Clark v. Clark, 127 Conn. App. 148

The dissolution action between Mary Ann Clark (defendant) and Kenneth W. Clark (plaintiff) concerned two minor children, one with special needs.
The trial court dissolved the marriage, awarded sole custody to the defendant, and ordered unallocated alimony and child support of $5000 per month.
The court required health insurance for the children, directed a QDRO to reimburse medical expenses through the insurer, and ordered sale of Greenwich and Boca Raton properties with net proceeds split 65% to defendant and 35% to plaintiff.
Fees for the minor children’s attorney and guardian ad litem were to be shared equally and paid from respective property proceeds, with liens securing payment.
The court noted an outstanding arrearage to Eagle Hill School indicating the parties’ finances could not support ongoing special needs services.
On appeal, the defendant challenged (1) child’s treatment location or Florida home, (2) allocation of special needs expenses under child support guidelines, (3) who pays guardian ad litem and counsel fees, and (4) failure to include pendente lite arrearages in the final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether child’s treatment location or Florida home should have been ordered	Clark argues NY treatment or Florida home would be better for the child.	Clark contends the court erred in not preserving NY treatment or awarding Florida home for affordability.	No abuse; sale of Florida home reflects an equitable asset division.
Whether special needs expenses were properly allocated under guidelines	Court failed to allocate special needs expenses per guidelines.	Court adequately considered special needs despite unallocated order.	No merit; court explicitly noted special needs in its unallocated order.
Whether fees for guardian ad litem and minor children’s attorney were properly apportioned	Plaintiff should pay 90% of those fees due to his conduct.	Equal sharing of guardian ad litem and counsel fees is appropriate.	No abuse; record supports equal division under 46b-62 and 46b-82 factors.
Whether pendente lite arrearage was incorporated into the final judgment	The final judgment failed to include a pendente lite arrearage of $7500.	Argues for incorporation or enforcement of pendente lite terms.	Remanded to determine amount of pendente lite support arrearage and include it in the judgment.

Evans v. Taylor, 67 Conn.App. 108 (Conn. App. 2001) (pendente lite arrearages cannot be retroactively modified at dissolution)
Utz v. Utz, 112 Conn.App. 631 (Conn. App. 2009) (standard for reviewing trial court’s factual findings in family matters)
Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (Conn. 2010) (severability of financial orders when some items are interdependent)