182 Conn. App. 40
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Father (Battistotti), a New York City resident, sued for custody/visitation of his son born June 2014; mother (Suzanne A.) was awarded sole legal and primary physical custody after a 10‑day trial.
- Trial court ordered father at least 17 hours biweekly parenting time, confined to an apartment he rented in Greenwich, and prohibited removing the child from Greenwich/Connecticut.
- Court found father had a net weekly income yielding a presumptive child support order of $253/week, but did not use the worksheet’s deviation section.
- Father had rented/renovated the Greenwich apartment expressly to facilitate visits and consistently reported substantial Greenwich rent, utilities, upkeep and travel expenses; mother did not dispute these expense figures at trial.
- Father argued the court should have (1) accounted for visitation expenses (Greenwich apartment) when calculating child support (i.e., deviating from guidelines) and (2) erred by restricting parenting time to Greenwich.
- Appellate court reversed only the child support-related orders and remanded for a hearing to determine whether significant visitation expenses justified deviation from the Guidelines; affirmed the geographic restriction on parenting time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by failing to consider father’s Greenwich rental/visitation expenses for deviation from child support guidelines | Battistotti: Greenwich apartment and travel were necessary, substantial, and incurred solely to maintain relationship with the child and therefore justify deviation | Suzanne: No meaningful challenge to the expenses at trial; normal travel/visit costs often do not justify deviation | Court: Reversed — trial court abused its discretion by not analyzing deviation criteria (including §46b‑215a‑5c’s significant visitation expenses) despite finding father rented/renovated the apartment and undisputed expense evidence; remand for new hearing on support |
| Whether restricting father’s parenting time to Greenwich was an abuse of discretion | Battistotti: Geographic restriction is onerous, unsupported by findings, and inconsistent with finding that child should spend significant time with father | Suzanne: Restrictions necessary for child safety given conflicts and proposed safeguards; mother had legitimate safety/transportation concerns | Court: Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court made other findings (father’s lack of understanding of child’s needs, safety concerns, coercive behavior) supporting the restriction |
| Whether court improperly based support on earning capacity without following deviation procedure | Battistotti: (related) trial court used earning capacity and thus should have followed deviation procedures | Suzanne: — | Court: Not reached on merits (remanded support issue), but opinion reiterates rule that earning capacity may be used only after stating presumptive amount and finding guidelines inequitable/inappropriate |
| Whether overall financial orders were unsustainable and subject to reversal | Battistotti: Cumulative orders (support, guardian ad litem fees, maintaining two residences) impose unsustainable burden | Suzanne: Appeal is frivolous; expenses not mischaracterized | Court: Rejected cursory challenge to fee orders; only child support remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowling v. Szymczak, 309 Conn. 390 (standard of review in domestic relations)
- Righi v. Righi, 172 Conn. App. 427 (three‑part requirement for deviation from Guidelines)
- Fox v. Fox, 152 Conn. App. 611 (earning capacity relevance only after deviation invoked)
- Kiniry v. Kiniry, 299 Conn. 308 (requirement to state presumptive guideline amount on record to enable appellate review)
- Kavanah v. Kavanah, 142 Conn. App. 775 (deviation for travel expenses requires explanation why costs are extraordinary)
- Deshpande v. Deshpande, 142 Conn. App. 471 (court must specify presumptive amount and findings when deviating)
- Colbert v. Carr, 140 Conn. App. 229 (child support guideline parameters limit discretion)