Moore v. Moore, 216 Conn.App. 179

Parties divorced after a Nov. 7, 2019 dissolution; they have three minor children and were awarded joint legal custody with shared residential custody.
The dissolution court noted the child‑support guidelines would produce a numerical award but expressly deviated and ordered no child support, stating it was in the best interests of the children and parents; it did not make the explicit statutory findings required to justify a deviation.
The dissolution judgment ordered $100/week alimony to defendant for seven years (modifiable as to amount) and directed the marital home be sold with proceeds split; parties lived separately after the sale.
On July 6, 2020 the defendant moved to modify child support (seeking guideline support) and to increase alimony, alleging a substantial change in circumstances (home sold, no cohabitation, income/expense changes, COVID‑19 work loss).
The trial court denied the motion on Aug. 17, 2020 solely because it found no substantial change in circumstances; it did not address the defendant’s alternative claim that the original child support order unlawfully deviated from the guidelines without required findings.
The appellate court reversed in part: it affirmed the alimony denial but remanded for a new hearing on child support because the trial court failed to address the deviation‑from‑guidelines issue (presumptive amount, inequity/inappropriateness finding, and deviation criteria).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred denying modification of child support	No substantial change; prior no‑support order was appropriate	Even if no change, original order substantially deviated from guidelines and lacked required on‑the‑record findings — so modification may be proper	Reversed in part and remanded: trial court abused discretion by not addressing the deviation issue; must calculate presumptive amount, decide if applying it would be inequitable/inappropriate, and specify deviation criteria if deviating
Whether trial court erred denying modification of alimony	No substantial change; original alimony order should stand	Sale of home, end of cohabitation, income/expense changes (including pandemic loss) constitute substantial change warranting increase	Affirmed: trial court reasonably found no substantial change under §46b‑86 and properly declined to modify alimony
Whether "best interests of the parents" can justify deviation from guidelines	Dissolution court relied on "best interests of the parents" as part of its deviation rationale	Defendant argued deviation must be justified by statutory/regulatory criteria, not parental‑interest rationale	The court noted "best interests of the parents" is not among the deviation criteria in the regulations and a proper deviation requires the three explicit findings set out in precedent

Righi v. Righi, 172 Conn. App. 427 (Conn. App. 2017) (discusses requirement that courts state presumptive guideline amount, find application inequitable/inappropriate, and identify deviation criteria)
McHugh v. McHugh, 27 Conn. App. 724 (Conn. App. 1992) (orders that substantially deviate from guidelines are modifiable unless the court made required findings)
Budrawich v. Budrawich, 200 Conn. App. 229 (Conn. App. 2020) (standards of review and trial court discretion in modification motions)
Dan v. Dan, 315 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2014) (explains substantial‑change prerequisite and limits on relitigation in modification proceedings)
O’Donnell v. Bozzuti, 148 Conn. App. 80 (Conn. App. 2014) (comparison of overall circumstances at original order and at modification request; income change alone may be insufficient)
Colbert v. Carr, 140 Conn. App. 229 (Conn. App. 2013) (child support guidelines limit trial court discretion in setting support)