In a case set to be released on May 21, 2013 the Connecticut Appellate Court has overturned a lower court’s ruling that lowered the child support of a visiting father from a presumptive amount of $100 under existing guidelines to $75 as a result of the mother’s relocation within the state.
The trial court in Kavanah vs Kavanah found that Leo Kavanah’s costs in traveling back and forth between Southington, Connecticut and Monroe, Connecticut were ‘extraordinary’ within the meaning of Connecticut’s child support guidelines as they address reasons for deviation from presumptive support amounts.
The higher court held that the trial court had not sufficiently explained the basis for its conclusion that Mr. Kavanah, who had been ordered to do the driving for visitation, would be incurring extraordinary expenses — as opposed to normal expenses — as a result of his wife’s relocation.
This, alone, would not necessarily affect future cases assuming that parents seeking deviation for this reason were careful to present evidence of their visitation costs and that judges ordering deviation were careful to make specific findings about why they were reducing support.
However the Appellate Court did not stop at finding fault with the thoroughness of the lower court’s decision. In addition, they cited with approval another Superior Court decision, Weissman vs. Sissell, in which the court had observed that “[m]any non-custodial parents have some transportation costs to see their child—for parents living within driving distance of each other, for example, the non-custodial parent is likely to pay for fuel and other costs picking up or dropping off the child,
but these ordinary expenses usually do not warrant a deviation from the presumptive amount.’’
Appeals are expensive and, in the case of family law, difficult to win, so it is relatively rare to see a support case with so little at issue reach the Appellate Court.
This is not to say that the difference between $100 and $75 was insignificant to the parties in this case or to other divorcing parents. Certainly the Kavanah case has not closed the door on deviations for low-income individuals for whom in-state or other short-distance travel costs are burdensome, but it raises the bar for how the issue must be presented to the courts and makes it imperative that the court be reminded to make appropriate findings to justify why — in a particular case — transportation expenses that might be normal for some people are extraordinary in the context of the individual circumstances of the family before the court.
A new article on Forbes.com by Attorney Jeff Landers gives a nice overview of the reasons to gear up early once you sense that divorce may be one outcome of your marital problems.
While Jeff seems to suggest that divorce dirty tricks are the exclusive province of men, in our experience the risks and considerations he outlines in this otherwise informative article apply to both genders.
Landers points out that consulting an attorney early can not only provide you with a crucial checklist for contingency planning, but can also assure that your spouse won’t beat you to the punch by consulting several of the best area lawyers simply to disqualify them from representing you. He also notes that starting the action assures that if the matter goes to trial down the road, you will be the one, as the plaintiff, to present your case first.
Our clients in Connecticut should also know that by filing for divorce certain Automatic Orders take effect the moment the divorce papers are served on their spouse. These orders prevent the other party from doing a number of things including moving out-of-state with children, hiding assets, taking sole ownership of joint assets, changing locks on the marital residence, changing beneficiaries on existing insurance policies and more. The full text and a summary of the Automatic Orders can be found here on the Connecticut Judicial Website.
Bottom line? While you’re hoping for the best and working on your marriage it also makes sense to prepare well for the worst
If you ever find yourself in a lawsuit, your Facebook privacy settings may no longer matter.
Discovery is a process through which parties to a lawsuit collect evidence and information to prepare their cases for settlement negotiations or trial.
Often, parties squabble over whether certain documents or areas of questioning are ‘discoverable’. Usually the dispute over whether a discovery request must be honored is based on a claim that the document or information is either too burdensome to produce or is protected by laws concerning personal privacy.
Lately, more and more of those squabbles concern whether an individual’s Facebook password and posts are discoverable. For anyone who hoped that their Facebook privacy settings were enough to keep their online discourse private from enemies or adversaries, that hope is fading fast.
Most often, Courts deal with demands for Facebook access in the context of personal injury litigation where the defendant wants to use Facebook photos or posts to show that the plaintiff’s injuries are not as serious as he or she claims. Let’s face it – photos of your golf swing or dance moves will shoot serious holes in your disability claim.
Courts increasingly agree that Facebook content is fair game in the discovery process.
Laws that prevent Facebook, itself, and other social media sites from disclosing member’s private information are of no help if you are the one being asked to allow access. For example, a Pennsylvania court recently found that the federal Stored Communications Act, which would have prevented Facebook from honoring a subpoena of documents, did not apply to the Defendant, himself.
Personal injury litigation is not the only area of law affected by this trend. In a recent pretrial ruling, a Connecticut court paved the way for a divorcing couple in a child custody case to examine each other’s past and current Facebook posts following an attempt by the wife to change her password and delete posts.
Conventional wisdom has always dictated that we shouldn’t post anything on Facebook that we wouldn’t want a potential employer to see. What this growing body of caselaw shows us is that, when you share too much information with your Facebook friends, you risk losing more than just a job.