Blazier v. Blazier, No. Fa94-0120166 (Jul. 17, 1998)
This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8023 (Blazier v. Blazier, No. Fa94-0120166 (Jul. 17, 1998)) 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.
Opinion
The motion before the court at present is the defendant's motion for an order of child support from the plaintiff mother. This motion was filed after a series of unanticipated events. In May, 1997, the court awarded temporary physical custody of the children to the defendant and the children have resided with the defendant at all times since. In February, 1998, the court held the defendant in contempt, finding that there was an arrearage of $7885 in his payments of unallocated alimony and child support. Since then the defendant's income has decreased because CT Page 8024 of a change in his employment status. His current gross weekly income is $625, which is less than the $650 weekly amount of unallocated alimony and child support that he is obligated to pay.
At the hearing on the defendant's motion for support, the defendant's counsel explained that he filed the motion for support because of the nonmodifiability of the order for unallocated alimony and child support. The premise that no modification can be made of the unallocated order is incorrect, however. The child support component of the unallocated alimony and child support payment is modifiable.
General Statutes §
Clearly, the child support portion of the unallocated award in the present case is modifiable. The change in the children's place of residence from the plaintiff to the defendant appears to be a substantial change in circumstances that would warrant modification. Modification of the current order appears to the court to be a more direct and a more appropriate way to address the changes which have occurred since the date of dissolution rather than ruling on the defendant's motion for support. The defendant's motion for support is therefore denied.
VERTEFEUILLE, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blazier-v-blazier-no-fa94-0120166-jul-17-1998-connsuperct-1998.