Corruption in Connecticut

August 13, 2002

Connecticut legislators have taken yet another step in denouncing the Constitution and basic human rights. The opportunity to attend college is a good thing, right? So a law was passed allowing judges to order divorced and never-married fathers to pay if they can. This extends the period in which fathers are divested of not only parental rights but constitutional rights as well, through the early adulthood of their children.

Married parents are of course never ordered to pay for college. For those who face difficult financial circumstances, there are a variety of loans, grants, and work-study programs. In the past, many young men and women have attended college with the help of military benefits and part-time jobs.

Many a parent, including divorced and never-married parents, including divorced and never-married noncustodial fathers, have worked and sacrificed to put their children through college. For that (among other things) they deserve the eternal respect of their children. But proponents of the Connecticut law will once again strip fathers of respect if they can. Fathers will be paying because they have been ordered to pay.

Opponents of the bill point out that married parents are never ordered to pay for college. It is — how can I say this with enough clarity — too bloody obvious that the law is an unconstitutional intrusion and violates equal protection. The law deprives divorced parents of the discretion that married parents have over decisions on college.

"I don't think the courts are the answer to [the difficulty of paying for college]," said state Sen. Robert L. Genuario, R-Norwalk, who voted against the legislation.

But such roadblocks never stop those intent on ruling over the lives of divorced men and their money.

Linnea Lindstrom, a divorced mother of two college-age daughters is an apparent poster-mother for the campaign. According to the The Hartford Courant, she tried unsuccessfully to get a provision for college support written into her divorce decree six years ago. Now let's see the spin.

"The state can't legislate good parents," she said, "but they can make parents responsible."

No, as a matter of fact, by the fundamental laws that define our nation it cannot, especially when "responsible" means nothing more than doing what someone else wants. Giving each child $100,000 cash and good investment advise might be better in many cases than a college education (although I personally strongly favor education). I would not be surprised if a divorced mother somewhere in the country has done just that; and would be nuts to think such things have not been done by married parents and divorced fathers. It is an extreme illogical jump to label every parent who does not do that irresponsible.

Supporters of this legislation in Connecticut, and all the legislators who voted for it know that they have done wrong. Any judge applying the law will know the same thing. It's too bloody obvious. When the state can order people to do whatever they would like them to do, the United States is formally non-existent. It might as well be renamed the Soviet Socialist States of America.

One of the sponsors of the legislation, representative Art Feltman, D-Hartford, said it is unfair to put children at a disadvantage simply because their parents are divorced. "I want to equalize the life chances of kids whose parents stay together and kids whose parents split apart," he said.

Fine. Give generously to a special college fund.

For an official bureaucratic spin, perhaps nothing can top Dallas Martin, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. "I'm old-fashioned," he said, "but I still believe if you bring a child into this world, you have a responsibility to support the child the best you can."

By court order? "Old-fashioned" in what country?

Roger F. Gay