Hoffman v. Hoffman
| Decision Date | 06 December 1985 |
| Citation | 130 Misc.2d 701,497 N.Y.S.2d 259 |
| Parties | Marilyn L. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. Gordon S. HOFFMAN, Defendant. Barbara A. KING (Formerly Morphet), Plaintiff, v. Daniel B. MORPHET, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Marilyn L. Hoffman, pro se.
Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber, Patrick B. Naylon, of counsel, Rochester, for defendant, Hoffman.
Gullace, Stoner, DeLuca & Weld, David V. DeLuca, of counsel, Rochester, for plaintiff, King.
Thomas D. Calandra, Brockport, for defendant, Morphet.
DECISION
Support obligations of divorced parents to a child of the marriage has, over the years, come to encompass more than food, clothing and shelter. The extent of the child support obligation will often rise and fall based on the "changed circumstances" of the parents and child. A child's attendance of college, however, is not a change of circumstances contemplated by law to warrant an increase in child support to pay tuition. Rather, the child's attendance may create an additional support obligation for college support. While some jurisdictions view college support as an extension of child support, others rely on a set of equity principles on a case by case basis to determine the amount of, and distinguish college support, from child support. New York State courts prescribe to the latter and will direct parents to provide college support where special circumstances exist.
Here, the parties in Hoffman and Morphet raise the issue of college support regarding the applicability of the special circumstances standard and the actual need for college support in their respective cases. In addition, the noncustodial parents currently paying child support contend that their child support payments should be reallocated to help pay tuition or, alternatively, modified downwards if directed to pay college support. This Court must first lay out the college support standard and its application to each case at bar before it can determine the amount of college support to be paid and what modifications must be made, if any, to the present respective child support obligations.
Today children are groomed at early age to compete whether it be on the athletic field or in the classrooms. Often they are encouraged to pursue education beyond high school not only, or exclusively, by parents, but by educators and the child's peers as well. Indeed, advanced education may be the key to success in many fields today. Smith, Educational Support Obligations of Noncustodial Parents, 36 Rutgers L.Rev. 588, 589 (1984). The common law basis for college support is founded in the theory that college constitutes a legal necessary. Id. at 591. In one case, a court cited such factors as a state's support of higher education manifested by a multitude of state supported institutions and the fact that the college graduate is no longer the exception, but the rule. Id. at 594 n. 28 (citing Esteb v. Esteb, 138 Wash. 174, 244 P. 264 (1926)). Courts following the common law college support doctrine view the obligation as child support. Id. at 588 n. 11. New York has chosen not to follow the common law approach and has instead relied upon equity principles to determine the college support obligation. See Roome v. Roome, 87 A.D.2d 798, 801, 450 N.Y.S.2d 381 (1st Dep't 1982); Matter of Cooke v At first blush, New York courts appear to have settled the issue of whether a divorced parent may be directed to contribute to the college expenses of their children of the marriage. Absent a voluntary agreement to furnish such expenses, a petitioner requesting college expenses must prove the existence of special circumstances. Connolly v. Connolly, 83 A.D.2d 136, 140, 443 N.Y.S.2d 661 (1st Dep't 1981). In 1978 a court considered the following circumstances exceptional and ordered the noncustodial parent to provide college support:
Pieters, 123 Misc.2d 351, 353, 473 N.Y.S.2d 726 (Monroe Co.1984).
1. Both parents are college graduates. In fact, the father has received extensive post-graduate professional education. (Cf. Kaplan v. Wallshein, 57 A.D.2d 828 .)
2. Both parents can clearly afford to support the children through college, including sending them to private universities. (Cf. Matthews v. Matthews, 14 A.D.2d 546 , supra; K. v. K., 83 Misc.2d 911 , supra; Kaplan v. Wallshein, supra.)
3. The two oldest children are attending college, having enrolled while the father was still a member of the household.
4. The children have sufficient academic ability to go to college. (Cf. Kaplan v. Wallshein, supra.)
5. The children have attended private college preparatory high schools.
6. The children have been raised in an economic environment where it would be unreasonable for them to expect that their parents would not see to their financial needs at least through college. (Cf. K. v. K., supra.)
7. The children have been raised among other children and socialized in a setting where it would be unusual for them not to go to college.
8. The children have never been denied anything, no matter how extravagant, as long as their parents have had ample resources. (Cf. K. v. K., supra.)
9. In their cultural, social and economic background, a college degree is a prerequisite for suitable employment in the competition for present day living. (Cf. K. v. K., supra.)
"Lord v. Lord," 96 Misc.2d 434, 439, 409 N.Y.S.2d 46 (N.Y.Co.1978). "Special circumstances" has become a vehicle by which a court may direct divorced parents to provide their minor child with a college education absent an agreement regarding contribution. Connolly, supra; Roome, supra. The standard also enables courts to direct college contribution after the statutory emancipation age of 21 years. "Lord", supra; Smith at 625.
In a more perfect world, parents and children determine the need for education beyond high school. Where courts are asked to decide, the best interests of the child prevail. Dugan v. Dugan, 126 Misc.2d 600, 604, 483 N.Y.S.2d 619 (Nassau Co.1984); see also Matter of O'Shea v. Brennan, 88 Misc.2d 233, 387 N.Y.S.2d 212 (Queens Co.1976). In the past, and to some extent today, a parent's social status and educational background gave courts a means to determine best interests. Smith, supra, at 598-599. This approach forced courts to focus on the parents. The best interests of the child depended upon what the parents bought in terms of elementary education and material objects, what neighborhood the parents could afford to live in and what social circles the parents were qualified to move in. Thus, the child who possessed sufficient academic ability, but whose parents failed to meet the above criteria, was not afforded the opportunity to seek education beyond high school with financial support from his divorced parents.
In the late 1960's, courts began rejecting the notion that a child's educational opportunities should be dictated by the parent's station in life. Smith, supra, at 600. New York courts have judiciously pruned the "Lord" nine-point standard heavily emphasizing the social status of the parents to a three-prong standard in Connolly, supra. There the court found special circumstances existed and ordered that Supreme Court " '(1) the educational background of the parents;
Id. at 140, 443 N.Y.S.2d 661. Connolly eliminated most of the emphasis on the parents and focused on the needs of the child and the resources available. Further judicious pruning of this three-prong standard is necessary before New York courts will be absolutely free to act in the best interests of a child in all cases. The two cases at bar illustrate the remaining inequity due to the last vestige of the old "Lord" approach still present in the Connolly standard.
In Hoffman, both parents possess not only undergraduate degrees, but advanced degrees as well. (Affidavit of M. Hoffman, August 6, 1985) As a result, under the special circumstances standard as enunciated in Connolly, this Court may proceed to determine whether or not the Hoffman children possess sufficient academic ability to succeed in college. In King, however, Defendant father has only recently completed one year of college on a part-time basis and Plaintiff wife possesses a high school diploma. (Affidavit of D. Morphet, November 14, 1985; B. King, November 21, 1985). Under these circumstances this Court may not even consider whether the parties' son possesses sufficient academic ability to succeed in college nor may this Court consider what financial resources the parties have to support their son in college. Despite the fact that college may be in the best interests of the son in the King case, the application of the Connolly standard and the fact that his parents possess only high school degrees prevents this Court from acting in his best interests.
Courts have recognized the importance of insuring equal opportunity for college education for children from broken homes as necessary to overcome the competitive disadvantage likely to be suffered at the hands of children from homes where both parents still reside. Id. at pp. 602-603. Children from broken homes already possess a distinct disadvantage in having suffered through the trauma of divorce. Courts are often charged with exercising the parental instincts parents seem to loose after a divorce. Id. One such natural instinct is seeing that a child lay the proper foundation for future success.
"Education is an integral part of our society and as our society has developed in new and varied directions, the educational needs of our children have grown and changed. While a formal elementary education was once adequate for life, more advanced education, including...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Setford v. Cavanagh
...692, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 512 N.E.2d 554; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 122 A.D.2d 583, 505 N.Y.S.2d 273, supra, modfg. on other grounds, 130 Misc.2d 701, 497 N.Y.S.2d 259; Kaplan v. Wallshein, 57 A.D.2d 828, 394 N.Y.S.2d 439) and in directing him to reimburse petitioner for educational expenses incurr......
-
Hoffman v. Hoffman
...provided that Jill would be treated "as though she were emancipated", and no child support was provided for her. The court, 130 Misc.2d 701, 497 N.Y.S.2d 259, concluded that this language equates emancipation with college graduation. We cannot agree. To hold defendant responsible for child ......