Christine C. Collins f/k/a Christine C. Defazio v. Richard J. Defazio (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION de DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION POST-JUDGMENT (254) and DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COUNSEL FEES POST-JUDGMENT (242)

The defendant seeks a change in paragraph 5.2 of the separation agreement incorporated in the judgment of dissolution, quoted as follows:

5.2 The parties shall share equally any non-reimbursed medical, dental, orthodontia, and prescription expenses for the child.   Non-reimbursed expenses shall include, but not be limited to, medical, surgical, hospitalization, dental, orthodontia, optical, psychological, psychiatric, nursing, laboratory fees, and the cost of prescriptive drugs.   Except in the case of routine examinations or an emergency, both parties shall make any decision with respect to any proposed minor or major medical, surgical, or dental procedures for the child.   Except in the case of an emergency, neither party may obligate the other parent for non-reimbursed expenses in excess of $1,000.00 per year per child without the express written consent of the others.   The Husband's and Wife's obligations herein shall terminate at such time as the minor child attains the age of eighteen (18) and completes the twelfth grade, attains the age of nineteen (19), or dies, whichever event shall first occur.

The defendant alleges a substantial reduction of income and, on information and belief, the plaintiff's income has substantially increased.

The child support guidelines worksheet submitted to the court when judgment was rendered listed the defendant's net weekly income as $6,575 with basic child support for their two children as $566 plus $52 weekly health insurance premium.   Since the weekly income exceeded $4,000 the parties agreed on the quoted provision.

The defendant is obliged to pay unallocated alimony and child support.   The court notes that the reason for the deviation was stated as “CONN. REGS. Sec. 46B-215a-3(b)(5)-COORDINATION OF TOTAL FAMILY SUPPORT.”   If the defendant's weekly income in the future falls below $4,000 weekly the guidelines would be followed, Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80 (2010).   The defendant has failed to prove the need to rewrite the provision.   The motion is denied.

The Motion for Attorneys fees is denied.

THE COURT

HARRIGAN, J.T.R.

Harrigan, Dennis F., J.T.R.