2004 Ct. Sup. 13829
No. FA 00 83826 SConnecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield at Litchfield
September 8, 2004
ARTICULATION OF DECISION OF JULY 6, 2004
BRUNETTI, JUDGE.
The parties in this matter were divorced on November 6, 2002. The defendant by agreement was ordered to pay $157.00 per week in child support which was a downward deviation from the child support guidelines based on the parties acceptance of a shared parenting plan as recommended by the Family Service Reports of September 13, 2001 and July 2, 2002. On June 11, 2003 the Court, Walsh, J., found a substantial change in circumstances and reduced the defendant’s child support order to $100.00 per week effective on June 15, 2003. This was based on the defendant’s employer having filed bankruptcy and the defendant receiving an unemployment notice on March 1, 2003. On April 20, 2004 the defendant filed a motion to reduce the child support based on the fact he had taken a sales position in November 2003 at one-half his previous income. The plaintiff on June 8, 2004 filed a motion to increase the child support based upon the defendant having resumed full-time employment as well as having a second job. On or about July 6, 2004 the court heard argument and took evidence on both of these motions.
The court at that time reviewed the financial affidavits of both parties dated June 10, 2004 and the child support guidelines worksheets which were submitted. The court also reviewed the shared parenting plan and the time schedule submitted by the plaintiff. After review of the documents and the child support guidelines deviation criteria found in Section 46b-215a-3(6) of the General Statutes, the court awarded the plaintiff child support in the amount of $110.00 per week retroactive to May 17, 2004. This again was a downward deviation, based on the shared parenting plan. Though the parties have a shared parenting plan the evidence did show the plaintiff who is the custodial parent had responsibility for the child approximately sixty to seventy per cent of the time.
The motion for articulation is granted.
Brunetti, J. CT Page 13830
[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.] CT Page 13831