Tupper v. Tupper, No. Fa96-0324044 S (Aug. 25, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 11809
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedAugust 25, 1999
DocketNo. FA96-0324044 S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 11809 (Tupper v. Tupper, No. Fa96-0324044 S (Aug. 25, 1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tupper v. Tupper, No. Fa96-0324044 S (Aug. 25, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 11809 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The dispositive issue to be decided in this case is whether Charles Tupper, a minor, who will be ten years old this September 22nd, will continue to attend Eagle Hill-Southport, or be enrolled in the fifth grade at Farmingville School in Ridgefield. Eagle Hill is a private school for students diagnosed with more than one learning disability, and has a total enrollment of eighty-six students for this upcoming school year. Farmingville School is a public elementary school expecting to enroll 400 students. Eagle Hill is restricted to teaching students with dual learning disabilities and enjoys an excellent reputation. Farmingville also has a reputation for educational excellence in both the mainstream and special education program which is divided in two parts: (1) the Alternative Learning Center; and (2) the Learning Center. The Alternative Center expects to enroll about a dozen students diagnosed with severe multiple disabilities be they emotional, psychological, behavioral or mental retardation. The Learning Center expects to enroll twenty-eight students this year, including Charles Tupper, all with one learning disability. Charles Tupper was diagnosed having dyslexia, a reading disorder, by the Farmingville psychologist when he was in the first grade. He attended the Learning Center for about two hours each day for the next two and one-half years, and his special education teacher was Ms. Diane Mullen. Charles would spend the remainder of the school day in the regular mainstream class. He was very cooperative with Ms. Mullen and was CT Page 11810 not resentful for having been placed in the Learning Center. He received one hour each day of one-on-one instruction with her learning how to read, and the other hour he would practice reading with other instructors under her supervision. Charles would be in a class of three or four other students during this second hour, all of whom were above average intelligence. His grades in the regular classes were A's and B's in math and science and also received above average grades in other subjects. He participated in soccer and cross-country and enjoyed playing other sports at Farmingville. He made friends easily and was generally well liked by the other students and his teachers.

In January of 1996, the defendant (father) was not satisfied with the progress his son was making at the Learning Center and brought him to be tested by Dr. Leonard Rappaport at Children's Hospital in Boston. He found the child dyslexic and prepared a comprehensive report for the father dated March 27, 1996, and advised him the child would be at risk unless an appropriate remedial program was provided for him. About this time, the father retained Dr. Robert S. Kruger, a clinical psychologist, to confirm Dr. Rappaport's test results and to evaluate the child's present reading skills. (Defendant's Exhibit E.) The plaintiff (mother) was dissatisfied with Dr. Kruger's recommendation that Charles be placed at Eagle Hill-Southport, in a full-time special education program. The mother retained Dr. Dean T. Hokanson, Ph.D., and Ms. Ann Terezakis, M.S., to evaluate her son. In their joint report dated July 30, 1997, they concluded the child should remain in the special education program at Farmingville School. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3.) In a prejudgment memorandum dated December 26, 1997, after hearing testimony from these three experts, Judge Mihalakos found it would be in the child's best interest to be enrolled at Eagle Hill-Southport, commencing in January, 1998. Charles has been attending there for the past year and one half to June, 1999.

The parties have gone through a lengthy and bitter divorce during these past three years, and on May 6, 1999, a judgment of dissolution was entered at Middletown Regional Court (Foley, J.). This judgment provided for Dr. Robert S. Kruger, Dr. Dean T. Hokanson, and Ms. Ann Terezakis to confer with each other and agree on an appropriate school the child should attend this upcoming school year. If they could not agree on such a school by June 15, 1999, the judgment required that this issue be decided by this court after a hearing. The three experts considered a number of private schools but could not agree. The judgment also provided that the court consider Eagle Hill-Southport, or CT Page 11811 Farmingville School as alternatives.

The hearing on this issue was held by this court over three days, August 17, 18 and 19. At this time, both parties, their respective three experts, Dr. Mendelson, the director of special education in Ridgefield, and Ms. Diane Mullen, a special education teacher at Farmingville, all testified. The defendant (father) also called Scott Clark, a police officer in Ridgefield.

The plaintiff (mother) believes as do her two experts, Dr. Hokanson and Ms. Terezakis, that Charles best interests would be served for Charles to enter the fifth grade at Farmingville. This conclusion was shared by Dr. Mendelson and Ms. Diane Mullen.

The defendant (father) believes as does his expert, Dr. Kruger, that Charles should continue in the fifth grade at Eagle Hill, the best alternative now available for him. The court has also reviewed the evaluations made by these experts after Charles completed the past year and one-half at Eagle Hill in June, 1999.

1. Plaintiff's Exhibits 4 — Evaluation by Dr. Hokanson and Ms. Tereza.kis April 17, 1999.

2. Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 — Recommendation of I.E.P. Team at Farmingville School which included Dr. Hokanson and Dr. Mendelson, dated June 24, 1999.

3. Defendant's Exhibit E — Evaluation by Dr. Kruger dated April 25, 1999.

4. Defendant's Exhibit A B — Progress Report from Eagle Hill-Southport, June 11, 1998 to Mrs. Tupper, and June 11, 1999 to Mr. Tupper.

The four experts all agree that Charles has made progress improving his reading skills during the past year and one-half at Eagle Hill. Dr. Kruger believes he has made significant progress by raising his grade level by one year. While at Farmingville, he was in the third grade reading on a first grade level, and now he has gone through the fourth grade and is reading at a second grade level. He also believes that Eagle Hill is the ideal school to provide the services he needs.

Dr. Hokanson, Ms. Terezakis, and Dr. Mendelson believe his progress has been moderate and his pace of growth in reading and writing skills were the same at Farmingville as Eagle Hill. They CT Page 11812 all conclude that the child would progress more educationally and emotionally in a mainstream school like Farmingville where he would learn more from the other bright and creative students there. In her testimony, Ms. Diane Mullen shared their position that Farmingville would be the best school for Charles.

The court's authority to decide this issue is found in §46b-56(a) which states that the court may at any time make or modify any proper order regarding the education of children. This court also has the equitable authority to consider the child's preference because he has an interest in these proceedings. Furthermore, the judgment of May 6, 1999, clearly gives this court the authority to decide the issue if the experts could not agree on an appropriate placement for the child.

It is well settled in this state that in deciding this issue the court must always be guided by what is in the best interests of the child. Schult v. Schult, 241 Conn. 767, 777 (1997); Knockv. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 789.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Knock v. Knock
621 A.2d 267 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1993)
Schult v. Schult
699 A.2d 134 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 11809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tupper-v-tupper-no-fa96-0324044-s-aug-25-1999-connsuperct-1999.