DocketNumber: No. FA89 0102326 S
Citation Numbers: 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 8587
Judges: HARRIGAN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/26/1997
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The defendant sets forth two bases for his motion.
"1. The final decree of the parties substantially deviates from the child support guidelines; and 2. The financial circumstances of the parties has changed substantially."
1. Non-modifiability claim
The defendant is seeking a reduction in his child support order. The plaintiff asserts that the original agreement as amended prohibits modification. Non-modifiability must be found in the language of the judgment. Rau v. Rau,
The defendant alleges he is entitled to a modification of his child support since the 1993 formula does not conform to the CT Page 8588 current child support guidelines. At the time the 1993 modification was entered the court made no findings regarding the guidelines. Each party was represented by counsel, and all four signed the stipulation. It does not appear that any findings were requested. It is inferred that the deviation was accepted by the parties.
I. The first issue is whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction to modify the support order. Amodio v. Amodio,
"for future computations of child support in accordance the [sic] said Separation Agreement. ." (Emphasis added.)
The provision denies this court the power to modify the support order.
The defendant's motion is denied.
HARRIGAN, J.