The Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut tells us in an informational pamphlet that “a child needs emotional and financial support of both parents.” When parents are not together (as a result of never having been married or getting a divorce), the financial support comes in the form of Child Support.
The history of child support in one form or another probably dates back to the beginning of time. The legal history of it in the United States dates back to the beginning of the country when the laws creating the obligation and duty of support were formed around the same time the 13 colonies were coming together in the 1770’s.
Over one hundred years later, a movement began to criminalize the failure to pay child support.
Then in 1975, President Gerald Ford signed into law the Child Support Enforcement Program under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. A Federal and State program, this system remains in full force and effect today in all 50 states. President Ford was himself “a child of divorce whose father failed to pay court-ordered child support,” according to NPR. Other sources indicate that he struggled with the decision to enact the law because it meant the government would be involved in domestic issues.
Across the country, there are three models used for the collection of child support: (1) the Income Shares Model, (2) the Percentage of Obligor Income Model and (3) the Melson Formula Model. Connecticut uses the Income Shares Model, which “presumes that the child should receive the same proportion of parental income he or she would have received if the parents lived together.” This information is provided by the State of Connecticut Commission for Child Support Guidelines.
Here in Connecticut, we use a Child Support Guideline Worksheet to calculate and determine the presumptive amount of support a non-custodial parent (also known as the “obligor’) would pay to the custodial parent (also known as the “obligee”). In the event of shared physical custody (50/50), the Guideline indicates that “the presumptive support amount is the amount that the parent with higher income would pay to the other parent.” It goes on to state that “shared physical custody can be grounds for deviating” and such “deviation might be warranted…where the parents have substantially equal income.”
Parents are able to deviate by agreement by checking a box on the Child Support Guideline Worksheet and choosing one of the listed reasons such as shared physical custody, or coordination of total family support, or extraordinary child or parental expenses. The Connecticut Regulations require that such agreements shall state the presumptive amount of support and include factual findings to justify the variance. (Conn. Agencies Regs. § 46b-215a-5c)
Moreover, a recent Connecticut Appellate Court decision in the case of Wald v. Cortland-Wald, 226 Conn. App. 752 (2024) made clear that the Court at trial, must make the required findings in order to appropriately deviate. In Wald, the Appellate Court found that the Trial Court erred by failing to make the required findings, and the case was remanded for a new trial.
At last week’s Family Law Section Meeting of the Connecticut Bar Association, Attorney David McGrath provided case law updates. He stated that Wald is a “significant precedent” for requiring the factors “necessary to deviate from the presumptive child support guideline award with regard to shared parenting.” He further noted that the Court in Wald, “determined that the support orders were sufficiently intertwined with the other financial orders [such as alimony] as to trigger the mosaic doctrine and require a new trial on all financial orders.”
Never having heard of The Mosaic Doctrine before, I started doing a little research. Intrigued simply by the word “mosaic,” I started with the definition. Gus Portokalos (the Father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding) would appreciate that the origin of the word comes from the Greek root “mousa” meaning muse. The dictionary defines it as a picture or pattern produced by arranging together small colored pieces of hard material, such as stone, tile or glass. After I got off of Google and onto Fastcase, it turns out that it all started in the 1984 case of Ehrenkranz v. Ehrenkranz, 2 Conn. App. 416 (1984), in which the Court stated “the rendering of a judgment in a complicated dissolution case is a carefully crafted mosaic, each element of which may be dependent on the other.” Thanks to a colleague, I was then directed to a fascinating Connecticut Bar Journal article by Louis Parley (73 CBJ 125) that explained what he calls the Mosaic Law or Rule, clarifying that because of this “interdependency,” if one financial element needs to be tweaked the whole case needs to go back to the trial court for a new trial.
As interesting as that is, and as important as it is in practice of matrimonial law, let’s get back to the matter at hand.
The Child support Guidelines also provide for unreimbursed medical expenses and work-related childcare, determining what percentage each parent will contribute.
Child Support is not taxable to either parent. Meaning the recipient does not have to report it as income and the parent who pays support cannot claim it as a deduction.
The obligation to pay child support and any arrearage therefrom is not dischargeable in Bankruptcy.
If an individual is owed child support and has a valid child support order, they can seek private legal counsel like me or contact the State of Connecticut’s Support Enforcement Services (SES) to begin collection actions.
Failure to pay child support can result in several penalties, including but not limited to, income withholding or wage garnishment, interception of tax refunds, lottery winnings and insurance settlements, suspension of driver’s and professional licenses, placement of liens against, or seizures of, property, the denial or revocation of passports and being reported to the credit bureau.
If held in contempt of court for non-payment, incarceration may occur.
The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) can make the reach of enforcement international. So, the bottom line is: no one can really get away without supporting their children.
