NANCY KINIRY v. RICHARD KINIRY, SC 18570
Judicial District of Middlesex
Dissolution of Marriage; Child Support; Whether Court, Having Ordered Neither Party to pay Child Support, Improperly Failed to find Presumptive Child Support Amount Under Child Support Guidelines and that Deviation from Guidelines was Warranted; Whether it was Correct for Court to make no Order Concerning Unreimbursed Medical, Dental and Child Care Expenses. The trial court rendered a judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties. The court ordered, among other things, that the parties would have joint legal, and shared physical, custody of their four minor children. The court further ordered that neither party would pay child support. The court explained that it made no finding as to the presumptive child support amount under the child support guidelines because the parties had not provided any evidence of that amount. The court also explained that it did not award child support to the defendant because he had not asked for it and that it did not award child support to the plaintiff because, under the parties' shared custody arrangement, their minor children spent approximately the same amount of time with each parent. The court further explained that a deviation from the presumptive child support amount was warranted because there was an extraordinary disparity between the parties' net incomes and not requiring the defendant, who had the lower income, to pay child support would enhance his ability to foster a relationship with the children. In this appeal, the plaintiff challenges the trial court's child support order on the ground that the court improperly failed to follow and apply the child support guidelines. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly failed to make a finding as to the presumptive child support amount. The plaintiff also claims that the court improperly found that a deviation from the presumptive child support amount was warranted without making a finding that such amount would be inequitable or inappropriate in this case. In addition, she contends that the court could not have reasonably concluded that the parties' shared custody arrangement, or the disparity in the parties' incomes, warranted a deviation from the presumptive child support amount. She maintains, moreover, that the court improperly refused to make a finding, as required by the guidelines, regarding responsibility for unreimbursed medical, dental and child care expenses. As to the court's property distribution orders, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly failed to consider the statutory criteria set forth in General Statutes § 46b-81 and that the court's factual findings are not reasonably supported by the evidence.