DocketNumber: No. FA94 0138993
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 12498
Judges: KAVANEWSKY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 11/3/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The marriage of the parties was dissolved in 1994. There remains one minor child issue of the marriage. The gravamen of the plaintiff-petitioner's appeal is that the magistrate erred in failing to allow him a credit, in toto, against his payment order for current support and arrearage.
An arrearage liability was incurred by the defendant-respondent while she was the noncustodial parent. The defendant then gained custody. The plaintiff, now that he is the non-custodial parent, asked the magistrate to suspend his support payments until such time as they equal the defendant's arrearage due to him. The magistrate declined, instead ordering each party to pay arrearage liabilities to the other on a weekly basis. This appeal followed.
An appeal from a decision of a family support magistrate is a matter of statute. C.G.S. §
The plaintiff's claim must be rejected for at least three reasons. First, in setting child support and arrearage orders, a court (here, the magistrate) must consider the Child Support Guidelines. C.G.S. §
Second, it would be unwise as a matter of policy to have an inflexible rule that a child support obligor would always be entitled to offset against his obligations an arrearage owed to him by a present obligee. The purpose of child support orders is to help assure the economic well-being of the minor child. Their purpose is to provide for the care of the child. Ferraro v.Ferraro,
Third, the plaintiff is not without a remedy. He can bring a contempt motion against the defendant if she fails to make the ordered weekly payments against her arrearage. A contempt finding and order may afford at least partial relief to the plaintiff.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
So Ordered.
KAVANEWSKY, J.