Ex-husband’s modified child support obligation based on ex-husband’s earning capacity, rather than on his actual income and minor children’s demonstrated needs, was inappropriate as violation of child support guidelines; ex-husband’s earning capacity was not invoked as deviation criterion in calculating modified support obligation, and there was no explanation as to why obligation calculated in accordance with actual income was unwarranted as inequitable or inappropriate, in contravention of guidelines. Trial court abused its discretion by imputing rate of return on ex-husband’s investment income that was not supported by evidence in action to modify ex-husband’s child support obligation; court obtained rate of return by performing its own mathematical calculations, rather than citing to any particular piece of evidence that contained such calculations, and record was silent with respect to exact nature of ex-wife’s investable assets, which court used to calculate rate of return.
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP152/152AP467.pdf
Laura W. Morgan is the owner and operator at Family Law Consulting in Charlottesville, Virginia.Laura is available for consultation, brief writing and research on family law issues throughout the country. She can be reached through her website. www.famlawconsult.com
Published on:
