156 Conn.App. 195
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Parties divorced in Massachusetts in 1998; mother (Gorski) awarded sole legal and physical custody of child M (b. 1995) and father (McIsaac) ordered to pay $200/week child support.
- Massachusetts retained support jurisdiction; the 1998 judgment and later modifications remained the basis for support; plaintiff filed certified copy in Connecticut under Conn. Gen. Stat. §46b-71.
- By the time of the Connecticut hearing M was 19, a University of Connecticut freshman, resident tuition, not self-supporting, and had lived with mother in Glastonbury before moving to dormitory; both parents contributed to support and college costs (each 40%).
- Father moved in 2013 to terminate his child support obligation (and recover payments) on grounds M had turned 18/finished high school; alternatively sought reversal under Massachusetts law asserting M would be domiciled with and principally dependent on him.
- Trial court found M domiciled with mother and principally dependent on her, rejected father's constitutional vagueness challenge to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208 §28, and declined to find any federal-law violation in the original Massachusetts garnishment; denied the modification motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gorski) | Defendant's Argument (McIsaac) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant met burden to terminate support by showing M no longer domiciled with or principally dependent on mother | Mother argued existing facts show M remains domiciled with and principally dependent on her | Father argued M was no longer domiciled with mother and not principally dependent, so support must terminate | Court: Defendant bore burden to prove change; findings that M was domiciled with and principally dependent on mother were supported by record and not clearly erroneous — modification denied |
| Whether Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208 §28 is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Mother: statute has settled meaning from case law and common definitions; gives fair warning | Father: terms "domiciled" and "principally dependent" are ambiguous and void for vagueness | Court: Terms have usual meanings and Massachusetts decisions interpret them; statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied |
| Whether Massachusetts garnishment/order violated federal law (42 U.S.C. §666) | Mother: not argued to violate federal law; enforcement valid | Father: garnishment must have termination date and federal law/Uniform Family Protection Act requires procedural protections; due process violation | Court: Claim inadequately briefed; court declined to review it |
| Relevance of child's future intent to change domicile | Mother: determination should be based on current facts at hearing | Father: intended future domicile with father should justify termination | Court: Future intent not determinative; court properly focused on present domicile and circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Freddo v. Freddo, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 353 (Mass. App. Ct.) (statutory framework for support beyond age 18 under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208 §28)
- Pierce v. Pierce, 455 Mass. 286 (Mass.) (party seeking modification must show material change in circumstances)
- Dotson v. Commissioner of Revenue, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 378 (Mass. App. Ct.) (domicile requires physical presence plus intent)
- Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v. Mahlowitz, 456 Mass. 627 (Mass.) (appellate review of factual findings: clearly erroneous standard; trial judge credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- Rocque v. Farricielli, 269 Conn. 187 (Conn.) (void-for-vagueness principles and due process fair‑warning analysis)
- Ferreira v. Pringle, 255 Conn. 330 (Conn.) (whether a person of ordinary intelligence would comprehend statutory language is the key vagueness inquiry)