Scott v. Scott

879 A.2d 540

90 Conn.App. 883

James L. SCOTT v. Karen W. SCOTT.

No. 25744.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 24, 2005.

Decided August 23, 2005.

Robert A. Serafinowicz, with whom, on the brief, was John R. Williams, New Haven, for the appellant (plaintiff).

James R. Greenfield, New Haven with whom, was Kelly P. Mai, Stamford, for the appellee (defendant).

FLYNN, BISHOP and DUPONT, Js.

BISHOP, J.

In this postjudgment marital dissolution matter, the plaintiff, James L. Scott, appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding him in contempt of court and ordering him to pay, as a therapy expense, one half of the cost of private boarding school for the parties' minor child. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly found that the private boarding school attended by the minor child was therapy within the meaning of the judgment of dissolution. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following factual and procedural background is relevant to our consideration of the plaintiff's appeal. After a contested hearing, the marriage of the parties was dissolved on January 10, 2000. The court ordered the parties to share equally the cost of unreimbursed medical, dental and therapy expenses for the minor child. At the time of dissolution, the minor child was being treated by psychotherapists at the Yale Child Study Center on an outpatient basis. The court ordered the parties each to pay one half of the cost of the minor child's therapy sessions. He was also attending a private school. The judgment required the plaintiff to pay for the remainder of the current academic year and for the parties to share the expense equally if the child remained at that private school for the following two years. The court made no additional orders regarding education.

The minor child remained at the private school for the two years following the divorce, through the ninth grade. Thereafter, he attended a public high school until, in February, 2003, the defendant unilaterally enrolled the minor child in a wilderness program in Utah, known as the Second Nature Wilderness Program, for eight weeks. Subsequently, the defendant enrolled the minor child in a long-term private boarding school, the Oakley School, also in Utah.¹

On August 14, 2003, the defendant filed a motion for contempt or, in the alternative, for modification of the judgment. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the costs she incurred to send the minor child to the "therapeutic" boarding schools constituted medical and therapy expenses and, thus, pursuant to the judgment, must be shared equally by the parties. The defendant requested, in the alternative, that the court modify the divorce judgment to require the plaintiff to pay a portion of the private school expenses for the minor child if the court determined that the cost of the "therapeutic" boarding schools did not qualify as medical and therapy expenses.

In its memorandum of decision filed August 2, 2004, the court found, inter alia, that the expenditures made by the defendant for the boarding schools were within the meaning of "medical" and "therapy" expenses as used in the judgment of dissolution and required the plaintiff to pay one half of the cost of the boarding school, and that, although the plaintiff's actions were not wilful, he was in contempt for failing to pay for one half of the expense of therapeutic boarding school.² This appeal followed.

The plaintiff claims that the boarding schools attended by the minor child were not "therapy" as contemplated in the divorce judgment, but rather constituted private school that was not ordered in the dissolution decree.³ We agree.

The plaintiff's argument attacks the court's legal interpretation of the judgment of dissolution. "Our standard of review of the interpretation of the judgment of the court is a question of law." Ottiano v. Shetucket Plumbing Supply Co., 61 Conn.App. 648, 651, 767 A.2d 128 (2001). "When issues in [an] appeal concern a question of law, this court reviews such claims de novo." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn.App. 133, 139, 799 A.2d 298, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911, 806 A.2d 49 (2002).

Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines therapy as the "treatment of disease in animals or plants by therapeutic means ...." Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961). Similarly, therapeutic is defined as "of or relating to the treatment of disease or disorders by remedial agents or methods: CURATIVE, MEDICINAL ...." Id. Our legislature has defined psychotherapy as "the professional treatment, assessment or counseling of a mental or emotional illness, symptom or condition." General Statutes § 53a-65 (10). With those definitions in mind, we next examine appellate case law.

Although there is no appellate authority specifically addressing this issue, we find guidance in Bucy v. Bucy, 23 Conn.App. 98, 579 A.2d 117 (1990), which examined whether expenses for therapy are medical expenses. Bucy considered therapy to be a medical expense when the therapy rendered was "made in connection with the diagnosis, cure, mitigation or prevention of disease" and was a "necessary part of the overall treatment of the child ...." Id., at 103, 579 A.2d 117. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) We adopt those definitions to provide a framework to resolve the legal issue before us.

"[T]he interpretation of a judgment may involve the circumstances surrounding the making of the judgment." Ottiano v. Shetucket Plumbing Supply Co., supra, 61 Conn.App. at 652, 767 A.2d 128. At the time of dissolution, the minor child had been receiving therapy from various psychological and psychiatric specialists. He had been diagnosed by medical professionals and required further treatment to cure or mitigate his condition. He received psychotherapy and antidepressant medications. The therapy rendered to the minor child at the time of the dissolution judgment was medical in nature and, in issuing orders regarding health care for the minor child, the court made provisions for continued therapy of that...