When awarding child support, Connecticut courts must follow the child support guidelines, which establish a presumptive amount based on the parents’ incomes. A court may deviate from these guidelines, however, only if it makes three specific findings on the record to justify the deviation. Failure to do so can result in reversal on appeal.  

A recent Connecticut Appellate Court decision, Lukasik v. Kopinska, illustrates the importance of ensuring trial courts adhere to these requirements to avoid improper deviations. 

What Are the Required Findings to Deviate from Child Support Guidelines? 

As emphasized in Lukasik, a trial court must make three specific findings to justify deviating from the child support guidelines: 

Finding #1: The presumptive child support amount under the guidelines 

Under the child support guidelines and related caselaw, child support guidelines are based on an “income share model, which requires an accurate and complete determination of the parties’ respective incomes.”

The current support contribution amounts calculated under these guidelines are presumed to be the correct amounts to be ordered. 

To rebut this presumption, a trial court first must make a finding that states the amount that would have been required by applying the child support guidelines.  

Finding #2: applying the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate 

Once the trial court determines the presumptive support amount, it then must make a second finding: “that the application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate in a particular case.”  

Such finding must be (1) on the record at a hearing, or (2) in a written judgment, order, or memorandum of decision of the court.  

Finding #3: which deviation criteria apply and how the court justifies the deviation 

The third finding the trial court must make is which deviation criteria apply and why the deviation is justified.  

As of the date of this blog post, the following deviation criteria—found in § 46b-215a-5c (b) of the regulations, exist:  

Connecticut Appellate Court Reverses Child Support Award in Lukasik 

In Lukasik, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s child support order because the court failed to make all three required findings, constituting reversible error. 

Case Background: Lukasik v. Kopinska 

The plaintiff, Czeslaw Lukasik, and the defendant, Karolina Kopinska, were never married but share a minor child born in 2015. The plaintiff initiated the custody action in 2022, seeking joint legal custody and primary residence of the child. The trial court ultimately awarded the parties joint legal custody with shared physical custody. 

The plaintiff owned and managed various properties, including a house in Brookfield that he had purchased outright. During the proceedings, the plaintiff testified that he offered the defendant rent-free housing in this property for one year, which would allow their child to remain in the same school and community. The plaintiff estimated that if he were to rent the property to a third party, he would receive approximately $2,500 per month in rental income. The defendant declined the offer, expressing concerns about the plaintiff potentially installing surveillance cameras, which she believed would infringe on her privacy. 

On the child support worksheet, the plaintiff reported a gross weekly income of $1,759 and a net weekly income of $1,193. The defendant reported a gross weekly income of $400 and a net weekly income of $362. Based on these figures, the child support guidelines established a presumptive child support obligation of $221 per week from the plaintiff to the defendant. 

In deviating from the child support guidelines, the trial court considered the housing arrangement offered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $600 per week in child support—an amount the court equated to the rental value of the Brookfield home—so that the defendant could use that money either to obtain independent housing or pay the plaintiff to stay in the Brookfield home.  

Why the Trial Court’s Child Support Order Was Reversed 

Although the trial court determined that the presumptive amount of child support was $221 per week (from plaintiff-father to defendant-mother), it failed to properly apply the deviation criteria and justify the deviation. 

As noted by the Appellate Court, in deviating from the guidelines, the trial court explained:

The plaintiff will pay $600 per week to the defendant for child support. Wage withholding shall apply. This deviation from the child support guidelines is because of the disparity in the parties’ incomes, the additional income resources available to the plaintiff and the coordination of total family resources. It would be inappropriate and inequitable NOT to deviate from the guidelines in this case. 

Reviewing the deviation justifications, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erred. 

First, the Appellate Court—construing narrowly the deviation criteria, as required by our case law —held that the “coordination of the total family support” criterion did not apply here because the parties were never married, and therefore, there was no alimony or division of property addressed. Nor did the trial court discuss any tax considerations or implications.  

Second, the Appellate Court concluded that the extraordinary income disparity—considered as part of the “special circumstances” criterion—was not a proper basis to deviate. Our courts have stated that “[i]ncome disparity may be considered . . . only when the custodial parent has the higher income and deviation from the presumptive support amount would enhance the lower income [noncustodial] parent’s ability to foster a relationship with the child . . . . This consideration is unambiguously intended to protect the noncustodial parent in circumstances where the income of the custodial parent far exceeds the income of the parent obligated to pay child support.” 

In this case, the parties shared custody on an equal basis, and there was no evidence that deviating from the guidelines would enhance the defendant-mother’s ability to have a relationship with the child. 

Third, and finally, the Appellate Court concluded that the trial court failed to make the requisite finding to explain why a deviation based on “the best interest of the child” was necessary. Specifically, the Appellate Court reiterated that “merely citing a specific criterion as a reason for deviation from the guidelines and failing to make a specific finding to justify such an action is improper.” Absent specific findings about why the presumptive child support amount was inequitable and why a deviation was necessary to meet the needs of the child, the trial court’s deviation was improper.

At bottom, the trial court failed to provide any explanation about why it properly deviated from the guidelines, and therefore, the Appellate Court reversed the child support order and remanded for a new hearing.  

Best Practices for Handling Child Support Deviation Issues 

For trial attorneys handling child support matters, ensuring that the trial court follows the proper steps in awarding or deviating from child support guidelines can prevent unnecessary appeals.  

By proactively addressing these issues at trial, attorneys can help secure enforceable, sustainable child support orders for their clients. Below are key strategies to ensure compliance with Connecticut’s child support deviation rules at both the trial and appellate levels. 

How Family Lawyers Can Address Child Support Deviation at Trial 

The best opportunity to correct deficient findings is at trial.  

If the trial court deviates from the child support guidelines to award your client child support, carefully review the trial court’s order. Ensure that the trial court made all 3 required findings before entering a deviated award.  

If the trial court fails to make all three findings, consider filing a Practice Book § 11-11 motion for reconsideration and reargument. In this motion, alert the trial court to settled Connecticut law, which requires all three findings to be made. This provides the trial court an opportunity to reconsider its order and bring it into compliance with the rules. 

This also saves your client the time and expense of an appeal on a reversible error—that the trial court failed to make all three required findings.   

Challenging an Improper Child Support Deviation on Appeal 

If you are a Connecticut appellate attorney or trial attorney representing an appellant who is fighting a deviated child support award, review the trial court’s decision for all three required findings. Failure to make all three findings is reversible error.  

Additionally, even if the court made the requisite findings, review the guidelines to determine whether the trial court properly relied on and applied the deviation criteria. 

Note: Our courts have instructed that the deviation criteria are narrowly defined. 

Defending a Trial Court’s Child Support Deviation on Appeal 

If you are a Connecticut appellate lawyer or trial attorney representing an appellee defending a deviated child support award and notice that the court’s order lacks complete findings, consider filing a Motion for Articulation. In moving for an articulation, you can ask the court to explain its reasoning for deviating from the child support guidelines. 

Bonus Appellate Practice Tip 

Although the Appellate Court affords great deference to the trial court in custody proceedings, the question of whether, and to what extent, the child support guidelines apply is a question of law—reviewing courts, therefore, exercise plenary review over those issues.  

Benefits of Hiring a Connecticut Appellate Lawyer 

Family law litigation is contentious. Hiring an independent Connecticut appellate attorney can provide your client with a fresh set of eyes on potential issues through an appellate lens.  

If you have questions about child support deviations on appeal or want to ensure a trial court’s order is properly supported, please feel free to contact me.