This court has recently explored these issues and concluded in a written decision that "the recent trend in this State . . . holds the defendant liable to pay support based on earning capacity notwithstanding incarceration." Shipman v. Roberts, 15 S.M.D. ___ (2001). Other recent Connecticut case law supports this view.
These cases have held that voluntary criminal acts resulting in conviction and a prison sentence cannot excuse or alter the obligation to pay child support. At least 17 jurisdictions that have considered this issue adhere to this approach, including: Arizona, see State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Ayala, 916 P2d 504, 508 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1996); Arkansas, see Reid v. Reid, 944 SW2d 559, 562 (Ark.Ct.App. 1997); Connecticut, see Shipman v. Roberts, No. FA000630559, 2001 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1653, at *27 (Conn.Super. Ct. June 7, 2001); Delaware, see Division of Child Support Enf. ex rel. Harper v. Barrows, 570 A2d 1180, 1183 (Del. 1990); Indiana, see Davis v. Vance, 574 NE2d 330, 331 (Ind.Ct.App. 1991); Kansas, see In re Marriage of Thurmond, 962 P2d 1064, 1073 (Kan. 1998); Kentucky, see Commonwealth ex rel. Marshall v. Marshall, 15 SW3d 396, 401 (Ky.Ct.App. 2000); Louisiana, see State v. Nelson, 587 S2d 176, 178 (La.Ct.App. 1991); Montana, see Mooney v. Brennan, 848 P2d 1020, 1023-1024 (Mont. 1993); New Hampshire, see Noddin v. Noddin, 455 A2d 151, 1053-1054 (N.H. 1983); New York, see In the Matter of Knights, 522 NE2d 1045, 1046 (N.Y. 1988); North Dakota, see Koch v. Williams, 456 NW2d 299, 302 (N.D. 1990); Ohio, see Richardson v. Ballard, 681 NE2d 507, 508 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996); Oklahoma, see State ex rel. Jones v. Baggett, 990 P2d 235, 245-246 (Okla. 1999); Oregon, see Willis v. Willis, 820 P2d 858, 860 (Ore.App. 1981); Pennsylvania, see Yerkes v. Yerkes, 824 A2d 1164 (Penn.
See Thurmond, 962 P.2d at 1071-72; Halliwell, 741 A.2d at 645. At least fifteen jurisdictions appear to adhere to this approach, including: Arizona, see State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Ayala, 916 P.2d 504, 508 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1996); Arkansas, see Reid v. Reid, 944 S.W.2d 559, 562 (Ark.Ct.App. 1997); Connecticut, see Shipman v. Roberts, No. FA000630559, 2001 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1653, at *27 (Conn.Super.Ct. June 7, 2001); Delaware, see Division of Child Support Enf. ex rel. Harper v. Barrows, 570 A.2d 1180, 1183 (Del. 1990); Indiana, see Davis v. Vance, 574 N.E.2d 330, 331 (Ind.Ct.App. 1991); Kansas, see In re Marriage of Thurmond, 962 P.2d 1064, 1073 (Kan. 1998); Kentucky, see Commonwealth ex rel. Marshall v. Marshall, 15 S.W.3d 396, 401 (Ky.Ct.App. 2000); Louisiana, see State v. Nelson, 587 So.2d 176, 178 (La.Ct.App. 1991); Montana, see Mooney v. Brennan, 848 P.2d 1020, 1023-24 (Mont. 1993); New Hampshire, see Noddin v. Noddin, 455 A.2d 1051, 1053-54 (N.H. 1983); New York, see Matter of Knights, 522 N.E.2d 1045, 1046 (N.Y. 1988); North Dakota, see Koch v. Williams, 456 N.W.2d 299, 302 (N.D. 1990); Ohio, see Richardson v. Ballard, 681 N.E.2d 507, 508 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996); Oklahoma, see State ex rel. Jones v. Baggett, 990 P.2d 235, 245-46 (Okla.
Subsequently all reported decisions in Connecticut on the issue have followed Charette. Chenard v. Chenard, Superior Court judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. FA00-0161212, (November 27, 2002, Berdon, J.R.); Forman v. Forman, 29 Conn. L. Rev. 394, 2001 Ct.Sup. 3663 (March 13, 2001, Robaina, J.); Fox v. Fox, 16 S.M.D., 32 Conn. L. Rptr. 171, 2002 Ct.Sup. 6090 (May 3, 2002, Colella, F.S.M.); Shepaum v. Hernandez, 14 S.M.D. 374 (November. 20, 2000, Bentivegna, F.S.M); Shipman v. Roberts, 15 S.M.D. (2001); Suarez v. Carmona, 14 S.M.D. 414 (November 28, 2000, Bentivegna, F.S.M); McBride v. Singleton, 13 S.M.D. 267, 2000 Ct.Sup. 693 (December 25, 1999, Lifshitz, F.S.M); Morton v. Morton, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland at Rockville, Docket No. 67544 (April 7, 1999, Zarella, J.); Graham v. Graham, 12 S.M.D. 172 (November 19, 1998, Sosnoff, F.S.M.), Crouse v. Crouse, Superior Court judicial district of New London at Norwich, Docket No. 0107979, 21 Conn. L. Rptr. 390, 1998 Ct.Sup. 1642 (February 11, 1998, Solomon, J.); Carrero v. Gonzalez, 11 S.M.D. 177 (August 3, 1997, Lifshitz, F.S.M.); Scapin v. Scapin, Superior Court judicial district of Litchfield at Litchfield, 11 S.M.D. 171, 20 Conn. L. Rptr. 348, 3 Conn.Ops. 1039, 1997 Ct.Sup. 9530 (July 28, 1997, Lifshitz, F.S.M.). This development of common law placed Connecticut firmly in what has become the majority position among states, that incarceration for commission of a crime is no justification for relief from child support
Subsequently all reported decisions in Connecticut on the issue have been consistent with Charette and have abandoned Bridgeforth and its progeny. Chenard v. Chenard, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. FA00-0161212 (Berdon, J.T.R., Nov. 27, 2002); Forman v. Forman, 29 Conn. L. Rev. 394 (Robaina, J., March 13, 2001); Fox v. Fox, 16 S.M.D. 32 Conn.L.Rptr. 171 (Colella, F.S.M., May 3, 2002); Shepaum v. Hernandez, 14 S.M.D. 374 (Bentivegna, F.S.M., Nov. 20, 2000); Shipman v. Roberts, 15 S.M.D. (2001); Suarez v. Carmona, 14 S.M.D. 414 (Bentivegna, F.S.M., Nov. 28, 2000); McBride v. Singleton, 13 S.M.D. 267 (Lifshitz, F.S.M., Dec. 25, 1999); Morton v. Morton, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland at Rockville, Docket No. 67544 (Zarella, J., April 7, 1999); Graham v. Graham, 12 S.M.D. 172 (Nov. 19, 1998, Sosnoff, F.S.M.), Crouse v. Crouse, 21 Conn.L.Rptr. 390 (Solomon, J., 1998); Carrero v. Gonzalez, 11 S.M.D. 177 (Lifshitz, F.S.M., August 3, 1997); Scapin v. Scapin, 11 S.M.D. 171, 20 Conn. L. Rptr. 348, 3 Conn. Ops. 1039 (Lifshitz, F.S.M., 1997). It is also noteworthy that significant segments of the law upon which Bridgeforth is based are no longer valid.
The court concluded that "the recent trend in this State . . . holds the defendant liable to pay support based on earning capacity notwithstanding incarceration." Shipman v. Roberts, 15 S.M.D. ___, 30 Conn. L. Rptr. 47, 2001 Conn. Sup. 7471 (2001). Other recent Connecticut case law supports this view.