Opinion
No. FA 96-0538570 S
February 9, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION POSTJUDGMENT, MOTION #219
This dissolution of marriage action went to judgment on December 24, 1996. On at least two prior occasions the court has modified that judgment. In the present Motion for Modification the defendant seeks: primary physical and residential custody of the minor child, Andrew; an order granting the plaintiff reasonable rights of visitation with the minor child, Andrew, as mutually agreed to by the parties; an order terminating the present child support order and wage withholding; an order granting the defendant the dependency exemption for Andrew for 2003 and years thereafter; and an order of child support from the plaintiff, consistent with the State of Connecticut Child Support Guidelines. On January 20, 2004 the court, Devine, J., having heard the present motion, entered the following orders: primary physical and residential custody of the minor child, Andrew, was awarded to the defendant; the plaintiff was awarded reasonable rights of visitation; and the existing wage withholding order was terminated. The court further ordered that the issues regarding child support and the tax exemption for Andrew would be heard by the court on February 2, 2004. In addition, Judge Devine ordered that neither party was to file tax returns for 2003 until further order of the court.
On February 2, 2004 the plaintiff, appearing pro se, and the defendant and his counsel appeared before this court and presented evidence and argument regarding the issues of child support and the allocation of the tax exemption for the minor child, Andrew.
The court, having heard the evidence and reviewed the file, makes the following findings of fact:
1. In light of the court orders of January 20, 2004, there has been a substantial change of circumstances which justify a modification of the child support order.
2. The Connecticut Child Support Guidelines call for the plaintiff to pay the defendant weekly child support in the amount of $71.
3. Under the circumstances of the present case, it is equitable to allocate to the defendant the tax exemption for the minor child, Andrew, for the tax year 2003 and following years.
The court may modify an order of child support where there has been a substantial change of circumstance. Section 46b-86(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes. There is a rebuttable presumption that child support orders should be in accordance with the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines. Section 46b-215b of the Connecticut General Statutes. It is within the court's power to allocate tax exemptions. Serrano v. Serrano, 213 Conn. 1, 11 (1989). The court also has the authority to order that the benefitted party compensate the party who transfers the tax exemption. McCarthy v. McCarthy, 60 Conn. App. 636, 639 (2000). Having considered the statutory criteria set forth in Sections 46b-84 and 46b-86 of the Connecticut General Statutes, and in light of the above authorities and the findings of fact, the court makes the following orders.
1. The judgment of the court is reopened and the plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant weekly child support in the amount of $71.
2. The order of child support is to be enforced by a contingent wage execution.
3. The defendant is allocated the tax exemption for the minor child, Andrew, for the tax year 2003 and following years.
4. For each year in which the defendant claims the tax exemption for the minor child, Andrew, the defendant is to give the plaintiff a credit on her child support obligation in an amount equal to the value, to the plaintiff, of the tax exemption. CT Page 1840
5. The order of child support is retroactive to the date of the filing of the motion, December 19, 2003.
6. The parties may now file, in accordance with the terms of this decision, their tax returns for 2003.
Hadden, J.