. If the issue can't be dealt with presently, then I think the issue gets a second look. Remember, as a practical matter, parties are going to be discussing these issues. You're talking about those cases where people need help, where somebody may, in all likelihood, is taking advantage one side over the other. We're talking about judges exercising some discretionary economic sense and common sense in terms of educating a child. If there's insufficient funds to pay for any education, the whole issue is academic. And it's not even going to be presented to the court. So, by the time you get finished with this, the direct answer to your question is, the court, in my opinion, would retain jurisdiction over the issue and take a look at it if and when it's raised.
REP. FARR: What happens if one party says well, forget about the higher education, just give me alimony? And I'll take care of the higher education. Can the court then say, well, that's not acceptable, we're going to require a higher educational order?
GERALD ROISMAN: No. You know, when you deal with that issue and the support and alimony issues being combined or blended, you have IRS questions and un-allocated family support or alimony support. I don't think you can do that by blending orders presently and therefore I don't think you're going to be able to do that when - if and when this bill passes. Unless there is so much that's funding the education, that it's there and it's identified along with this conceptual alimony order you're talking about.
REP. FARR: Okay. Thank you.
REP. FELTMAN: Are there further questions? Representative Powers.
REP. POWERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your testimony this afternoon. I think the previous questioner's line of questioning is exactly why this is being presented as support and a continuation of support from 18 through 22 or 23. And that's the exact issue that we're trying to deal with. And I think the question of putting a child or a young adult into the position of actually petitioning themselves goes against everything that we have been trying to do with the divorce laws and the process for the last ten years, which is the last thing you want to do is to get a child or a young adult involved with the court, with the judge, in the middle of all the arguing.I just - I'm very glad this bill is before us to do away with some of the very scenarios that are being discussed here. I think we're leaving children and young people in a situation where they get jerked around every time a parent writes a tuition check and they are in a situation where they can't look ahead more than one or two semesters and it's really a cruel system the way it is now. And it's my sincere hope that we get this out very quickly. Thank you.
REP. FELTMAN: Further questions? Yes.
REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony this afternoon. I was interested at the opening of your testimony. You described the state of practice when you entered the Bar and you mentioned, it seemed to me, mentioned that at that time when the age of majority was 21, that these issues were considered at the time of negotiation and at the time of judgment and/or approval of an agreement. I wanted to clarify that. Before Connecticut lowered the age of majority to 18, did courts, in fact, deal with this issue, enforceable orders regarding post majority support?
GERALD ROISMAN: The answer is yes. Directly, yes. Support went to age 21. If a child was a student in an advanced educational institution, then the cost of that educational institution were considered. They had to come out of the family pot somehow, some way and it was part of a support order or perhaps fashioned in an alimony order because if you had -- it's bad now, but it was worse then in terms of the disparity between most husbands and most wives in the income factor. So we used to design a lot of settlements in an alimony component. And you have somebody pay more in alimony and pay a lesser income tax consequence on the same dollars. Thus, Uncle Sam was helping free up some money for this educational expense. There were a variety of ways we used to do that. You can even do that now if you bargain for it privately outside of what this would provide. So the answer is yes.
REP. SPALLONE: Okay, thank you. Thank you for that perspective and thank you, Mr. Chairman. No more questions.
REP. FELTMAN: Thank you, Representative Spallone. Are there further questions? If not, thank you very much for your testimony.
Connecticut Women's Education Legal Fund
We're a statewide non-profit organization working to enhance the personal and professional lives of women, girls, and their families in the State of Connecticut.
I'm speaking here today on behalf of both raised S.B. 82, AN ACT CONCERNING AWARDS OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES, as well as raised H.B. 5088, AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT ORDERS.
In raised H.B. 5088, again frequently custodial parents contact our information referral program to learn if the child support order, which will end once the child is finished from high school can be extended to assistwith the cost of post-secondary education. They (inaudible) that the post-secondary education is the next logical step for their child. Yet, without the support of both parents, the child will not be able to attend. This fear is not unfounded, since over the past 20 years college tuition at public and private institutions is almost doubled. Passing this bill does not mean that in every circumstance post-majority support would be ordered. Rather, it's an additional tool for families to provide a secure future for their children. The criteria of raised H.B. 5088 to determine if a non-custodial parent should pay post-majority includes that the court looks at the parents' income, the child's need for support to attend an institute of higher education or private occupational school, the child's assets and the child's ability to earn income, as well as their academic record. Connecticut would be only one of several states that permits courts to order a parent to pay some of the post-secondary educational expenses, including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. Post-secondary education is a critical component of ensuring that people are self sufficient. Many studies have shown that with increased levels of educational attainment, income levels rise significantly. Having an associates or bachelors degree increases earning potential and employment opportunities. According to a study done by the U.S. Department of Education, adults with higher levels of education are more likely to participate in the labor market than those adults with little or no education. The study also found persons with lower levels of educational attainment were more likely to be unemployed than those who had higher levels of educational attainment. In 1999, the employment rate for adults of 25 and over, was 1.8% for those with a Bachelors Degree or higher. This bill is an important first step in assisting youth from families that are separated in our state to reach self sufficiency through post-secondary education. It will allow parents another means to provide security for their children and help them achieve their dreams. I urge you to support raised H.B. 5088. Thank you.
REP. FELTMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions for the witness? Okay, thank you very much, Ms. Miller.
Executive Director of the Connecticut National Organization for Women
Good afternoon, Representative Feltman, Representative Farr, members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Beverley Brakeman. I'm the Executive Director of the Connecticut National Organization for Women. We're a statewide association of 2,500 members. I'm here to testify in support of three bills, H.B. 5031, AN ACT CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT. You have my written testimony. Basically we support that legislation or that proposal. Raised H.B. 5088, AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATION SUPPORT ORDERS. And S.B. 82, AN ACT CONCERNING THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES. Regarding the educational support orders, as you know, young people today, especially in times of economic recession, are experiencing delays in entering the workforce and are confronted with increasingly higher academic accreditation and standards for middle class jobs, therefore ending up in college and vocational institutions well beyond the age of majority. The high rate of divorce in this country, the results of some studies that have indicated that children of intact families have a somewhat better chance of receiving parental support for college than children from divorced families, and the fact that non-custodial parents, at least anecdotally, are more likely to express unwillingness to do more than what is legally required, gives us cause to be concerned about the ability of some children to attend college. This legislation is about giving children from divorced families the opportunity to attend college or receive vocational training when they might not otherwise. While many would argue this is not an area in which the State should be interfering, we would argue, as others have, that the State has a vested interest in the educational attainment of its citizens, especially given the high social and economic value placed on post-secondary education in this country. For all these reasons, we urge you to support this bill. S.B. 82, AN ACT CONCERNING THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES. Connecticut N.O.W. is very concerned about the need for adequate responses to and remedies for victims of employment discrimination. Can I keep going?
REP. FELTMAN: Do you have written testimony?
BEVERLEY BRAKEMAN: Yeah, I do.
REP. FELTMAN: Okay.
BEVERLEY BRAKEMAN: So basically for a lot of the reasons that other people have talked about today, we support this legislation and think hearing officers for CHRO should have that authority.
REP. FELTMAN: Great. Thank you very much. Any questions for the witness? I'm sorry, for the speaker? I think I'm in court here. Okay, if not, thank you very much, Ms. Brakeman.
BEVERLEY BRAKEMAN: Thank you.
Family Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association
REP. FELTMAN: Our next speaker is Kate Hoakensen from the Family Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association. Welcome, Attorney Hoakensen. It's good to see you.
KATE HOAKENSEN: Thank you, Representative Feltman. Representative Farr, members of the committee, I am here representing the Family Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association in support of H.B. 5088. I have submitted some written testimony and I'm not going to go over everything in my testimony because I would prefer to devote my time to some of the issues that have been raised by prior speakers and by members of the committee. And also by the written testimony of the Judicial Department, which was submitted. The thrust of that testimony is that this bill is liable to cause a great deal of additional litigation and one of the points that I really want to make to you today is that this bill is as much as anything about bargaining. As Jerry Roisman said, this is about changing the tenor of the bargaining over college education because right now this is an unequal bargaining situation. The gurus of bargaining theory, of negotiating theory, talk about they're always negotiating against your best alternative to a negotiated settlement. Right now, the best alternative to a negotiated settlement for somebody who doesn't want to make - commit himself to contributing to a college education is zero. So there's an unequal bargaining situation here and the result of that is that, at least according to Judith Lowerstein's study, only half as many children of divorced parents got to college in her study compared to a similarly situated group of children of married parents. The vast majority of divorce and support cases settle by agreement. The reason the parties agree is they want some certainty in the result. They want to control the result and the way to control the result is by reaching an agreement. Once the court has the ability to enter these kinds of orders, people will want to reach agreements about these kinds of orders. And to address Representative Farr's question about caps, caps, I think, will become a creature of these agreements because people want to have some control over the kinds of orders that are entered. But I wouldn't put them in the legislation because as Leslie Brett said, this legislation has to apply to the very rich and the not so rich and, quite frankly, for the very poor, because this bill exhorts the court to consider the financial circumstances of the parties, it's unlikely that people who have almost no resources will be ordered to make these kinds of contributions. So that the door needs to be kept open so that the bargaining will be open, so that people will have the incentive to make agreements. I did have a couple of other --
REP. FELTMAN: Why don't you go on briefly. Just highlight your points.
KATE HOAKENSEN: Well, I think there's a good reason for not making this a right of a child and one of the reasons has to do with the financial aid issue that was asked earlier. One of the points that was made in the legislative commission's committee, on which I was fortunate to serve, was that income, the effect of support on how income is viewed, support which is paid to a custodial parent (a little bit of testimony was not recorded due to the fact that the tape turned over from side (a) to side (b)) -- for the purpose of financial aid. Support paid directly to the child, however, is counted at 50%. So if we were to have this money paid directly to the child rather than to the parent, there would be a greater chance of that child being at a disadvantage for financial aid purposes than there would be having the support paid as it is primarily contemplated by this bill, which is to one of the parents. I also think it's important to keep in mind that this bill says very specifically that these orders may be made on the motion, on the petition or motion of a parent. So if you have two parents who had no interest in contributing to the children's college education, who see themselves as unable to contribute, they won't file a motion. This is only for the situation where you have two parents who, at that time, don't agree about what their intentions were, don't agree about what their desire is for the child, and those are exactly the kinds of situations where the court should get involved. I do agree with the testimony that came before about Representative Farr's question about what happens if you have a divorce and you've got one child half way through college, say age 20, and other children who are younger? I think that this bill would apply to both of them. On the other hand, if that child who was 20 had paid himself for his first two years, I think under this bill, the court would take that into consideration as when looking at the assets and resources of the child and the child's needs. Clearly a child who, for example, had a full scholarship wouldn't need parental support.
REP. FELTMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions? Representative Farr.
REP. FARR: Your testimony was that the certainty of results is an important part of the negotiations.
KATE HOAKENSEN: I'm sorry, Representative Farr, I can't hear you.
REP. FARR: Your testimony was that certainty of outcome was important in the negotiating process, that people negotiate settlements because at least they've got control and they know what the outcome is going to be. The bill, as drafted, provides for - has in it the ability to seek, at any time, support for higher educational costs. So there is no certainty of results in the draft before us. In other words, you have a divorce, you settle (INAUDIBLE-MICROPHONE QUIT WORKING) -- with passage of this bill until your children are 23 is your educational obligation for higher education. Isn't that correct?
KATE HOAKENSEN: Well, no actually. With all due respect, I think you're confusing certainty with finality. And I'm talking about controlling the outcome at that time. People, within a very limited area, can now negotiate even child support even though there are guidelines and I think that people will negotiate support agreements which perhaps tend to limit their obligation, such as putting out a cap, as you suggested of UConn. I think that people who do that will be hard pressed to convince a court to raise that cap later on unless there's a very significant change in circumstances. I think they'll have a harder time getting a modification than people who don't negotiate a cap. But I also think that, as I said, there's a difference between that and finality. There's no cap on - you can't waive being a parent and -- sorry, the microphone is talking back to me here. There was another point I was going to make.
REP. FARR: Well, let me ask you another question. Right now the support for a child, your first family is generally considered to be - you do your calculations and your obligation is calculated with your obligation to pay support for the first family. So if you have a child and then you go out and have some more children, you've still got the obligation to pay support for that first family.
KATE HOAKENSEN: That's true.
REP. FARR: If you go out and have additional children, and then your children by your first marriage decide to go to college, an expensive institution, how is the calculation done? Do you then calculate your obligation to pay the support to your second family and see what's left over or do you say well, you had a first family, so we're going to now say first you pay for the college education, then the support of the second family.
KATE HOAKENSEN: Well, that's really the question and I think we can look for guidance to the child support guidelines. Currently, what the guidelines allow is that the obligation to support other children can be considered even if they're subsequent children when defending a modification. So that if -- let's assume that you're a parent of one child and then in a second marriage you have two or three more children and then your ex-spouse files a motion to either institute or modify a post-high school support order. At that point, looking at the guidelines, the guidelines would consider the obligation to support your other children, even though they live with you and take into consideration the support for those children before figuring out a guideline order. This statute would consider, under Section C-1, other obligations of the parents. So I think that it would be natural for a court to take into consideration the obligation to support certainly minors, even though they were born subsequently.
REP. FARR: Okay. That's if there's a subsequent modification.
KATE HOAKENSEN: Well, that's what I took your question to be, that somebody's coming in after the subsequent children are born and seeking that support. Was that not right?
REP. FARR: Well, I guess I could draw a more complex scenario --
KATE HOAKENSEN: It would be counterpoint to do it the other way because you really couldn't have subsequent children before you divorced. I mean, you could, but it would be a little unusual.
REP. FARR: Yeah. Okay, thank you.
KATE HOAKENSEN: You're welcome.
REP. FELTMAN: Thank you. Are there any other further questions for the speaker? If not, thank you very much, Attorney Hoakensen for joining us.
KATE HOAKENSEN: Thank you.
I am Linnea Lindstrom and I live in Stonington, Connecticut. I'm here today to ask for your support and to tell you of my support of proposed H.B. 5088, AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT ORDERS. You've heard a lot of testimony this morning about the bill and I'd like to put a face to it. About fifteen years ago my ex-husband and I sold our home and with our two daughters, moved across country to Arkansas so that he could attend college and obtain a degree in architecture. We both were able to graduate, return to Connecticut and pursue our careers. Our marriage deteriorated and we divorced five years ago. There was no alimony granted and nothing that I asked for, there was no property, anything to give up. The only thing I had asked for in the divorce decree was that my ex-husband help pay for our college - the college tuition of our two daughters. He felt, at that time, that even child support was punitive and he had the language that my attorney had drafted regarding college removed and I want to read that paragraph to you. It's not asking for very much. It says, "The defendant shall pay 60% and the plaintiff shall pay 40%." That was based on our income at the time, "Of the cost of four years of undergraduate college education or equivalent post-secondary school training. If and to the extent the minor children shall attend college or any institution of post-secondary school technical training. The total amount shall not exceed the then prevailing cost of the University of Connecticut for in-state residents, including tuition, room, board, registration, laboratory fees, books, and student fees. Such obligation shall be for four full years of such education and shall not extend past the each minor child of the 23rd birthdays." This legislation should effect only those parents who have the financial means to consider it. The legislation won't help my children, but it can help thousands of other children who maybe caught in a struggle of power and manipulation. Unfortunately, the State can't legislate good parents, but it can enforce the parents' responsibility for their child's education. Thank you.
SEN. COLEMAN: Would you mind saying your first name again?
LINNEA LINDSTROM: Sure. It's Linnea. L-I-N-N-E-A Lindstrom.
SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you very much. Are there questions? There are apparently no questions. Thank you for being here.
LINNEA LINDSTROM: Thank you.
SEN. KISSEL: You and your daughters have been very patient.
LINNEA LINDSTROM: Thank you.
SEN. COLEMAN: Patricia Walsh.
I am here with my mom and my sister to support the proposed H.B. 5088 concerning educational support orders. I was a freshman in high school when my parents divorced in 1997.(inaudible) my relationship with my father. It was strained and (inaudible), at best. When I was 17, all contact of any type of a relationship had ceased. In the fall of my senior year I looked at schools. I wanted to attend a private school somewhere along the east coast. Boston College and Northeastern were among my favorites. Upon looking at these schools, my family and I came to the realization that these schools were completely out of the question, based on my financial situation even if I were to obtain optimal financial aid and I was awarded scholarships. Instead, I applied to Marrimack and (inaudible), both private schools outside of Boston. UConn and Eastern State University were also my fall backs. When the time came to choose a school, I was faced with two choices. One was to attend one of these private schools, to which I was accepted, and struggle with a part-time job just to meet the bare necessities. The other was to put my dreams aside and attend a state school and hope maybe a graduate school at one of these colleges would be possible. Throughout the past years I struggled both financially and emotionally trying to find a place where I fit in. I've transferred between UConn, UConn at Avery Point and Eastern Connecticut State University. As I have come to terms with my situation, I (inaudible) even the smallest financial donation from my father would (inaudible) greatly to both me and my family. Perhaps pay for even half my books or the room deposit. I work two jobs now and attend school full-time. I'm so proud of everything I've achieved and everything that I've worked hard to earn.
SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Are there questions? Senator Kissel.
SEN. KISSEL: I just want to congratulate you. You did an excellent job in your presentation and I know because even though I sit here, sometimes I testify on bills and when I go sit over there, you get a little nervous and you did a fantastic job. So it may look a little difficult right now, but some day you're going to look back upon this and be very proud of everything that you're working yourself through. I think that bringing real experience to legislation means a lot to us. You know, there are a lot of people, lobbyists and things like that, but real people who spend the day and talk from the heart means as much, if not more, when it comes to our decisions regarding legislation. And I wanted to thank you for coming and testifying.
PATRICIA WALSH: Thank you.
SEN. KISSEL: You're welcome.
High School Senior
Hello. I'm speaking in support of the proposed bill, H.B. 5088. Currently I'm a senior at St. Bernhard's High School and I got accepted into (inaudible) of Design this fall. This college means the world to me, but I won't be able to go unless I get scholarships because my father has refused to pay for any of the college tuition. Since my parents' divorce five years ago, I've had a relationship with my father. This past year I started asking him about college costs, but every time I brought it up, he would change the subject. This fall we went out and I told him that I had started to apply to colleges and I needed to know if he was going to help out with the costs. He quickly said, "We'll see" and then changed the subject. The next week he called me up and told me that he decided he did not want to carry on the relationship. It hurts to know that a college educated parent does not want to help me achieve my goals. I find that after this year I will have no support from my father. I will have no emotional, physical, or financial support.
SEN. COLEMAN: Senator Kissel.
SEN. KISSEL: Again, I want to commend you for being patient all day and also to be brave enough to come here and expose things that are going on in your life and you're a senior in high school. That takes a lot of guts. I think with the way you've handled this and the old saying, "turning a lemon into lemonade" and sort of having some of the things that aren't working out for you, but try to make things better for other people, I think that, God willing, there might be some brighter days for you in the future. So again, I would like to compliment you, as well, for taking the time to come and testify.
KELLY WALSH: Thank you.
SEN. KISSEL: You're welcome.
SEN. COLEMAN: Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Kelly. Josh Lyons is next.
Stonington resident
Good afternoon. My name is Josh Lyons. I'm a resident of Stonington, Connecticut and I'm sitting here with great pride for my step-daughters who had the courage and desire on their own to come here and address this committee. And I thank this committee for that opportunity for them and for myself to come here and address this. I am speaking on behalf of H.B. 5088 also. I am speaking in favor of it. This bill will provide -- the passage of this bill will provide some great pportunity for our kids. So often our children are the victims of divorce and the victims of battles between parents which is very unfortunate. But the real opportunity is for our children to grow up and to go on to some kind of post-secondary education or training, if that's their desire and goal. Currently, in Stonington and I think also in Groton, Connecticut about 70% of our high school graduates go on to some form of post-secondary training, which speaks very highly, I think, for our communities and for our state. I have no idea what the state numbers are, but I would assume they're very close to that. In this day and age as we get more and more into an age of specialization, it seems that post-secondary training or certificates or a college degree has become what a high school degree was or high school diploma was fifteen or twenty years ago. It's almost a necessary achievement for our children to become strong citizens and taxpayers in our communities. There are a couple of issues that have come up during this discussion today and I would just like to give you my thought on having gone through the process with my step-children and in my own divorce and son. First of