142 Conn. App. 471
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Married on Sept. 6, 1991; three children under 23 at judgment.
- Plaintiff Judith Deshpande filed dissolution on Nov. 24, 2009.
- May 13, 2010 and Nov. 4, 2010 agreements set child support at $322/week; both approved and ordered.
- Courts approved agreements without stating presumptive amount under guidelines or deviation findings.
- Trial on Feb. 7–8, 2011; dissolution judgment Feb. 8, 2011 continued $322/week with no presumptive amount or deviation findings.
- Court reverses on the child support order for lack of on-the-record presumptive amount and deviation explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court failed to state presumptive amount under guidelines | Deshpande argues guidelines require on-record presumptive amount. | Deshpande contends parties’ agreement may rebut presumption without specific on-record findings. | Granted: abuse of discretion; remanded for on-record findings. |
| Whether the court’s deviation from presumptive amount was properly explained | Deshpande contends deviations must be justified on the record. | Deshpande contends deviation justification was unnecessary given agreement. | Granted: deviation findings required; not satisfied. |
| Whether the court erred by limiting modification evidence | Deshpande claims court refused relevant financial-evidence for modification. | Not reached: Court reversed on issue 1; other claims undecided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiniry v. Kiniry, 299 Conn. 308 (2010) (on-record presumptive amount and deviation elements in guidelines)
- O'Brien v. O'Brien, 138 Conn. App. 544 (2012) (on guidelines and deviation findings in domestic cases)
- Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 (2013) (declaration that all awards must follow guidelines and deviation criteria)
- Urban Redevelopment Comm’n v. Katsetos, 86 Conn. App. 236 (2004) (collateral attack principles and timeliness concerns)