Giles v. Giles, No. Fa94 0142628 S (Nov. 20, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Giles v. Giles, No. Fa94 0142628 S (Nov. 20, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9689

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 20, 1996

DocketNo. FA94 0142628 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9689 (Giles v. Giles, No. Fa94 0142628 S (Nov. 20, 1996)) 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.

Bluebook

Giles v. Giles, No. Fa94 0142628 S (Nov. 20, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9689 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION LAW APPLICABLE TO CHILD SUPPORT The parties were divorced by judgment entered August 17, 1993 in the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Summit County, Ohio. Although Ohio residents at the time the complaint was filed, the judgment in paragraph 20 found that, at the time of judgment, the plaintiff husband was living in California and the defendant wife, with their three children, was living in Connecticut. A child support order was entered pursuant to Ohio law in Paragraph 25 of the judgment and the court retained continuing jurisdiction over child support, as stated in Paragraph 27 of the judgment.

The plaintiff subsequently moved to reduce child support which was denied by court entry dated August 3, 1994.

On December 19, 1994, the defendant filed the Ohio Judgment with this court pursuant to our Statute, § 46b-71. The defendant then moved to modify child support and a second motion alleging that plaintiff be found in contempt.

The plaintiff then filed motions with the Ohio court. On September 18, 1996, that court declined jurisdiction to make any further determinations with respect to the parenting of the CT Page 9690 children, finding that Ohio was no longer a convenient forum.

This court now exercises jurisdiction and will entertain the defendant's motions. However, in determining child support, which state guidelines apply?

Section 46b-71 (b) clearly provides that the "substantive law of the foreign jurisdiction shall be controlling". The only exception to this general principle is if such judgment contravenes the public policy of Connecticut. No showing has been made in this regard. Therefore, this court is bound to apply Ohio law, including its guidelines, Evans v. Evans, 35 Conn. App. 246; cf. Burton v. Burton, 189 Conn. 129, 134 (1983). The defendant did not file the support order pursuant to "U.R.E.S.A.", §46b-180 et seq.

HARRIGAN, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION LAW APPLICABLE TO CHILD SUPPORT The parties were divorced by judgment entered August 17, 1993 in the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Summit County, Ohio. Although Ohio residents at the time the complaint was filed, the judgment in paragraph 20 found that, at the time of judgment, the plaintiff husband was living in California and the defendant wife, with their three children, was living in Connecticut. A child support order was entered pursuant to Ohio law in Paragraph 25 of the judgment and the court retained continuing jurisdiction over child support, as stated in Paragraph 27 of the judgment.

The plaintiff subsequently moved to reduce child support which was denied by court entry dated August 3, 1994.

On December 19, 1994, the defendant filed the Ohio Judgment with this court pursuant to our Statute, § 46b-71. The defendant then moved to modify child support and a second motion alleging that plaintiff be found in contempt.

The plaintiff then filed motions with the Ohio court. On September 18, 1996, that court declined jurisdiction to make any further determinations with respect to the parenting of the CT Page 9690 children, finding that Ohio was no longer a convenient forum.

This court now exercises jurisdiction and will entertain the defendant's motions. However, in determining child support, which state guidelines apply?

Section 46b-71 (b) clearly provides that the "substantive law of the foreign jurisdiction shall be controlling". The only exception to this general principle is if such judgment contravenes the public policy of Connecticut. No showing has been made in this regard. Therefore, this court is bound to apply Ohio law, including its guidelines, Evans v. Evans, 35 Conn. App. 246; cf. Burton v. Burton, 189 Conn. 129, 134 (1983). The defendant did not file the support order pursuant to "U.R.E.S.A.", §46b-180 et seq.

HARRIGAN, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giles-v-giles-no-fa94-0142628-s-nov-20-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack