142 Conn. App. 45
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Tow filed for dissolution of marriage in May 2007; judgment of dissolution entered August 2007, incorporating the separation agreement.
- Separation agreement required Tow to pay $560 weekly child support for two minor children and alimony of $1,041 weekly for 13 years; defendant to pay the children’s college expenses.
- In July 2011, the trial court memorandum denied Tow’s contempt motion, granted Tow’s husband’s modification of child support and alimony, and denied Tow’s relocation motion.
- Tow claimed contempt for nine months after judgment during which the couple remained in the same home and Tow had access to the joint account; the court found about $92,000 deposited by Tow’s husband into the joint account, exceeding owed support and alimony, and adjudged no contempt.
- The court found substantial change in circumstances supporting modification: foreclosure and sale of the family home, husband’s net income decline, increased liabilities, and a child reaching majority; weekly support reduced to $328 (June 2010–June 2011) and $250 (as of June 2011), and alimony reduced to $550 retroactive to June 2010.
- Tow sought permission to relocate with the minor child to France; court denied, concluding relocation was not for a legitimate purpose and noting the child’s ongoing speed-skating opportunities in Connecticut.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt for nonpayment upheld? | Tow contends defendant violated orders by failing to pay support/alimony during the nine-month period. | Tow argues the joint account deposits and spending show no violation; funds exceeded ordered amounts. | Court did not abuse discretion; no contempt found. |
| Modification of child support and alimony proper? | Modifications were improper or unwarranted. | Substantial change in circumstances entitled modification under §46b-86; income drop and other factors justified reduction. | Court’s modification upheld. |
| Relocation with child allowed? | Relocation to France afforded legitimate purposes and benefits to child. | Relocation not for legitimate purpose; harms relationship with nonrelocating parent. | Court denied relocation; not for legitimate purpose; best interests not served. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Connell v. O’Connell, 101 Conn. App. 516 (2007) (standard for reviewing contempt findings is whether trial court abused discretion)
- Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316 (2008) (clear-error standard for trial court findings of fact)
- McKechnie v. McKechnie, 130 Conn. App. 411 (2011) (abuse-of-discretion review in relocation matters)
- Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539 (2012) (limits on nonmodification provisions in child support)
- Fawow v. Vargas, 231 Conn. 1 (1994) (modification considerations under relocation and support statutes)
- Guille v. Guille, 196 Conn. 260 (1985) (modification standards and court’s discretion in support orders)
- LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Lynch, 122 Conn. App. 686 (2010) (credibility and weighing of witness testimony as trier of fact)