Background
Following their 2011 divorce, Jean-Pierre Bolat and Yumi S. Bolat agreed that either party could later seek an educational support order for their children under Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-56c. Their youngest child enrolled at Georgetown University and, after her financial aid declined, the defendant sought contribution from the plaintiff for the child’s final three semesters.
The trial court treated the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss as an objection to the support request, held an evidentiary hearing, and ordered him to pay 50 percent of the child’s allowable expenses after scholarships and other aid, subject to the statutory University of Connecticut cost cap. The plaintiff appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court affirmed. The plaintiff’s purported motion to dismiss did not actually challenge the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; it argued that the defendant had not met statutory requirements. The trial court therefore properly treated it as an objection and did not deny the plaintiff due process, because he was heard on the issue and participated in the evidentiary hearing.
The educational support order was within the trial court’s discretion. The court made the required finding that the parents likely would have supported higher education if the family had remained intact, considered the statutory factors, and had record support for finding that the plaintiff had not communicated any objection to Georgetown or participated with the defendant in the college-selection decision. The statute did not require the child to provide all academic records before entry of the order, nor did it require the order to state the precise UConn cap, payee, or payment deadline. The court declined to review the plaintiff’s constitutional claims because they were inadequately briefed.
Key Takeaways
- A motion labeled as a motion to dismiss may be treated according to its substance when it challenges the merits rather than jurisdiction.
- A parent cannot evade educational-support responsibility by declining to participate in the child’s college-selection process.
- Section 46b-56c permits an order tied to allowable expenses, net of aid, and capped at UConn’s in-state cost without further itemization in the order.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Connecticut trial courts retain broad discretion over educational support orders when they make the statutory intact-family finding and consider the relevant financial and educational circumstances. It also confirms that the child’s ongoing duty to provide academic records is a condition for payments during the order’s term, not a prerequisite to entering the order.