Opinion
FOTI, J.
The plaintiff, Loren E. Baker, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting his motion to modify the judgment of dissolution of marriage and awarding him $25 per week in child support.1 The plaintiff claims that the trial court (1) improperly found that [673] the parties’ financial agreements justified a substantial deviation from the child support guidelines (2) failed to identify the specific criteria that justified its deviation from the guidelines, (3) failed to calculate a child support order based on the guidelines before finding the order to be inappropriate, and (4) abused its discretion in deviating from the guidelines by such a substantial amount. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The marriage of the parties was dissolved on February 6, 1991. The terms of the decree were based on a written agreement of the parties that was approved by the court and incorporated by reference in the judgment. The parties were awarded joint custody of their two minor children. The primary residence of the children was to be with the plaintiff. Pursuant to the judgment, the defendant, Laurie E. Baker, had visitation rights with the children three weekends a month from Friday through Sunday and every Wednesday overnight. The defendant was not ordered to pay child support, but was responsible for the children’s needs while they were physically in her care. The judgment specifically allowed for modification to permit the plaintiff to seek child support in the future. The court noted that as of October 1, 1991, subsequent to the rendering of the judgment, General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 46b-862 [674] would be amended to recognize a substantial deviation from the guidelines as a ground for modification of an order for child support. The parties’ agreement, however, required both a showing of a substantial change in circumstances and a substantial deviation from the guidelines to warrant a modification.3
On October 7,1991, the parties returned to court and filed a written stipulation in response to the plaintiffs motion to modify the defendant’s visitation rights and to order the defendant to pay child support. Pursuant to their agreement, the parties modified the hours and days of visitation and further agreed that there would be no child support paid to the plaintiff in consideration of the defendant’s representation that she would feed the children dinner during her visits. In acting on the plaintiffs motion, the court made no finding that the application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate.4 In addition, the court made no reference to criteria that would justify a deviation from the amount specified in the guidelines. See Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-3.
On November 28, 1994, the parties filed a stipulation with the court in response to the plaintiffs second motion for modification. Pursuant to the agreement, the defendant’s weekday visitations with the children [675] were eliminated and her weekend visitation schedule was reduced to every other weekend during the school year. The plaintiff did not seek child support and the parties did not submit financial affidavits.
On September 10, 1996, the plaintiff filed a third motion for modification seeking child support pursuant to the guidelines.5 The parties filed financial affidavits and a hearing was held on October 15, 1996, at which time the parties agreed that the amount of child support recommended by the guidelines was between $85 and $86 per week. The trial court found a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties because of the defendant’s reduced visitation schedule. On December 24, 1996, the trial court entered the following order: “The court finds that it would be inappropriate to apply the guidelines, as the entire history of the financial agreements made by the parties must be considered. Support orders have not entered in the past, in consideration of [the defendant’s] visitation expenses and the prior financial agreements [of the parties]. In 1994, support was not before the court. Given that the [defendant’s] visitation has decreased, the court finds it appropriate to enter an order, though not, because of the earlier agreements, one in accord with the guidelines. The court orders the defendant to pay $25 per week (except for her vacation weeks) to the plaintiff as child support, pursuant to contingent wage withholding.”
The plaintiff argues that it was improper for the trial court to focus on the financial agreements of the parties without explaining how those agreements benefitted the children so as to justify a deviation from the guidelines. We agree.
[676] “General Statutes § 46b-215b6 provides that the child support guidelines shall be considered in all determinations of child support amounts.” McHugh v. McHugh, 27 Conn. App. 724, 727, 609 A.2d 250 (1992). Section 46b-215a-3 (a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides that “[t]he amount of current support calculated under the child support guidelines is presumed to be the correct amount to be awarded. The presumption may be rebutted by a specific finding on the record that the application of such guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate in a particular case. Any such finding shall state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines and include a justification for the variance. Only the deviation criteria described in this section establish sufficient bases for such findings.” (Emphasis added.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion
FOTI, J.
The plaintiff, Loren E. Baker, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting his motion to modify the judgment of dissolution of marriage and awarding him $25 per week in child support.1 The plaintiff claims that the trial court (1) improperly found that [673] the parties’ financial agreements justified a substantial deviation from the child support guidelines (2) failed to identify the specific criteria that justified its deviation from the guidelines, (3) failed to calculate a child support order based on the guidelines before finding the order to be inappropriate, and (4) abused its discretion in deviating from the guidelines by such a substantial amount. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The marriage of the parties was dissolved on February 6, 1991. The terms of the decree were based on a written agreement of the parties that was approved by the court and incorporated by reference in the judgment. The parties were awarded joint custody of their two minor children. The primary residence of the children was to be with the plaintiff. Pursuant to the judgment, the defendant, Laurie E. Baker, had visitation rights with the children three weekends a month from Friday through Sunday and every Wednesday overnight. The defendant was not ordered to pay child support, but was responsible for the children’s needs while they were physically in her care. The judgment specifically allowed for modification to permit the plaintiff to seek child support in the future. The court noted that as of October 1, 1991, subsequent to the rendering of the judgment, General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 46b-862 [674] would be amended to recognize a substantial deviation from the guidelines as a ground for modification of an order for child support. The parties’ agreement, however, required both a showing of a substantial change in circumstances and a substantial deviation from the guidelines to warrant a modification.3
On October 7,1991, the parties returned to court and filed a written stipulation in response to the plaintiffs motion to modify the defendant’s visitation rights and to order the defendant to pay child support. Pursuant to their agreement, the parties modified the hours and days of visitation and further agreed that there would be no child support paid to the plaintiff in consideration of the defendant’s representation that she would feed the children dinner during her visits. In acting on the plaintiffs motion, the court made no finding that the application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate.4 In addition, the court made no reference to criteria that would justify a deviation from the amount specified in the guidelines. See Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-3.
On November 28, 1994, the parties filed a stipulation with the court in response to the plaintiffs second motion for modification. Pursuant to the agreement, the defendant’s weekday visitations with the children [675] were eliminated and her weekend visitation schedule was reduced to every other weekend during the school year. The plaintiff did not seek child support and the parties did not submit financial affidavits.
On September 10, 1996, the plaintiff filed a third motion for modification seeking child support pursuant to the guidelines.5 The parties filed financial affidavits and a hearing was held on October 15, 1996, at which time the parties agreed that the amount of child support recommended by the guidelines was between $85 and $86 per week. The trial court found a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties because of the defendant’s reduced visitation schedule. On December 24, 1996, the trial court entered the following order: “The court finds that it would be inappropriate to apply the guidelines, as the entire history of the financial agreements made by the parties must be considered. Support orders have not entered in the past, in consideration of [the defendant’s] visitation expenses and the prior financial agreements [of the parties]. In 1994, support was not before the court. Given that the [defendant’s] visitation has decreased, the court finds it appropriate to enter an order, though not, because of the earlier agreements, one in accord with the guidelines. The court orders the defendant to pay $25 per week (except for her vacation weeks) to the plaintiff as child support, pursuant to contingent wage withholding.”
The plaintiff argues that it was improper for the trial court to focus on the financial agreements of the parties without explaining how those agreements benefitted the children so as to justify a deviation from the guidelines. We agree.
[676] “General Statutes § 46b-215b6 provides that the child support guidelines shall be considered in all determinations of child support amounts.” McHugh v. McHugh, 27 Conn. App. 724, 727, 609 A.2d 250 (1992). Section 46b-215a-3 (a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides that “[t]he amount of current support calculated under the child support guidelines is presumed to be the correct amount to be awarded. The presumption may be rebutted by a specific finding on the record that the application of such guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate in a particular case. Any such finding shall state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines and include a justification for the variance. Only the deviation criteria described in this section establish sufficient bases for such findings.” (Emphasis added.)
Although the trial court found it appropriate to enter an order not in accord with the guidelines, it failed to refer specifically to the criteria that justified a deviation from the guidelines. See, e.g., Turner v. Turner, 219 Conn. 703, 720, 595 A.2d 297 (1991) (court must make specific finding on record that application of guidelines inequitable or inappropriate based on factors set forth in methodology and general provisions of guidelines as well as specific figures set forth for defendant’s adjusted income level); Feliciano v. Feliciano, 37 Conn. App. 856, 859, 658 A.2d 141 (1995), aff'd, 236 Conn. 719, 674 [677] A.2d 1311 (1996) (presumption that amount of support calculated under guidelines appropriate amount of support to be ordered by court “can be rebutted only if the trial court finds, on the record, that it would be inequitable or inappropriate to apply the guidelines because of evidence satisfying one of the deviation criteria”). Because the trial court did not justify its decision to deviate from the guidelines on one of the deviation criteria set forth in the regulations, we cannot conclude that the trial court properly relied on the terms of the parties’ previous financial agreements to justify a deviation from the guidelines.7
We conclude that the trial court failed to identify properly the deviation criteria justifying its order of child support that was not in accord with the guidelines.8
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new hearing.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.