Curtis Leach v. Kimberly Leach (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE CHILD CARE CONTRIBUTION

These parties appeared before the court on December 23, 2013 to argue an award of child support.   The court made presumptive findings under the Child Support Guidelines;  an award of child support flowing from defendant mother to plaintiff father;  an arrearage finding and payment schedule and set a percentage of payment for any unreimbursed health-related expenses for the parties' minor child.   The court reserved a decision on the last aspect of support, child care contribution.

Factual Findings

The court finds the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence after carefully assessing the credibility of the witnesses and assigning appropriate weight.   The court took judicial notice of the entire court file.   The court further considered any documentary evidence admitted as well as the parties' respective Financial Affidavits and the Guidelines Worksheet derived from these sworn statements.

Plaintiff currently provides the primary residence for the parties' minor son, Malik, age 4. Plaintiff does not work outside his home.   Rather, he cares for an elderly grandparent in his home.   His weekly expenses, $626.00, are paid by his current spouse with contributions from the grandfather.   See, Plaintiff's Financial Affidavit.   Plaintiff also lists a weekly “daycare” expense for Malik of $250.00 in his affidavit, but the program he described is far beyond ordinary babysitting.   Malik's fine motor skills and speech are developmentally delayed.   He receives services to address these challenges.   Plaintiff asserts that defendant should pay some portion of this expense per the Guidelines because it is a contribution towards Malik's necessary care.

Percentage of Child Care Contribution

The court finds that the presumptive split of child care contribution pursuant to the Guidelines is 25% to plaintiff and 75% to defendant.   The court further finds that application of the Guidelines would be unfair and inequitable given the facts of this case.   The basis of the court's intended deviation is the regularly recurring contribution plaintiff receives from the grandfather and his spouse.   The court finds that their provision of at least $626.00 per week for plaintiff's expenses to be an extraordinary reduction of his living expenses.   Regs., State Agency, Section 46b–215a–3(b)(D).

Under the circumstances found by the court, it is equitable for the parties to share Malik's child care contribution equally rather than the Guidelines presumption.¹

Qualifying Child Care Costs

The court used the phrase “work-related daycare” in its colloquy with plaintiff about this issue.   Plaintiff objected and accurately pointed out that such a phrase appears nowhere in the Guidelines.   Rather, the phrase “child care contribution” is used.

The Guidelines Preamble discusses child care contribution.   In relevant part, it reads, “[t]he costs subject to noncustodial parent reimbursement must be reasonable and necessary for the custodial parent to maintain employment,” Guidelines, Preamble (g)(4)(B), p. viii.   Child care costs are later defined as “amounts expended for the care and supervision of a child whose support is being determined.”   Guidelines, supra., 46b–215a–1(4).   Child care costs, however, qualify for a contribution from the non-custodial parent only to the extent that they are reasonable, are necessary to allow a parent to maintain employment, are not otherwise reimbursed or subsidized and do not exceed the level required to provide quality care from a licensed source.   Id., 46b–215a–2b(h)(2)(A);  emphasis added.

The court finds that Malik's current care is reasonable and necessary to meet his special needs.   Its cost is reasonable in light of the training and skill necessary to guide, teach and develop children like Malik.   There was no evidence that any of this expense was reimbursed or subsidized.   However, the sworn testimony of plaintiff is plain and clear.   His job is to stay at home and care for an elderly gentleman.   Malik's current care is for the boy to grow and develop, but it is not necessary to allow plaintiff to maintain employment.   That is an ancillary benefit.   The cost of Malik's program does not qualify as child care for reimbursement from the non-custodial parent.

SO ORDERED.

Carbonneau, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court made similar findings about unreimbursed health-related expenses for the minor child on the record at the hearing on December 23, 2013.   The court, however, incorrectly cited the coordination of total family support as the basis for deviation.   Regs., State Agency Section 46b–215a–3(b)(5).   The court on its own motion corrects its earlier finding and adopts the reasoning of this decision as the basis for its deviation from the Guidelines on the child's unreimbursed health-related expenses..  FN1. The court made similar findings about unreimbursed health-related expenses for the minor child on the record at the hearing on December 23, 2013.   The court, however, incorrectly cited the coordination of total family support as the basis for deviation.   Regs., State Agency Section 46b–215a–3(b)(5).   The court on its own motion corrects its earlier finding and adopts the reasoning of this decision as the basis for its deviation from the Guidelines on the child's unreimbursed health-related expenses.

Carbonneau, John L., J.