Opinion
No. FA96 0079152
April 24, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Motion for Contempt (Motion #138 dated July 26, 2006)
Before the court is the plaintiff wife's motion for contempt wherein she alleges the defendant failed to pay court-ordered child support.
The parties' marriage was dissolved by a judgment dated May 22, 1997. The court order incorporated a separation agreement that provided in relevant part.
The parties shall equally share the cost of tuition, uniforms, books and other school related activities for the children to attend St. John's in Old Saybrook. The Wife shall be responsible for Mark's clothing, (other than uniforms), and other personal needs. The Husband shall be responsible for Matthew's clothing, (other than uniforms), and other personal needs. The parties shall not pay any child support to each other based on the custodial arrangement. The parties acknowledge that for purposes of this child support agreement they have attributed a $40,000 earning capacity to the Husband.
In December 1999, the parties both filed a series of motions involving custody, visitation, child support and contempt allegations. They resolved all issues, providing the court with a written agreement dated April 2, 2000. That agreement provided.
The Defendant Father shall pay to the Plaintiff Mother the sum of $603 per month as child support for each child. ($1206 per month) ($278 per week)
. . .
The issue of child support and allocation of dependency exemption may be reviewed by either party upon the older boy no longer being eligible for child support.
Both parties were represented by counsel at the time of the April 2000 agreement.
In July 2006, the plaintiff filed the instant motion for contempt. In that motion the plaintiff has alleged "without seeking a modification of the aforesaid Orders and without a court order thereof, the Defendant unilaterally reduced his payment of child support to $603 per month when the older child Matthew reached the age of 18, and thereafter, unilaterally stopped paying and child support whatsoever."
This court notified the litigants in October 2007 and December 2007 that the pending motions would be dismissed for failure to prosecute in a timely manner.
Connecticut procedure authorizes motions for contempt, one of the few vehicles available to enforce compliance with court orders. The burden of establishing a prima facie showing of contempt, in this case the willful disobedience of a court order, falls upon the plaintiff. In the present action, the plaintiff has established the existence of an order. That order incorporated the parties' voluntary agreement. The duration of that order is at issue.
The resolution of this matter is guided by a recent decision in Connecticut Appellate Court, Sutherland v. Sutherland, 107 Conn.App. 1, A.2d (2008).
With respect to the separation agreement, "[i]t is familiar law that a marital dissolution agreement is a contract . . . A contract must be construed to effectuate the intent of the parties, which is determined from the language used interpreted in the light of the situation of the parties and the circumstances connected with the transaction . . . The intent of the parties is to be ascertained by a fair and reasonable construction of the written words and . . . the language used must be accorded its common, natural, and ordinary meaning and usage where it can be sensibly applied to the subject matter of the contract . . . Where the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, the contract is to be given effect according to its terms." (Internal quotation marks omitted; internal citations omitted). Sutherland, 107 Conn.App. at 5-6.
As in Sutherland, the question before this court is whether the parties' written agreement contained a post-majority support provision. "Absent . . . a written agreement by the parties, the court does not have jurisdiction to order payment of child support beyond the age of majority and may not enforce such an order." Sutherland, 107 Conn.App at 6. See also Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-66.
Examining the issues presented, and reading the contract that these litigants presented to the court, it is clear that the defendant did not ignore his obligations under the existing order. He paid child support until the children reached the age of majority. Nothing more was required.
The motion for contempt is denied.