Page
v.
Page

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Windham at PutnamOct 23, 2007
2007 Ct. Sup. 18306 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)

No. FA 02 0068784 S

October 23, 2007


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO OPEN/MODIFY JUDGMENT #139 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO OPEN/MODIFY JUDGMENT #141


MICHAEL E. RILEY, JUDGE.

A hearing was held with regard to motions #139 and #141 on October 18, 2007. Testimony and evidence was received by the court. During a recess, with the assistance of Family Relations the parties reached agreement with regard to two of the contested issues:

1. The defendant husband will increase his present alimony payments to $200 per week from $100 per week previously ordered by Judge Cosgrove in his dissolution Memorandum of Decision dated February 11, 2004. This alimony shall be includable by the plaintiff in her income for tax purposes and deductible by the defendant.

2. Inasmuch as two of the children have reached the age of majority the defendant will pay child support in the amount of $93 per week with regard to the one remaining minor child, Nicole Page, born November 17, 1990.

The remaining issue left for the court to decide is that of post-secondary educational support pursuant to § 46b-56c. The court's original decree provides for such support. Based upon the evidence received the court finds that it is more likely than not that the parents in this action would have provided support to the child for higher education if the family were intact. Further, the court has all of the relevant circumstances as set forth in § 46b-c(c). Based upon those circumstances and the evidence received the court finds that the defendant is obligated to pay the sum of $2,000 per year per child for each child enrolled in an accredited institution of higher education as set forth in the statute, this amount shall be paid to or on behalf of each qualifying child on a monthly basis based upon the school year of August-May (ten months). This amount includes expenses for books and other incidental expenses related to educational support. Currently two of the children are enrolled at Central Connecticut State University and are sophomores. It is anticipated that the minor child will also be attending college. The court will not order direction as to the payment of the educational support at this time. It appears that the parties are capable of ironing this detail out on their own. If not, the court is prepared to address this issue.