148 Conn. App. 13
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- dissolution judgment of the 21-year marriage; two minor sons; relocation dispute: younger son to Ontario to reside with defendant; older son already in Canada with defendant; plaintiff seeks custody and challenges alimony, child support, and joint tax return order; defendant relocated to Canada, nursing license issues, and both parties’ financial orders part of 2012 judgment; trial court found best interests supported relocation and issued alimony and child support orders; joint tax return for 2011 year ordered but later found improper absent agreement; appeal challenges multiple financial and custody determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best interests relocation standard | Brown argues relocation to Canada was not in the child's best interests | Brown’s findings and 46b-56 criteria supported Canada as best | No abuse of discretion; relocation affirmed |
| Alimony and child support calculations | Court erred by not recognizing defendant’s earning capacity and by applying guidelines wrongly | Court properly considered earning capacity and deductions under guidelines | Alimony and child support affirmed on the merits; earning capacity not required; deductions appropriate |
| Modification of alimony; cohabitation and safe harbor | Court improperly limited modification rights due to cohabitation/safe harbor | Court properly allowed nonmodifiable terms and controlled modification under §46b-86 (b) | CourtDid not abuse discretion; limitations proper under law |
| Joint tax return order | Order to file joint tax return for 2011 lacked agreement per Kane v. Parry | Order lacked unilateral authority but not indicative of overall financial mosaic | Reversed only the joint tax return order; remanded for proper handling; no new hearing needed for remaining orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Lederle v. Spivey, 113 Conn. App. 177 (2009) (gives deference to trial court’s custody determination; abuse of discretion standard)
- Quinto v. Boccanfusco, 139 Conn. App. 129 (2012) (we do not retry credibility or weigh evidence anew)
- Emrich v. Emrich, 127 Conn. App. 691 (2011) (burden on appellants to show error in financial awards)
- Jungnelius v. Jungnelius, 133 Conn. App. 250 (2012) (broad discretion in alimony/property decisions; no presumption against)
- Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010) (definition of child support guidelines and burdens in setting awards)
- Kane v. Parry, 24 Conn. App. 307 (1991) (absence of agreement prevents court from ordering joint tax returns)