Posts tagged with "attorney"

Personal Injury Claim: Mother to Receive $7M for Child’s Injury

Mother to Receive $7 Million for Daughter’s Catastrophic Injuries

The parties in a personal injury case involving an unfortunate accident that caused traumatic brain injuries to an infant girl in New York have entered a settlement agreement just days before returning to the courtroom. Kenietra Grant is the plaintiff on behalf of her daughter, who was only two years old when her cranium was fractured in a 2008 motor vehicle accident. Ms. Grant will receive a settlement award in the amount of $7 million.

The Accident

The accident occurred on May 11, 2008. Ms. Grant and her daughter were traveling in a car driven by Sharnique Reynolds, who stopped the vehicle on the side of the road near the town of Tuxedo in Orange County, NY. According to counrt records from the Third Judicial Appellate Division, Ms. Reynolds decided to pull over after feeling overcome with drowsiness. Ms. Grants’ daughter was in the rear passenger seat when a car traveling at 65 mph struck Ms. Reynolds’ vehicle.

The driver of the striking vehicle, Estevan Nembhard, is a labor activist and organizer for Service Employees International Union. Mr. Nembhard was reportedly on his way back home from a meeting in Connecticut, where he met with future members of the labor union. The accident took place around 4:00 a.m. EST, and Ms. Grants’ daughter suffered traumatic brain injuries.

The Case

As the plaintiff on behalf of her daughter, Ms. Grant faced several challenges during her quest for relief. The case turned intricate with multiple defendants, various insurance companies, numerous motions and several cross claims. These are typical factors faced by catastrophic injury lawyers who represent the best interest of their clients in ruinous accidents such as the one suffered by Ms. Grants’ daughter.

Counsel for Mr. Nembhard’s employer has stated that the organizer was not performing the union’s work at the time of the accident. The union, however, has agreed to settle the case along with the insurers of the two vehicles involved in the collision.

By LaurenL, settlementboard.com

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our experienced team of personal injury attorneys is dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their families and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury.  Our personal injury attorneys assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and throughout Fairfield County. If you have any questions relating to a personal injury claim or an automobile accident claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact our Westport office by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com to get in touch with our Managing Partner, Joseph Maya.

Wrongful Death Suit: Texting While Driving Fatality

The family of a Utah boy who was killed in an alleged texting-while-driving accident is suing the driver who hit him for wrongful death. The accused driver, Jeffery Lloyd Bascom, is also facing criminal charges under the state’s distracted driving law.

Thomas LaVelle Clark, 15, was walking along a semi-rural road on the outskirts of the town of Vernal when he was hit from behind by a pickup driven by Bascom, 28. Clark was thrown 40 feet over a ditch and landed near a cow pasture, according to local news reports.

Bascom admitted to police on the scene that he was texting at the time of the accident. Utah makes homicide involving the use of a hand-held wireless communication device while driving a second degree felony, which carries a prison term of up to 15 years.

The Clark accident is far from an isolated incident, unfortunately. According to the National Safety Council, there have already been nearly 100,000 vehicle crashes in the country this year involving cell phone use, or one every 24 seconds. And the National Highway Traffic Safety Association reports that around 3,000 people were killed in distracted driving accidents in 2010. The Association further notes that cell phone users are 23 times more likely to be involved in a crash.

States are legislating to catch up with technology, but laws on phone use while driving vary across the country. Ten states plus Washington, D.C., ban handheld phone use by drivers across the board. An additional 29 ban text messaging only.

A Strong Stance

Utah’s distracted driving law was updated last year to ban any cell phone use while driving, with the exception of making a call or using GPS. Violators can be charged with a misdemeanor, with heightened penalties if there is an injury involved. A felony, like in Bascom’s situation, comes into play when there is loss of life.

“Utah has taken a strong stance on this growing problem,” says Anthony C. McMullin of the McMullin Legal Group in St. George, Utah. “Utah’s 2012 amended texting law makes it much easier for prosecutors to successfully charge and convict violators.”

Plaintiffs could potentially bring a wrongful death or personal injury lawsuit regardless of the criminal laws surrounding an accident, but the existence of specific language for distracted driving can make it easier for attorneys to show a driver was at fault. “Utah’s newly amended texting law also has civil implications,” McMullin says. “The new law heightens the responsibility and duty of all drivers when they get behind the wheel. A driver’s duties include keeping one’s vehicle under control, maintaining a proper lookout and obeying the motor vehicle laws of the State of Utah.”

Texting drivers leave a trail of evidence behind them. Police can check a phone at the scene or, barring that, investigators or attorneys can subpoena phone records from the carrier to find out if a driver was sending any messages at the time of an accident, making it likely that they will be held accountable for their actions.

“If a person is texting or otherwise operating a cell phone while driving and that usage results in a motor vehicle accident, it is typically very easy to establish a breach of the driver’s duties,” says the attorney. “Bottom line is if a driver causes an accident while texting, they may not only be charged criminally but will almost certainly be civilly responsible for any injured parties damages.”

By: Aaron Kase, Laywers.com

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our experienced team of personal injury attorneys is dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their families and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury.  Our personal injury attorneys assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and throughout Fairfield County. If you have any questions relating to a personal injury claim or wrongful death suit or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact our Westport office by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com to get in touch with our Managing Partner, Joseph Maya.

Court Denies Mother’s Request to Relocate with Minor Child

In a recent post judgment divorce action originating in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford, Judge Prestley denied a mother’s request to relocate to France with the parties’ children.  The parties were married in 1981 and after twenty-six years, sought and obtained a divorce in 2008.  During their marriage, the parties had three children, born in 1988, 1992 and 1998.  The youngest child was the only minor at the time of the post judgment action.

In August, 2009, after reconnecting with a high school friend who was living in France, the mother informed the father that she was going to make two-month-trips overseas, returning home for two weeks in between.  Sometime later, she informed the father that she was engaged to the high school friend, and planned to move to France with the children permanently.  The father initially agreed to the plan, but then changed his mind.  In June, 2010, the mother filed a Motion to Modify Visitation requesting permission to relocate with the children.  In October, 2010, the father agreed to the move, but only for the 2010-2011 school year.  As the parties were unable to reach an agreement, a full hearing was held in January, 2011.

In its decision the Court noted that, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §46b-56d(a), the party wishing to relocate must demonstrate that the relocation is for a legitimate purpose, and that the proposed relocation is reasonable in light of such purpose. In this particular case the Court found the plaintiff had no legitimate reason to justify the proposed move. The mother testified that although she could not work legally in France, she would continue to work with her clients and structure workshops in her field. The plaintiff testified she was going to teach one seminar in March 2011 in the state of Florida (while temporarily living in France), and that she taught another workshop for which she earned $500.00.  The Court found that although the plaintiff expressed her opinion that there were more opportunities for her in France, she provided no details to support that claim, and, thus, could not demonstrate that furthering her career opportunities was a legitimate reason for the move.

The plaintiff also contended that relocating to France would provide a cultural opportunity to the parties’ minor child. She testified that the child was a speed-skater, that he had a new coach in France and that skating was more important for him than spending time with the father, from whom he needed to heal.  She further suggested that the child had been unhappy and stressed since the divorce, and that contact between the son and his father was not healthy for the child.

With respect to the child’s needs, the Court found that although there was credible evidence that verbal altercations occurred between the mother and the father in the presence of the children, and that the child was upset about his father’s objections to his moving to France, the evidence also established that the defendant participated in his children’s lives to the extent that he was able given his work schedule.  The Court further found that the father’s relationship with his son was good until the pending issues arose, that the child was involved in speed-skating in Connecticut prior to the move to France, and that skating opportunities were still available to him here.

The Court ultimately held that it could not find any legitimate purpose, financial or otherwise, to justify the proposed relocation.  It noted that although time spent in a foreign country may provide some cultural advantages, those potential advantages were overshadowed by the irreparable harm the child would likely suffer as his relationship with his father was continuing to deteriorate with distance.  The Court essentially held that repairing and fostering the child’s relationship with his father was more important that any cultural advantages he may have gained by moving.

Should you have any questions about divorce in Connecticut or minor relocation cases within Divorce Court, contact our Managing Partner Joseph Maya directly via email at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or by telephone at (203) 221-3100 for a free consultation.

Court Denies Foster Parent’s Right to Intervene in DCF Proceeding

In a recent decision involving the Department of Children and Families (DCF), the Superior Court (Simon, J.) precluded a foster parent from intervening in proceedings designed to reunify a child with her biological father. DCF originally filed a request for an order of temporary custody, which the Court sustained by agreement, as well as a neglect petition, which the Court granted. Shortly thereafter, the child was committed to the Department, and placed in foster care. Although DCF later filed a request for termination of parental rights, the Court denied it, affording the child’s mother and father an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves.

In a parallel case, the child’s biological father was also committed to the Department, and ultimately placed in foster care himself. The Court found that the father was fully compliant with all DCF requirements, including attendance at school, and was also showing appropriate parenting skills. When the Department indicated it intended to reunify the child with her father in his new home, the child’s foster mother filed a motion seeking intervenor status to oppose the removal.

In denying the foster mother’s request, the Court explained, “A person or entity does not have a sufficient interest to qualify for the right to intervene merely because an impending judgment will have some effect on him, her, or it. The judgment to be rendered must affect the proposed intervenor’s direct or personal rights, not those of another.” The Court further explained, “These proceedings affect the rights of [the child] and her parents, not the rights of the foster mother. Foster parents are entrusted with foster children on a temporary basis only. Clearly the foster mother will be emotionally affected by the court’s decision; however the court’s judgment affects the rights of [the child] and her parents, particularly the father. It does not affect any direct or personal right that the foster mother may hold by law.”

With respect to the fact that the foster mother was allegedly told she would be the adoptive option for the child, the Court appeared to be sympathetic explaining it could “only imagine her frustration if in fact she was told she would be the adoptive resource…” Nevertheless, it ultimately held there was no controversy before it that require[d] the foster mother’s involvement.” Ultimately, “It is [the father] that has a right to be reunited with his daughter.”

Should you have any questions related to DCF proceedings, please feel free to contact our Managing Partner Joseph Maya directly via email at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or by telephone at (203) 221-3100 for a free consultation.

________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

Connecticut Appellate Court finds that Misappropriated Funds should not be part of Probate Estate

Connecticut Appellate Court finds that Misappropriated Funds should not be part of Probate Estate
Przekopski v. Przekop, 124 Conn. App. 238, 4 A. 3d 844 (2010)

The defendants, a sister, individually and as the executrix of her father’s estate, appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court, which upon a de novo appeal of a Probate Court order, denied a motion for rectification or for a corrected judgment, and ordered that the bank accounts misappropriated by the plaintiff brother be returned to the father’s estate for distribution.

The Appellate Court concluded that the Probate Court ordered the proper remedy and that it was improper for the Superior Court to order the transfer of the misappropriated funds from the plaintiff to the estate, instead of directly to the defendant, individually. The decedent used the survivorship accounts as a method of estate planning and he intended for the accounts to pass immediately to the defendant, individually, upon his death and not to be the subject of probate.

The Appellate Court recognized the decedent’s intent and wanted to ensure that the plaintiff did not profit from his abuse of the power of attorney that he utilized to substitute his name for the defendant’s individual name on certain bank accounts containing the funds.  The plaintiff did not engage in fair dealing in transferring certain bank accounts to himself under the power of attorney and abused his position of trust. The power of attorney did not authorize the plaintiff to change the name of the survivor on the accounts.

Because the plaintiff was a beneficiary under his father’s will and stood to inherit some of the funds if they were distributed pursuant to the will, it was error for the Superior Court to order the return of the funds to the estate.  The Appellate Court reversed the judgment only as to the order that the plaintiff transfer to the decedent’s estate all of the misappropriated funds.  The case was remanded with direction to order those funds, with the exception of the sum of $ 11,000, returned to the defendant, individually.

Should you have any questions relating to wills, trusts, estates or probate issues generally, please feel free to contact Joseph Maya at Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or by email at JMaya@Mayalaw.com, to schedule a free initial consultation.

Court Awards Wife Alimony Based on Husband’s Earning Capacity Despite His Unemployment

In a recent divorce action pending in the Judicial District of Stamford at Norwalk, the court awarded a wife alimony and child support based on the husband’s earning capacity even though he was unemployed at the time of trial.  The parties were married in 1995 and lived in Wilton, Connecticut with their three minor children.  The wife brought approximately $360,000.00 into the marriage, consisting of liquid assets and a trust interest.  Although the parties had numerous disagreements over the years, the court found them equally at fault for the breakdown of the marriage.

Although the husband was unemployed at the time of trial, the court found that he had a minimum earning capacity of $200,000.00, plus bonuses and commission.  Thus the court ordered the husband to pay the wife unallocated alimony and child support in the amount of $7,500.00 per month for a period of approximately ten years.  Additionally, commencing January 1, 2013, and for the same ten year period thereafter, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife 40% of his gross earned income between $201,000.00 and $400,000.00, and 30% of his gross earned income between $400,001.00 and $800,000.00.

Should you have any questions regarding alimony, or divorce actions in general, please do not hesitate to contact Michael D. DeMeola, Esq.  He can be reached in the firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at mdemeola@mayalaw.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

 

Court May Terminate Parental Rights Even Though Adoption Arrangement is not Secured

In the case of In Re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (2007), the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed whether it is ever in  a child’s best interest to terminate parental rights when an adoptive family has not yet been secured.  In that case, the child was the subject of a neglect petition filed by the Department of Children and Families alleging educational neglect, medical neglect and physical neglect.  After the petition was granted, the child was placed under protective supervision.  The mother subsequently moved out of state with the child; however, when she returned approximately a year later, the Department secured an Order of Temporary Custody based on additional reports of neglect.  After the OTC was granted, the child was committed to DCF’s care and placed in a foster home.

The Department of Children and Families subsequently filed a petition for termination of parental rights alleging that the child was being denied proper care and attention, and that the mother failed to rehabilitate herself.  After a trial, the court granted the Department’s petition, concluding that the child’s best interests would be served by severing the relationship with his mother.  The mother appealed on the basis that, among other things, the child’s foster parents had not guaranteed they would adopt him.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court explained that the law does not preclude the termination of a biological parent’s rights simply because adoption of the child by new parents is not imminent. Indeed, “Although subsequent adoption is the preferred outcome for a child whose biological parents have had their parental rights terminated… it is not a necessary prerequisite for the termination of parental rights.” (internal citations omitted). Id. at 492.  The Court further explained, “While long-term stability is critical to a child’s future health and development… adoption provides only one option for obtaining such stability.” (internal citations omitted). Id. at 492.  According to the Court, the reluctance of the child’s foster parents to proceed with adoption at the time of the termination proceedings was not a sufficient reason to disturb the trial court’s judgment. Id.

Citing various sources, the Court emphasized the importance of permanency, explaining “Children need secure and uninterrupted emotional relationships with the adults who are responsible for their care.” (internal citations omitted). Id. at 494-495.  “No child can grow emotionally while in limbo, never really belonging to anyone except on a temporary and ill-defined or partial basis.” (internal citations omitted). Id. at 495.

Written by: Michael D. DeMeola

________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

 

Court Approves Permanency Plan Including Termination of Parental Rights

In a recent decision involving the Department of Children and Families, the Court overruled the respondent mother’s objection to a proposed permanency plan that included termination of parental rights and adoption.  At the time of the hearing, the children were fourteen and eleven years old.  They both had special educational needs and were victims of sexual and physical abuse.  In 2005, they were taken into the custody of DCF after the Court granted an Order of Temporary Custody, or OTC.  Although the commitment was later revoked and the children returned to the mother’s care, they were eventually recommitted to the Department pursuant to a second OTC granted approximately two years later.

In overruling the mother’s objection, the Court noted that it is required to approve a permanency plan that is in the best interests of the child and takes into consideration the child’s need for permanency.  In considering a permanency plan, the child’s health and safety are of paramount concern. From an evidentiary standpoint, the judicial authority must find that the proposed goal of the permanency plan is in the best interests of the child by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

In this particular case, the Court considered the testimony of three expert witnesses, as well as evidence which established that both children were the victims of repeated sexual and physical abuse.  The Court further found that the parents failed to adequately acknowledge the abuse or the children’s special needs despite ample time and services.  Finally, the Court found that the children had been in foster care for over three years and felt a sense of well-being, safety and comfort in the home.  Based on those findings, the Court ultimately held that the permanency plan, including termination of parental rights, was in the children’s best interests.

Should you have any questions related to DCF proceedings, or family matters generally, please feel free to contact Michael D. DeMeola.  He practices in the firm’s Westport office and can be reached at (203) 221-3100 or mdemeola@mayalaw.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Our family law firm in Westport Connecticut serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. We have the best divorce attorneys and family attorneys in CT on staff that can help with your Connecticut divorce or New York divorce today.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to a divorce law attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100. We offer free divorce consultation as well as free consultation on all other familial matters. Divorce in CT and divorce in NYC is difficult, but education is power. Call our family law office in CT today.

Wife Found in Contempt of Court’s “Automatic Orders”

In a relatively recent decision rendered in a dissolution of marriage action, a wife was found in contempt for depriving her husband of information regarding the parties’ two minor children in violation of the court’s “automatic orders.”  In this particular case, the parties were married 1991, and were the parents of two children.  At the time of trial the husband was forty-three years old and in generally good health.  He had an associate’s degree and worked for a supply company earning approximately $51,000 annually.  The wife was also forty-three years old and in generally good health.  Although she stayed home to care for the family for a better part of the marriage, in 1999 she began working as an independent contractor selling kitchen products.  Later, she worked for a local board of education, and at the time of trial, was employed with a local newspaper earning roughly $20,000, plus commission, annually.

During the divorce proceedings, the husband filed a motion for contempt claiming the wife violated the court’s automatic orders in that she left the marital residence with the children and refused to disclose their location.  In reviewing the merits of the husband’s motion, the court noted that in a civil contempt proceeding, the movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a clear and unambiguous court order, and willful noncompliance with that order.  According to the court’s “automatic orders,” entered upon the commencement of every divorce action, neither party is permitted to remove children from the State of Connecticut without prior written consent of the other parent.  Additionally, a party vacating the marital residence with minor children must notify the other parent of the move, and must provide the other parent of an address where the relocated party can be contacted.  Finally, where parents live separate and apart during a divorce proceeding, pursuant to the “automatic orders,” they must assist their children in having contact with both parents.

In this particular case, the court found that because the wife was served in hand with a notice of automatic orders, she clearly knew she had an obligation to inform the husband in writing of any relocation.  The court found that she also knew she had a duty to assist her children in having contact with their father.  Nevertheless, the wife willfully removed the children from the home, and kept their address from the husband absent a valid reason for doing so.  As a result, the husband did not know where the children were living until the day of trial.  The court further found that the wife willfully kept the children from having contact with their father in violation of the court’s clear and unambiguous automatic orders.

Should you have any questions regarding automatic court orders, or divorce proceedings in general, please feel free to contact Attorney Michael D. DeMeola, Esq.  He can be reached in the firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at mdemeola@mayalaw.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Our firm in Westport serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to an attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100 for a free consultation. Divorce is difficult, education is power. Call today.

Keywords: divorce lawyer, divorce, lawyer, attorney, law firm, law office, legal advice, bankruptcy, CT divorce attorney, domestic violence rights, Connecticut, Connecticut divorce lawyers, marital property rights, CT divorce mediation, legal separation Connecticut, child custody laws, child support litigation, contested, uncontested, annulments, alimony, mediator, spouse, spousal support law, asset division, visitation right, premarital agreements, prenup, prenuptial agreement, prenup NY, restraining orders, appeals, custody modifications, legal separation CT, prenup CT, custody CT, filing divorce, filing, new, new haven, lawyers, attorneys, family law, family, Connecticut divorce attorney, divorce law, matrimonial law, custody, child custody CT, property division, dissolution of marriage, marriage, divorce NY, New York divorce, best divorce lawyer, visitation, visitation rights, post marital agreements, divorce law firm

New York Child Support Order Constitutes Impermissible Modification

Where a parent relocates to another state following a divorce, parties are often faced with the challenge of determining where to file post judgment motions.  In some cases, parties must also determine whether new – or different – orders are permitted under the laws of the state to which the former spouse moved.  In a relatively recent decision, a New York court addressed whether it was permitted to enter an entirely new child support order after a Connecticut order regarding the same children had expired.

The parties in this case were married in Connecticut and were the parents of three children.  When they separated, the mother moved with the children to New York while the father continued to reside in Connecticut.  As part of the divorce judgment, the court ordered the father to pay child support in the amount of $250.00 per week per minor child, and to continue providing the children with medical insurance at his sole expense. When the eldest son turned eighteen, the father’s support obligation terminated.

The mother subsequently filed a motion in New York seeking the reinstatement of child support.  In support of her motion, the mother claimed that under New York law, child support is payable until the age of twenty-one.  The father moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the new order constituted an impermissible modification of the original order issued in Connecticut.  The court dismissed the father’s motion, however, and ordered him to pay child support in the amount of $350.00 per week.

On appeal, the Court noted that under the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, each state must give full faith and credit to another state’s validly issued child support order and shall not seek to modify such order except in limited circumstances.  That legislative scheme, coupled with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, establishes that the state issuing a child support order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction as long as one of the parties continues to reside in the issuing state.  In this particular case, the Appellate Court found that the father continued to reside in Connecticut and, therefore, Connecticut retained exclusive jurisdiction over the support order at issue.  Because the Appellate Court also found that the new order constituted a modification, it ultimately concluded that the trial had acted without jurisdiction.

Should you have any questions regarding child support, or divorce matters in general, please feel free to contact Attorney Michael D. DeMeola, Esq.  He can be reached in the firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at mdemeola@mayalaw.com.

________________________________________________________________________________
Our firm in Westport serves clients with divorce, matrimonial, and family law issues from all over the state including the towns of: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Newton, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Shelton, Sherman, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton.

If you have any questions or would like to speak to an attorney about a divorce or familial matter, please don’t hesitate to call our office at (203) 221-3100 for a free consultation. Divorce is difficult, education is power. Call today.