As part of a divorce or a legal separation, a court may make orders requiring parents to pay for college and associated expenses. In order to do so, the court must make a finding that it is more likely than not that the parents would have provided support to the child for higher education or a private occupational school if the family were intact.
At the time of divorce, there are three options:
1. The judge enters a specific order as to payment;
2. The judge reserves jurisdiction allowing the parents to petition the court in the future for an order; or
3. No order is entered. If this happens, the court is precluded from entering any orders in the future.
Some key points:
Expenses (tuition, room and board) are capped at an amount charged by UCONN for a full time, in state student unless the parents agree to exceed this limit. Books and health insurance may also be included.
The order ends when the child turns 23 or obtains a Bachelor’s Degree. There is no authority to enter orders pertaining to graduate or post-graduate education.
The child has an obligation to maintain good academic standing, make academic records available to the parents and pursue a course of study commensurate with the child’s vocational goals.
An educational support order may be modified in the same manner as child support order.
Some studies have shown that divorce can lead to less support for college students. Check out this article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700141954/Divorce-can-lead-to-less-support-for-college-students.html
The appointment of a Conservator in Connecticut must follow a detailed procedure. A recent case decided by the Connecticut Appellate Court clarifies the appointment and selection process of a third party (non-family member) Conservator by a Connecticut Probate Court.
In Falvey v. Zurolo, a daughter applied to the Probate Court to be her mother’s Conservator. The Court agreed that the mother was in need of a Conservator. However, because of a conflict of interest, the Court found that the daughter’s appointment as a Conservator was inappropriate. Therefore, the probate judge appointed a local attorney to serve as Conservator instead of the daughter.
The daughter appealed. In her appeal, the daughter argued that if she was not going to be appointed then she should have been provided an opportunity to interview the proposed Conservator, to object to the proposed Conservator’s appointment and to nominate other possible Conservators.
The Connecticut Appellate Court agreed.
It appears that Probate Courts must now allow family members to participate in the selection process of a third party Conservator. Which family members will give input and to what degree they will participate is unclear. Notwithstanding the input of family, the probate judge still ultimately makes the decision on who should serve as Conservator.
This decision is in keeping with the trend that Probate Courts should be more open and provide greater due process; especially in the cases of Conservatorships.
Stamford and Fairfield Probate Attorney
I represent clients in Connecticut Family Court proceedings though out Fairfield County including Easton, Fairfield, Monroe, Trumbull, Stratford, Bridgeport, Westport, Weston, New Canaan, Wilton, Norwalk, Darien, Stamford and Greenwich.
Please email me or call me in Stamford at (203) 356-1475 or in Fairfield at (203) 259-5251 for a consultation concerning Probate Court issues in Connecticut.
Restraint Injuries: DCF Psychiatric Facilities
Using restraints on children can be dangerous – even deadly. They should only be used in cases where physical harm is imminent. Yet, while the use of physical restraints has decreased at the Connecticut Department of Children and Families’ psychiatric facilities, reports show that they are still used frequently, causing injury to children.
DCF has two psychiatric facilities with children residents – Riverview Hospital in Middletown and Connecticut Children’s Place in East Windsor. At Riverview, there were 878 restraint incidents in 2010. At Connecticut Children’s Place, there were 29 restraints used every 1,000 client days.
In 2010, restraints caused serious injuries to three children. Injuries caused by restraints on children can include large bruises, broken limbs, sprained ankles, lacerations, even death.
Serious injuries to children most frequently occur when workers use prone restraints, a type of restraint that pushes the child face-down against a floor, table or other surface. Prone restraints killed at least 48 children in the U.S. between 1998 and 2006. While the Connecticut Department of Developmental Services now forbids use of these restraints against children in their care, DCF has yet to ban them.
Injuries in DCF Foster Care
The Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) may be held liable for some of the injuries that occur while the children are in its care. Connecticut foster care is another place that injuries can occur. If a child is injured in a foster home, DCF may be found liable for placing that child in danger.
DCF must carefully screen foster parents to ensure that the parents will keep children safe. If DCF learns of any form of neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse or other potential danger to children in foster homes, it must act quickly to intervene. If it fails to do so, it may be responsible for a child’s injuries.
Bringing a Lawsuit Against DCF
Bringing a lawsuit against DCF can be difficult since, as a government agency, DCF has limited immunity from lawsuits. An experienced Connecticut personal injury attorney can help you determine whether you are able to bring a personal injury claim against DCF or other parties involved.
Source: The Connecticut Monitor, “Restraints Still Cause Injuries in DCF Psychiatric Facilities”
Please contact me to discuss DCF injuries to children.
I get a few phone calls a month from prospective clients about collaborative divorce. What is it? Is it the same as divorce mediation? Do I have to go to court if I do collaborative divorce or mediation?
Collaborative divorce is similar to mediation in that both processes are designed to be less adversarial than a traditional litigated divorce. Information is freely exchanged and spouses make a concerted effort to achieve a divorce settlement in an efficient and cost effective manner. Whether either process ultimately results in a settlement ordinarily depends on the effort and reasonableness of the parties involved.
Collaborative divorce differs from mediation in one important aspect – both spouses have an attorney that actively participates in the process.
In mediation, a neutral mediator meets with the spouses (without attorneys present) in an effort to achieve a fair settlement for both parties. Although the mediator is typically a lawyer, he or she does not represent either spouse in the mediation process. The mediator may suggest to either spouse that they retain “consulting counsel” for the limited purpose of reviewing the settlement proposal and providing independent advice.
Only a judge can grant a divorce. Therefore, both collaborative divorce and divorce mediation require a divorce case to be initiated in court. If mediation or the collaborative process has worked well then usually only court appearance for an uncontested divorce is required.
Whether or not divorce mediation or collaborative divorce makes sense depends on the particular circumstances of the case.
Please contact me to discuss collaborative divorce in Connecticut.
Not every “mistake” or “omission” by a physician constitutes medical malpractice. So what is necessary to establish to a medical malpractice claim in Connecticut?
1. The medical provider failed to meet the appropriate standard of medical care;
2. The patient was injured; and
3. The medical provider’s failure to meet the appropriate standard of care was the proximate cause of the patient’s injury.
In order to establish a deviation from the standard of care and that the deviation caused the patient’s injury, the patient must produce expert testimony. If the patient fails to do so, the case will be dismissed.
A recent Hartford Superior Court case illustrates this point. In that case, the attorney for the doctor argued that the patient did not disclose an expert witness. The patient claimed that a doctor he treated with was his expert witness.
The judge concluded that the treating physician’s notes and testimony were insufficient to establish that the defendant doctor’s conduct was a proximate cause of the patient’s injury. Therefore, the judge granted the defendant doctor’s motion for summary judgment.
I came across an article on interviewing adult clients in a child protection case – DCF case.
The article divided the interview into four stages:
1. Introductory stage to establish rapport.
2. Information stage to gather facts and perspectives from the client and to organize the evidence in a logical manner.
3. Theory stage. The lawyer develops his/her theory of the case. This is the opportunity for the lawyer to discuss various options available to the client and the legal consequences of each option.
4. Conclusion stage. The lawyer and the client agree on the next course(s) of action as well as the next steps required of both the client and the lawyer.
Much of the above applies to interviews of clients in any type of litigation. However, there are a few unique features to a DCF interview.
1. Action in a DCF case may be required immediately. Decisions are often time sensitive as in the scenario where DCF is contemplating or has already removed a child.
2. The information to be gathered is often extensive since there are frequently many professionals involved with the family such as social workers, psychologists, pediatricians and therapists.
3. The lawyer must appreciate the client’s heightened emotions (fear, frustration, anger) which are understandably part of a DCF Investigation.
If you wish to read the article it’s here: