I tried to look this up specifically for CT but it is not very clear.
The statutes on in-state tuition talks about the parent’s residence (we are both parents lol) and then goes on to talk about if ONE parent has custody (we have joint legal custody).
The girls go to high school in my state as they primarily live with me but legally the custody is joint. Our agreement doesn’t use the terms custodial and non-custodial parent.
Then the form you have to fill out goes on to talk about financial responsibility as well - again in our agreement it is split, father has some and I have some for college. I am good either way, but OOS tuition in CT is beyond our budget so I want to know what is realistic.
I assume you are asking about U Conn-- one parent lives in CT and the other does not- and you want to know if your kid will get instate tuition?
The ONLY relevant fact is what U CONN tells you. Your divorce decree, custody, online forms- nothing matters. Ask to speak with someone at U Conn, explain your situation, have them describe what hurdles you need to jump through to qualify for in-state tuition (for four years).
People love to post on message boards- I get that. But you are talking about a difference of tens of thousands of dollars if you make a mistake. Don’t you want to hear it from the horse’s mouth?
For federal aid, the FAFSA goes by “6 months and a day” - the student is assumed to be in the custody of the parent with whom they resided for the majority of the year.
Call them and ask. The statue on this page literally says it is the domicile of the “parent”, and parent is defined as the father, unless he is dead, and then the mother…
I think it is clear (muddy clear) that the state of CT defines the domicide as that of the father. Since that definition gets you where you want to be (instate tuition), use it to your advantage. I, of course, would be arguing that ‘father’ means ‘parent’ if it were the mother who lives in CT.
Call and ask, but I’d argue that the statute says it is instate tuition,which is not that uncommon to allow instate where a parent lives even if the child does not live there. My nephew had instate tuition in Florida (mother’s state) and Colorado (father’s state), and after his mother moved to CT he had instate there (not sure what the time requirement was for him to get it, but I don’t think it was long).
twoinanddone - in reality it isn’t unfair at all-- the girls grew up in CT, I only moved after our divorce (job and remarriage) and their father is partially responsible for paying college and he is a bonafide resident of the state paying all the commensurate taxes.
Eastern CT State U has an In State Tuition application. Your child would apply ticking the “Applying as an unemancipated student using your parental or guardian information.”
This part requires that dad to fill in step 3, which he can clearly show residency. It looks like they allow either “parent”, but they do say they rely on the statute, which says “father”.
It would only be unfair if no one lived there. And it looks like they only require 6 mos anyway. I think they just want to know someone is paying CT income and property taxes:)
I didn’t say it was unfair. I’ve moved and my kids lost instate tuition rate in that state, plus didn’t have them in another state. That’s unfair.
I think the statute in CT is just old and written when a father had more legal standing than a mother. My nephew lives in CT and has instate status through his mother, so I do think it is interpreted that ‘parent’ means mother OR father. My brother has never lived in CT, my nephew did not go to high school there, and none of that has been a problem at the community college or at UConn.
Thank you HRSMom-- I will look for that application on their website… my daughter has a few interested coaches and she is trying to expand the field of possibilities!
At this point, my girls can probably have in-state in CT OR NJ which is nice-- we have lived here for 3 years (the next college coming up is a junior) and both will have gone to HS their entire 4 years in NJ… thanks again-- the statute is old and hard to interpret-- and clearly uses old language. Even the CT family court doesn’t use ‘custodial and non-custodial’ anymore.