Lukasik v. Kopinska
231 Conn. App. 245
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- Plaintiff Czeslaw Lukasik and Defendant Karolina Kopinska, who were never married, share a child born in 2015 and lived together for several years.
- Lukasik filed an action in Connecticut for joint custody in 2022 and sought primary residence of the child, a parenting plan, and child support.
- The trial court awarded joint legal and physical custody, with a detailed shared schedule, and ordered Lukasik to pay $600 per week in child support—a clear upward deviation from the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines.
- The trial court based its deviation on coordination of total family resources, the best interest of the child, and extraordinary disparity between the parties’ incomes.
- Lukasik appealed, arguing the deviation was not justified under the law and guidelines, and the amount was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence concerning the child’s needs.
- On appeal, the court reversed the child support order, finding the trial court failed to provide a valid explanation or factual findings required for deviation under the guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly deviated from the child support guidelines | Deviation improper; court did not explain or justify use of criteria; no findings based on child’s needs | Deviation was supported by disparity in incomes and other circumstances; worksheets were considered | Improper deviation; criteria misapplied and no sufficient explanation tied to the child’s needs |
| Whether the best interest of the child and income disparity are valid bases for deviation | Citing best interest/income disparity alone is insufficient; must be tied to needs of child | Best interests and disparity warrant deviation; trial court has discretion | Best interest/disparity alone do not justify deviation without linkage to child’s needs |
| Whether the trial court should have made a specific finding of the presumptive support amount | Court never made specific finding, merely recited incomes | Worksheets made record clear; court relied on them | Court did determine presumptive amount but erred in deviation reasoning |
| Whether needs of the child supported the higher support award | No evidence of child’s needs or expense; deviation unrelated to needs | Not specifically addressed | No evidence or findings supported deviation based on needs; error |
Key Cases Cited
- Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 (Conn. 2013) (establishes required findings and limits on deviations from child support guidelines)
- Blondeau v. Baltierra, 337 Conn. 127 (Conn. 2020) (child support purpose and limits)
- Renstrup v. Renstrup, 217 Conn. App. 252 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023) (procedural requirements for deviation from guidelines)
- Zheng v. Xia, 204 Conn. App. 302 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021) (deviation not justified by income disparity unless enhances noncustodial parent’s relationship with child)