Lionel A. Edlam, Jr. v. Shaquanar Beeks (2014)

CLARIFICATION OF DECISION

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification of the court's October 22, 2013 decision on January 17, 2014.   He seeks a ruling on the question of unreimbursed health-related expenses for the parties' minor child.

“Motions for articulation or clarification, although not specifically described in the rules of practice, are commonly considered by trial courts and are procedurally proper.”  Holcomb v. Holcomb, 22 Conn.App. 363, 366 (1990).   Clarifications are appropriate when the trial court failed to rule on a matter.  Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 232 (2003).   It is the proper procedural vehicle to ask the trial judge to rule on an overlooked matter.  Wallenta v. Moscowitz, 81 Conn.App. 213, 230, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 909 (2004).   Clarifications are not to be used by the trial court to “substitute a new decision [or] to change the reasoning or basis of a prior decision.”  Walshon v. Walshon, 42 Conn.App. 651, 655–56 (1996).

The court entered a weekly child support order on October 22, 2013 but failed to address unreimbursed health-related expenses and work-related day care costs for the parties' minor child.   The court adopted defendant's Guidelines Worksheet (# 219) as the presumptive amounts of child support to be awarded because it accurately reflected defendant's then-current earning capacity—zero.¹  Defendant credibly testified that she would return to work around the first of the New Year, and the court found that she would then have an earning capacity of minimum wage.   The court set the start date of her support obligation at January 1, 2014.   The amount, however, needed to be further adjusted because of defendant's significant travel expenses necessary to maintain a satisfactory parental relationship per the Guildelines' deviation criteria.²  The court ordered defendant to pay $50.00 per week to plaintiff.

The court intended to split the unreimbursed health-related and work-related day care expenses equally between the parties but did not state this ruling on the record.   The court clarifies this order.   These parents shall share unreimbursed health-related and work-related day care expenses for their minor child equally from October 22, 2013 forward.

In reviewing these orders issued from the bench, the court noticed that it also misspoke about weekend access.   The court's orders reserved “the first, third and fourth weekend of every month” to defendant mother.³  Later, the court said that plaintiff father would have the “third and fifth weekend.” ⁴

The court meant that father was to have the then-remaining weekends with his son:  the second and the fifth—whenever that occurred in the calendar—not the third.

Carbonneau, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Defendant had just recently had a baby..  FN1. Defendant had just recently had a baby.

FN2. Section 46b–215a–3(b)(3)(A)..  FN2. Section 46b–215a–3(b)(3)(A).

FN3. Transcript of the Court's Orders, Carbonneau, J., October 22, 2013;  Page 8, line 2..  FN3. Transcript of the Court's Orders, Carbonneau, J., October 22, 2013;  Page 8, line 2.

FN4. Id. at Line 9..  FN4. Id. at Line 9.

Carbonneau, John L., J.