Keating v. Ferrandino
10 A.3d 59
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Keating and Ferrandino, never married, have one child born August 16, 2002.
- In March 2006 Keating sought custody, child support, paternity determination, and attorneys’ fees.
- July 24, 2007, the parties entered a stipulation regarding custody and parental access.
- December 20, 2007, court found Ferrandino self-employed with earning capacity over $88,000 annually; Keating unemployed; Ferrandino paying support for two preexisting children; ordered $400 weekly child support plus 50% of unreimbursed medical and dental expenses.
- March 25, 2008 Ferrandino moved to open or set aside; August 28, 2008 court-modified to $125 weekly retroactive to December 20, 2007.
- June 25, 2009 Ferrandino moved to modify; October 28, 2009 court-modified to $90 weekly, required health insurance, and 55% of unreimbursed medical/dental expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in applying child support guidelines | Keating argues guidelines should control. | Ferrandino contends misapplication of guidelines. | Affirmed; issues inadequately briefed. |
| Whether a prior marriage’s children were properly considered | Keating contends all children in household should be considered. | Ferrandino asserts oversight of prior children’s support. | Affirmed; issues inadequately briefed. |
| Whether the court properly assessed the parties' available net income | Keating argues income properly reflected. | Ferrandino contends miscalculation of net income. | Affirmed; issues inadequately briefed. |
| Whether the court properly considered plaintiff's earning capacity | Keating asserts earning capacity should be considered. | Ferrandino argues it was wrongly considered or ignored. | Affirmed; issues inadequately briefed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paoletta v. Anchor Reef Club at Branford, LLC, 123 Conn.App. 402 (2010) (abandoned/insufficient briefing leads to non-review)
- State v. Adams, 117 Conn.App. 747 (2009) (liberal construction for pro se parties; cannot ignore rules)
- State v. Tocco, 120 Conn.App. 768 (2010) (court does not act as advocate for party)