Conn. Gen. Stat. ยง 46b-56c
( P.A. 02-128, S. 1; P.A. 11-214, S. 6; P.A. 15-71, S. 80.)
Although trial court failed to make necessary finding that it was more likely than not that parties would have provided support for their daughter’s college education had the family remained intact, its failure to comply with section was harmless, given ample evidence in the record to support such a finding, and given plaintiff’s failure to meet his burden of demonstrating that court’s failure to make the finding was harmful. 96 CA 102. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by issuing financial order that would secure any educational support order that might be entered in future; however, portion of trial court order, that potentially would have required defendant to maintain life insurance to secure support for child who had reached age of majority and who was not beneficiary of an educational support order, reversed and remanded for clarification. 107 CA 279. Subsec. (b): Subdiv. (1): Use of “shall” means it is mandatory that court inform parents that if no educational support order is entered at the time of dissolution, neither party may obtain such an order in future. 86 CA 719. Subsec. (f): Expenses of relocating child from one state to another, including travel, restaurant meals, lodging or costs of furnishing dorm room and other living expenses, are not within scope of “necessary educational expenses”. 156 CA 383. Trial court abused its discretion by entering an educational support order that required defendant to pay expenses in excess of the amount charged by University of Connecticut for a full-time in-state student when the court made no finding that parents entered into an agreement to exceed the limit imposed by Subsec. 163 CA 517. Subsec. (h): Contrary to plaintiff’s claims, because pursuant to Subsec. an educational support order may be enforced in same manner as provided by law for any support order, trial court had authority to enforce the order by requiring that security be given, it acted within its discretion and authority in establishing a trust as means of securing the order, and did not abuse its discretion in funding the order with proceeds from sale of Vermont property. 96 Conn.App. 102.