Robinson v. Robinson
AC38222
| Conn. App. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Married in 1993; four minor children from the marriage.
- Divorced February 3, 2014; dissolution judgment incorporated the parties' separation agreement.
- Separation agreement provides joint legal custody, plaintiff as primary residential parent, and defendant has liberal access.
- Agreement includes child support sequence: $400/week (year 1), $300/week (year 2), $200/week (year 3); alimony $1000/week.
- June 18, 2015: defendant self-represented moves for downward child-support modification and custody status changes; hearing held; court denies modification but alters primary residence for three children to defendant and finds shared physical custody; presumptive support under guidelines is $221/week, with upward deviation to $300/week justified.
- Appeal followed challenging (1) presumptive support calculation, (2) shared custody finding, and (3) upward deviation from presumptive amount; trial court’s judgment affirmed on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony affects gross income for guidelines. | Robinson argues alimony paid should be counted as income to plaintiff. | Robinson argues alimony is not appropriately excluded from income; should adjust both sides accordingly. | No error; alimony paid is not income to plaintiff and not an exclusion for defendant’s income. |
| Whether court properly found shared physical custody. | Robinson contends there was no valid basis for shared custody. | Robinson contends the change in residence supports shared custody. | Court did not abuse discretion; shared custody found based on children’s movement between households. |
| Whether upward deviation from presumptive support was justified. | Robinson asserts deviation should not be allowed given the change in circumstances. | Robinson argues deviation appropriate to ensure both households’ needs. | Court did not abuse discretion; deviation warranted to maintain both households for the children's needs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission, 284 Conn. 838 (Conn. 2008) (statutory construction doctrine; expressio unius est exclusio alterius)
- Teresa T. v. Ragaglia, 272 Conn. 734 (Conn. 2005) (agency regulations interpreted per statutory rules)
- Lusa v. Grunberg, 101 Conn. App. 739 (Conn. App. 2007) (plenary review of agency regulations in support of guidelines)
- Budrawich v. Budrawich, 156 Conn. App. 628 (Conn. App. 2015) (standard for modification based on substantial change or deviation)
- Rosier v. Rosier, 103 Conn. App. 338 (Conn. App. 2007) (limitations on re-litigating issues in modification)
- Amodio v. Amodio, 56 Conn. App. 459 (Conn. App. 2000) (guidelines purpose and equitable considerations)
- Pite v. Pite, 135 Conn. App. 819 (Conn. App. 2012) (broad discretion in domestic relations; defer to trial court)
- Elm City Cheese Co. v. Federico, 251 Conn. 59 (Conn. 1999) (review of factual findings where necessary)