Trial Courts, Per Statute, Must Articulate Basis for Deviation from Child Support Guidelines
by
Joseph C. Maya on Mar. 21, 2024
Summary: In a post-judgment divorce action, the Appellate Court of Connecticut reversed a lower court’s child support order for failure to explain the basis for deviation from the child support guidelines. Because the Appellate Court was left to speculate as to the relationship of the order to the other financial orders rendered, the entire case was remanded for a new trial as to all financial orders.
The plaintiff and defendant were married in November 1990 and had two minor children. Each had substantial income and assets available to them. In 2005 and 2006, the defendant had an income of $530,000 and $945,000 respectively, and had assets in two businesses valued at nearly $4 million. The plaintiff earned a base compensation of $200,000 with a bonus of $1.5 million in each year 2006 and 2007, and was expected to earn similar amounts in 2009 and 2010. In 2006, the plaintiff filed a dissolution action and the defendant filed an answer and cross complaint.
Following trial in January 2009, the trial court dissolved the marriage, adopted an agreed parenting plan, and set forth various financial orders. The defendant requested reconsideration on the decisions regarding alimony, asset division, and attorney’s fees, in part stating that $250 per week in child support of each child was insufficient. However, the court denied these requests, prompting the defendant to appeal.
Appellate v. Trial Court: Family Matters
When reviewing family matters, an appellate court will generally not disturb a trial court’s orders unless the court has abused its discretion or if it is found that the court could not have reasonably concluded as it did. In the State of Connecticut, the legislature has enacted statutes and regulations that govern child support. These include child support guidelines that must be considered in all determinations of child support amounts, regardless of family income level.
Should a court find that the application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate, it must articulate why deviation from the child support guidelines is necessary to meet the needs of the child. In the case of high income families, courts may not disregard the principles of the guidelines, for doing so would deprive these families of the fairness and consistency the guidelines themselves require.
Case Outcome
In this case, the Appellate Court could not conclude that the child support order tailored by the trial court was proper. Upon reviewing the record, it appeared the trial court failed to follow the guideline tables; in fact, the memorandum of decision was devoid of any reference to the guidelines whatsoever.
The Appellate Court was left with mere speculation regarding the basis for the trial court’s determination and therefore found that the trial court violated statutory provisions mandating an articulation for deviation from the child support guidelines. Because the Appellate Court could not determine whether the child support order was severable from the other financial orders in the lower court’s decision, the case was remanded for a new trial as to all financial orders.
Maya Murphy P.C. has proudly been included in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked among the top firms in the nation. In addition, Managing Partner Joseph C. Maya has been selected to The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 for his work in Employment Law and Education Law in Connecticut. Recognition in Best Lawyers® is awarded to firms and attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the industry, and is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor.
Our firm in Westport, Connecticut serves clients with legal assistance all over the state, including the towns of: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethany, Bethel, Branford, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Cheshire, Danbury, Darien, Derby, East Haven, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Guilford, Hamden, Madison, Meriden, Middlebury, Milford, Monroe, Naugatuck, New Canaan, New Fairfield, New Haven, Newton, North Branford, North Haven, Norwalk, Orange, Oxford, Prospect, Redding, Ridgefield, Seymour, Shelton, Sherman, Southbury, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Wallingford, Waterbury, West Haven, Weston, Westport, Wilton, and Woodbridge. In addition to assisting clients in Connecticut, our firm handles education law and employment law matters in New York as well.
If you have any questions about employment law or education law in Connecticut, or would like to speak to an attorney about a legal matter, please contact Joseph C. Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a free initial consultation today.
