Joao Monteiro v. Tracianna Light (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action for custody and visitation and other relief brought to the judicial district of Danbury.   The parties previously entered into an agreement regarding custody and visitation dated April 5, 2010.   The issue before the court has to do with support and other related financial issues.   The court finds that the plaintiff's gross weekly income is $1,512 less deductions.   In addition, he has bonus income which varies in amount.   His most recent bonus income paid in February 2010 for the calendar year 2009 was in the gross amount of $22,882 less deductions.   The deductions on the bonus for federal withholding amounted to $4,120, and for state withholding amounted to $1,144, and for social security amounted to $1,430, and for medicare amounted to $333, for total deductions of $7,027, and a net bonus amount of $22,882 less $7,027, or $15,855.   The defendant's gross weekly income is $676 less deductions.   Although the parties completed child support guideline worksheets using the approximate same gross weekly income, they are not in agreement as to what the child support guideline amount would be.   The court finds that the parties are in agreement that the plaintiff take one child as a deduction, the defendant take one child as a deduction, and they alternate the third child with the plaintiff having the third child in even-numbered years.   The court finds that under the child support guidelines the amount of support would be either $281 per week.   A support order is substantially within the guidelines if it is within 15 percent of the guidelines.   In this instance, the court is reducing the guideline amount by less than 15 percent for a support order of $245 per week.   The parties have stipulated that the proper way to handle the plaintiff's bonus income is by ordering that he pay to the defendant a net amount of that income including the bonus income that he earned in February 2010, although they disagree as to what that percentage should be.   The court enters the following orders:

ORDERS

1. By way of support, the court orders that the plaintiff pay to the defendant support in the amount of $245 per week.   In addition, the court orders that he pay to her within thirty (30) days from today's date, 15 percent of $15,855, which amounts to $2,378.25.

2. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the court orders that the plaintiff continue to provide health, dental and vision insurance for the three minor children.   In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the court orders that unreimbursed health, dental and vision expenses be divided equally between the parties.

3. The court further orders that any daycare expenses incurred while the children are with the plaintiff are to be the sole expense of the plaintiff, and any daycare expenses incurred while the children are with the defendant are to be the sole expense of the defendant.

4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the court retains jurisdiction over the issue of an educational support order.

5. The court has reviewed the custody and visitation agreement of the parties dated April 5, 2010 and find it to be in the best interests of the children and therefore incorporates it by reference in full into the judgment file.

6. The court finds that there is $150 arrearage on the existing support order and orders that that be paid within thirty (30) days from today's date by the plaintiff to the defendant.

7. The GAL has submitted an affidavit showing his total legal expenses and the amount paid by each party.   The court finds that the total reasonable expense of the GAL is $4,400.   The court finds that that total amount shall be divided equally between the parties with the plaintiff responsible for $2,200 and the defendant responsible for $2,200.   The plaintiff has paid to date $1,750 which leaves a balance due from him to the GAL of $450 which the court orders to be paid within thirty (30) days from today's date.   The defendant has paid a total of $900 which leaves a balance due from her of $1,300 which the court orders to be paid within thirty (30) days from today's date.   The bonus money to be received by her is to be used to pay her share of the GAL expense in full.

8. The court orders that the plaintiff take the second oldest child as a deduction for federal and state income tax purposes and the defendant take the oldest child as a deduction for federal and state income tax purposes with the parties alternating the youngest child, with the plaintiff taking that child in even-numbered years.   This order is to be effective for the federal and state income taxes to be paid for the calendar year 2010.

Sidney Axelrod, Judge Trial Referee

Axelrod, Sidney, J.T.R.