2006 Ct. Sup. 6495, 41 CLR 163
No. FA05-4008087SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury
March 31, 2006
ISSUE
LLOYD CUTSUMPAS, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
The issue presented in this case of first impression is whether the court should grant the defendant’s motion requesting permission to take an online program to fulfill Connecticut’s parenting education program requirement.
FACTS
The plaintiff and defendant dissolved their marriage by agreement on November 14, 2005. The defendant resides in New York. On January 18, 2006, the defendant filed a motion regarding the parenting education program. In the motion, the defendant argues that it would be “extremely difficult for him to attend parenting classes in Connecticut.” The defendant requests that the court permit the defendant to complete an online program, called Positive Parenting Through Divorce (PPTD), that is administered by a Florida based company, to fulfill the parenting education program requirements under Connecticut law.
DISCUSSION
The parenting education program is mandated under General Statutes § 46b-69b and Practice Book § 25-5(6). Section 46b-69b(a) defines the program as: “[A] course designed by the Judicial Department to educate persons, including unmarried parents, on the impact on children of the restructuring of families. The course shall include, but not be limited to, information on the development stages of children, adjustment of children to parental separation, dispute resolution and conflict management, guidelines for visitation, stress reduction in children and cooperative parenting.”[1]
“The court shall order any party to an action specified in subsection (a) of this section to participate in such program CT Page 6496 whenever a minor child is involved in such action unless . . . the parties select and participate in a comparable parenting education program . . .” (Emphasis added.) General Statutes §46b-69b(b)(3). “Parenting education programs are classes designed to educate adults about the many issues children face when their family situation changes.” JUDICIAL BRANCH, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, PARENTING EDUCATION PROGRAMS (List of Approved Programs) (JDP-FM — 151, Rev. March 2005). “Parenting education programs are six hours. The program may be offered in two three hour classes, or in three two hour classes.” Id.
THE ONLINE FLORIDA PROGRAM (PPTD)
The defendant requests that the court permit him to take the online program, PPTD, which is administered by a Florida based company. The defendant did not submit any documentation or evidence of any kind to the court indicating that PPTD’s online program is comparable with Connecticut’s programs as § 46b-69b
requires.
In Victor v. Victor, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. FA 99 0174903 (January 2, 2001, Shay, J.), the court ordered the husband to complete the parenting education program, or a substantially similar program in New York state, which satisfies the requirements of § 46b-69b. Although the court did not elaborate on its order, the order suggests that out-of-state programs must be substantially similar to Connecticut’s programs. In the present case, the court finds that the Florida company’s online program is neither comparable nor substantially similar to Connecticut’s programs. Although PPTD covers many of the same topics the Connecticut programs cover, PPTD allows the course taker to “complete the course in [his or her] own time.” Positive Parenting Through Divorce, Online Course, available at http://positiveparentingthroughdivorce.com/online_course.htm (last visited March 20, 2005). This is not comparable to the six hour long courses approved by the Connecticut Judicial Branch. The defendant could complete PPTD in just a couple of hours, a scenario the Judicial Branch did not envision.
ONLINE PROGRAMS vs. IN-PERSON PROGRAM
The current in-person programs approved by Connecticut have been successful. In O’Brien v. Davis, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. FA 04 CT Page 6497 4000138 (September 29, 2005, Tierney, J.), the court stated that “[t]he Parenting Education Program has greatly reduced anxiety, turmoil and conflict in family cases and thus is beneficial for all litigants with minor children.” In 2003, a Parent Education Program Participant Satisfaction Survey found that 91.4 percent of those surveyed felt that the program was valuable to separating parents. Parent Education Program Participant Satisfaction Survey (2003). The same survey also found the following: that 62.8 percent of those surveyed, felt the program was very helpful and 19 percent found it somewhat helpful for understanding the benefits to children of parents working cooperatively; 59.8 percent found the program very helpful and 23 percent found the program somewhat helpful for understanding the needs and reactions of children of various ages to parental separation or living apart; 50.7 percent found the program very helpful and 34.6 percent found the program somewhat helpful in resolving conflicts between the parents about the children; 48.5 percent found the program very helpful and 36 percent found the program was somewhat helpful arranging meaningful parenting time and 59 percent found the program very helpful and 28.9 percent found it somewhat helpful for reducing stress for the children Id.
When interpreting a statute, the courts “seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meanings of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. In seeking to determine that meaning, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Asylum Hill Problem Solving Revitalization Ass’n. v. King, 277 Conn. 238, 247 n. 10 (2006).
The language of the statute does not expressly permit courts to approve participation in online courses. Therefore, we must look to the legislative history to determine whether the legislature intended § 46b-69b to authorize courts to approve online courses.
The legislative history of § 46b-69b indicates the legislature intended the parenting education program to be in-person and even replicate the in-person programs existing in Connecticut before §46b-69b was enacted. Elaine Zimmerman, a member of the commission on children, explained to the joint committee on children that CT Page 6498 there were existing programs in Connecticut, such as the Big Brothers and Big Sisters program, that offered quality programs for divorced parents. Zimmerman also stated that Family Services did such a program and that the family courts in Connecticut did a voluntary program. Conn. Joint Committee on Children Hearings, Pt. 1, 1993 Sess., p. 166. While discussing the choice parents have to take a `comparable’ parenting education course, Representative Thompson specifically stated that the House of Representatives “recognize that there are churches and other religious organizations that have developed programs, and if programs are acceptable to the court, that program may be used.” 36 H.R. Proc., Pt. 27, 1993 Sess., p. 9607. Additionally, while trying to dispel concerns about the possible burden on the judicial branch in administering this program, Representative Thompson stated that the courses would be “done by the private sector, through family counseling organizations or through . . . church groups and so on . . .”. . .” 36 H.R. Proc., supra, p. 9622.
During the joint committee on children hearings, Jack Doyle, District Executive Director of Catholic Family Services in Waterbury and Torrington, who was also representing a Connecticut Council of Family Service Agencies, which is an association of twenty-seven family service agencies throughout Connecticut, testified about the type of program Connecticut needed. Doyle, an agency administrator with twenty-five years of clinical practice in counseling divorced parents, testified generally to the need for seminars to help divorced parents help their children. To illustrate his point, Doyle referenced an article from the New York Times about an education program for divorced parents in Georgia to show that parenting education is not a unique idea and to illustrate the type of program that Connecticut would need to employ. Conn. Joint Committee on Children Hearings, supra, p. 198. Doyle also stated that “[i]t is imperative that qualified professionals teach these seminars.” Id.
The New York Times article that Doyle referred to, Requiring Divorce Classes For the Sake of the Child, quotes one judge in Georgia as stating that the purpose of the program is to make parents listen to experts explain what is happening to their children, what their children are feeling and offer techniques to lessen the trauma. Conn. Joint Committee on Children Hearings supra, p. 242. The same judge later stated that the programs have a positive impact in that parents are compromising more and settling their disputes without long, bitter court battles. Id.
CT Page 6499 The article describes the Georgia program as a fast-paced program that touches on “emotional psychological, social and economic implications for children in a divorce.” Conn. Joint Committee on Children Hearings, supra, p. 243. The article continued: “It also deals with how and what parents should tell children about a divorce, and how they can help them deal with separation and visitation.” Id. The article further stated that the program “is a mixture of lectures, films and role-playing by a pair of seminar leaders, who dramatize common conflicts that arise in families as a result of divorce.” Id. When viewing the role playing sessions, the parents have an opportunity to comment and make suggestions on how certain situations might be resolved, which allows the parents to see themselves and begin to recognize their own behavioral faults. Id. Many parents interviewed for the article commented that they were angry and bitter about having to take the program, but left it feeling that they learned something useful. Id.
Representative Thompson and Jack Doyle’s testimony anchor the tone of the entire legislative history of § 46b-69b, which indicates that the legislature contemplated in-person learning experiences for divorced parents. Taking courses online would be akin to simply giving parents a bundle of reading materials to take home and having parents complete various worksheets and taking tests. Absent from the legislative history, however, are any mentions or even tenuous references to this “take-home” format. The entirety of the legislative history indicates that the effectiveness of the parenting education program would be derived from the in-person experience, including listening to experts and other parents speak, watching role playing scenarios, and, arguably most important, being able to comment and ask questions to experts and even other parents taking the course. In the present case, the defendant failed to demonstrate to the court, and the court did not find, that the online course in which he is interested offers a dynamic like the in-person courses long approved by Connecticut.
The other aspect of the online course that distinguishes it from the in-person course is the assurance that the divorced parent is actually taking the course. When a divorced parent goes to a parenting education program in Connecticut, the parent is required to sit there for as long as the course lasts. This “controlled environment,” of sorts, guarantees that the parent is at the very least exposed to curriculum. The materials the court gathered regarding PPTD do not indicate that PPTD takes any CT Page 6500 measures to assure that the parent is really taking the class or merely going through the material as quickly as possible to get the certification. The court, therefore, cannot have the same certainty that a divorced parent is receiving the intended effect of the course when taking the course online, outside of the “controlled environment” of a classroom.
Lastly, the purpose of § 46b-69b urges the court to reject approval of online courses at this time. The legislative history of § 46b-69b makes it clear that the ultimate purpose of the statute is to protect children of divorce. 36 H.R. Proc. supra, p. 9607-08, 9614, 9615, 9621; Conn. Joint Committee on Children hearings, supra, p. 161-62, 163, 197-99. If the court diverges from the methods already approved by Connecticut by allowing the defendant to take an online course, the court risks the well-being of the defendant’s child as an innocent victim, which contradicts the purpose of the statute. This court is not willing to take such a risk only for the convenience of the defendant.
CT Page 6501