Opinion
UWYFA000160707S
08-01-2016
Scott Krauss v. Katie Coad
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER RE MOTION TO MODIFY #169
Gladys I. Nieves, Family Support Magistrate.
The defendant mother's motion to modify is granted, in part and denied, in part.
The defendant did receive some temporary relief of her motion to modify from June 29, 2015 until March 24, 2016 as more fully explained in this order but the motion is being denied for the time period subsequent to March 24, 2016 for the reasons set forth in this order.
On August 8, 2013, the court (Colella, F.S.M.) issued a child support order of $71 per week, payable to the plaintiff father for the subject child, Melanie Rose Krauss. At that time, while the presumptive orders were $0.00, the court deviated to a minimum wage earning capacity and found that to be in the best interest of the child. On April 21, 2014, the court (Fusco, F.S.M.), pursuant to a motion for contempt, entered a $4 per week arrearage order.
On June 29, 2015, the defendant mother filed a motion to modify downward and the court (Gilman, F.S.M.) found that there was a substantial change in circumstances and thus modified the child support orders to $0.00, on a temporary basis. The substantial change was based on the mother's testimony regarding her recent surgeries and medical condition. On the June 29, 2015 court date the court ordered the mother to provide a medical summary/update to the court for the following court date of January 25, 2016.
On January 22, 2016, at the request of the mother's counsel, the court continued the January 25th court date to February 11, 2016. The February 11th court date was further continued to March 24, 2016. On the March 24, 2016, this court reinstated the original orders, on a temporary basis. The orders were reinstated due to the fact that the mother failed to provide the court with the previously ordered medical documentation and hence, the court had no evidence that spoke to the mother's current inability to work. The court continued the case to May 5, 2016 for further review. At the mother's request, the court continued the May 5th court date to June 2, 2016. On June 2, 2016, the court (Sanchez-Figueroa, F.S.M.) noted the mother still had not provided the court with the medical report and ordered the mother to provide medical documentation addressing her ability to work and gave a final continuance to July 7, 2016.
On July 7, 2016 this court held a hearing regarding the defendant mother's request for permanent relief regarding her motion for modification. The mother also requested that this court vacate the reinstatement order entered on March 24, 2016.
General Statutes § 46b-86(a), as well as General Statues § 46b-215(e), states that a support order may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances of either party. " The moving party must [prove] that circumstances have changed since the last order such that it would be unjust or inequitable to hold either party to it." Olson v. Mohammadu, 310 Conn. 665, 672, 81 A.3d 215 (2013).
Upon full review of the testimony and documentary evidence, this court finds that while the court (Gilman, F.S.M.) found a substantial change in circumstances to justify a temporary modification, this court finds that the mother failed to prove that she continues to suffer from a medical condition that prohibits her from currently paying the original order. The defendant mother failed to provide the court with any medical documentation that specifically addressed her current ability to work, despite repeated court orders to do so. The court also notes that the mother testified that she earned $100/day power washing two homes just one day prior to the hearing of July 7, 2016. The court also finds that the party seeking the modification bears the burden of demonstrating a continued substantial change in circumstances to justify continued relief on the temporary order. See Light v. Grimes, 156 Conn.App. 53, 111 A.3d 551 (2015).
The court (Colella, F.S.M.) entered minimum wage orders on August 8, 2013 after the mother failed to provide a medical report that spoke to ability to work. The same situation exists at the current time.
The court recognizes that if the modification entered on June 29, 2015 was final, any subsequent orders to reinstate must make the necessary findings regarding presumptive orders and any applicable deviations. However, the June 29, 2015 modification was temporary. On the following court date the mother failed to provide the previously ordered documentation. The mother's reliance on Fox v. Fox, 152 Conn.App. 611, 99 A.3d 1206, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 945, 103 A.3d 977 (2014) and Tanzman v. Meurer, 309 Conn. 105, 70 A.3d 13 (2013) is misplaced. In Tanzman, the trial court failed to make the appropriate findings as to earning capacity when it entered the original orders. That is not the case here. The original orders, entered on August 8, 2013, made the necessary findings pursuant to the child support guidelines, as set forth in § 46b-215a-1 et seq. of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Also, in Fox, the trial court increased an original order upon modification and the Appellate Court found that the trial court erred in determining both the defendant's income and the presumptive amount under the guidelines. In the present case, this court did not increase the original orders, but rather reinstated the original orders due to the defendant's failure to meet her burden to justify any continued relief.
The motion to modify is denied, effective March 24, 2016.