George J. Moses v. Denise S. Moses
FA064009483S
Decided: January 17, 2012
The marriage of the parties was dissolved by decree of this court on November 20, 2007. ? The parties are the parents of one minor child, to wit: ?Jacqueline Victoria Moses, born May 30, 2002, who resides primarily with the defendant mother (?mother?). ? In relevant part, the court ordered the plaintiff father (?father?) to pay $140.00 per week in alimony and $154.00 per week in child support, consistent with the Child Support Guidelines (?Guidelines?). ? In addition, the court ordered the father to contribute 59% unreimbursed medical and day care expenses of the defendant mother (?mother?). ? The father moved for reargument (#?150.00) regarding, among other things, the percentage of his contribution toward day care.
Following reargument, the court issued a corrected Memorandum of Decision (#?153.10) dated September 18, 2008. ? Among other things, the father was ordered to continue pay $154.00 per week as and for child support, however, the court corrected its decision and ordered him to pay ?35% of the unreimbursed medical, dental, child care, camp and institutional after-school care for the minor child.? ? This change was consistent with the Guidelines. ? The matter comes before this court by way of the mother’s Motion for Contempt (#?161.00) dated October 14, 2008, claiming an arrearage in the father’s contribution toward day care monies expended by the mother.
The father, a Massachusetts resident, is currently unemployed, having previously worked as the manager of a fitness center. ? At the time of the hearing, the mother testified that she worked in large part from her home since May 2007, and that she had hired a nanny to care for the minor child. ? Although she testified that the hours can vary, she pays a minimum of $250.00 per week for the service. ? The father has continued to contribute to the day care, in the amount of $300.00 per month, which sum he believes comports with the Child Support Guidelines. ? For his part, he testified that he used the United Way of Connecticut ?2?1?1 Child Care? chart (Exhibit #?1), using the so called ?highest cost? for ?school age home? care. ? The mother claims a substantial arrearage; ?while the father claims that he has been compliant.
The court heard the parties on September 30, 2011 and again on November 29, 2011.
At the time of the hearing, the parties also orally stipulated to a revised parenting schedule. ?(TR 11/30/11 @ 1?16), as well as to a reduction in the child support to $102.00 per week, by way of a written Stipulation (#?187.00).
FINDINGS
1.?That the evidence demonstrates that for the period November 1, 2007 to September 30, 2011, the mother has expended a total of $53,585.60 for her day care expenses; ?that said expenses are for an ?at home? caregiver or nanny for, a school age child; ?and that her minimum payment was $250.00 per week for these services.
2.?That, at the time of the decree, statewide, the average cost of such care was $76.41 per week ($328.56) per month; ?that the highest cost for such care was $200.00 per week ($860.00 per month); ?that it is equitable and appropriate to find that, under all the facts and circumstances, the sum of $200.00 per week was a reasonable and necessary expenditure so that the mother could maintain her employment; ?that from the time of the initial decree to September 30, 2011, a fair and reasonable total amount of day care costs is $39,560.00; ?and that the father’s rate of contribution thereto was 35%, for a total obligation of $13,846.00.
3.?That since the date of the initial decree, the father has paid the sum of $9,900.00 toward such reasonable day care expenses.
4.?That there is a current arrearage in the amount of $3,946.00.
5.?That since the date of the original decree, as corrected, there was a clear and unequivocal order of the court; ?that the father has made a reasonable effort to be compliant therewith given his unemployed status; ?and that the father’s actions do not arise to the level of wilful contempt.
ORDER
The defendant’s Motion for Contempt having been heard, IT IS HEREBY DENIED, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, in addition to his basic child support obligation, the plaintiff pay to the defendant 20% of his current weekly child support obligation commencing February 1, 2012, until said arrearage is paid in full or further order of court.
THE COURT
SHAY, J.
Shay, Michael E., J.