Ferraro v. Ferraro, 168 Conn. App. 723

Marriage of 21 years dissolved; two minor children. Trial court approved custody/parenting agreement and entered financial orders (alimony, child support, property division).
Court awarded defendant alimony ($500/wk for 2 years, then $450/wk for 10 years) and child support ($310/wk) based on court’s finding of parties’ weekly net incomes (defendant $1,408; plaintiff imputed $428).
Defendant’s financial affidavit showed a lower net weekly income ($1,077.10); parties did not present evidence supporting the tax/deduction figures the court used.
Court used a child support guidelines worksheet prepared by the Connecticut Judicial Service Center (April 28, 2015) whose figures diverged from parties’ affidavits; worksheet was not attached to the original decision and assumptions were not disclosed pre-judgment.
Defendant moved for reconsideration and later for articulation; court’s articulation (Sept. 4, 2015) attached a new worksheet and stated the worksheet was prepared from trial evidence and court-used software, but did not explain the bases for specific tax/deduction assumptions or whether judicial notice was taken.
Court also ordered equal sharing of minor children’s extracurricular activity expenses despite no request, evidence, or agreement provision addressing such expenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court’s net-income findings were supported by evidence	Court relied on worksheet reflecting trial evidence and judicially available tax info	Court relied on posttrial worksheet and assumptions not in evidence; defendant had no chance to rebut	Reversed financial orders; finding of defendant’s net income lacked evidentiary support and remand for new financial hearing
Whether court could rely on worksheet prepared by court staff/software	Worksheet merely implemented trial evidence and judicial discretion	Worksheet incorporated assumptions and third-party calculations without notice or opportunity to challenge	Court cannot rely on unsupported worksheet figures; if judicial notice taken, parties must be notified when facts are contestable
Whether court’s extracurricular-activity expense order was proper	(Plaintiff did not propose separate argument at appellate level)	Order was not requested and lacked evidentiary basis; created open-ended obligation	Order vacated as an abuse of discretion; no evidence or agreement supported allocation — remand to reconsider finances
Whether articulation’s modification of unreimbursed medical allocation was reviewable	Articulation clarifies court’s basis	Defendant argued articulation improperly modified judgment	Not reviewed on appeal (issue not preserved); court declined to consider that claim

Mensah v. Mensah, 145 Conn. App. 644 (appellate standard and review in family cases)
Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 (support and alimony must be based on net income)
Hughes v. Hughes, 95 Conn. App. 200 (context-specific application of net-income principle)
Aley v. Aley, 101 Conn. App. 220 (figures used in guideline worksheet must be based on underlying evidence)
Barbour v. Barbour, 156 Conn. App. 383 (court may not rely on worksheet lacking evidentiary basis)
Valentine v. Valentine, 149 Conn. App. 799 (mosaic doctrine — view financial orders as interdependent)
Moore v. Moore, 173 Conn. 120 (limits on judicial notice; notice and hearing for matters susceptible of contradiction)
Izard v. Izard, 88 Conn. App. 506 (distinction between legislative and adjudicative facts for judicial notice)
Giulietti v. Giulietti, 65 Conn. App. 813 (court may credit or discredit testimony but must provide basis for determinations)
Nashid v. Andrawis, 83 Conn. App. 115 (court may not delegate judicial authority to nonjudicial actors)
Koper v. Koper, 17 Conn. App. 480 (articulation cannot be used to change or substitute a decision)
Webster Trust v. Mardie Lane Homes, LLC, 93 Conn. App. 401 (preservation rule for appellate review)