Recent Case Developments In Connecticut Divorce Law Boyce v. Boyce, 31 CLR 177 (Bassick, J.T.R.), holds that a party to a dissolution action cannot be ordered to liquidate assets to pay pedente lite alimony and support. Pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, a New Jersey dissolution judgment filed in Connecticut pursuant to the Enforcement of Foreign Matrimonial Judgments while the party obligated to pay child support remains a resident of New Jersey may not be modified in Connecticut with respect to child support obligations, even if the Connecticut filing and the motion to modify is initiated by the New Jersey obligor. However, a Connecticut court may modify the alimony, child custody and child visitation orders. Moran v. Donaher, 31 CLR 181 (Gruendel, J.). A putative father should not be permitted to open a paternity judgment entered six years earlier following the execution of a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity even though a recent DNA test clearly establishes that the petitioner could not have been the father, and even though the mother falsely represented a lack of sexual relations with any other person. The author urges the adoption of a statute or rule requiring mandatory DNA testing to support any paternity judgment, even if the male wishes to voluntarily assume responsibility. Tina C. v. Christopher H., 31 CLR 144 (Colella, Magistrate). A grant to one spouse of a fixed percentage of the other spouse's future retirement pay for a fixed number of years constitutes an alimony award rather than a property distribution and therefore is modifiable. Roesler v. Roesler, 31 CLR 134 (Dubay, J.). The opinion also holds that remarriage does not automatically terminate an alimony obligation, a rule that the author notes is commonly misunderstood by the vast majority of parties to dissolution actions and to numerous family law practitioners. It is not improper for a dissolution court to base child support on earning capacity while basing alimony on actual earnings. Freedman v. Freedman, 31 CLR 152 (Gruendel, J.) In re Jacqueline S., 31 CLR 92 (Goldstein, J.T.R.), holds that the Department of Children and Families has standing in a neglect proceeding to request genetic testing over the objection of both the mother and the father. The presumption that it is in the child's best interest to be placed with a parent requires that a child removed by DCF from a custodial mother be placed with the previously noncustodial father if the father presents no danger of neglect or abuse, even if it is DCF's belief that the child would be better off remaining together with a half-sister by being placed with a maternal grandmother. In re Courtney A., 31 CLR 7 (Mack, J.). Cointreau-Levine v. Levine, 31 CLR 15 (DiPentima, J.), holds that for purposes of determining the distribution of a pension fund comprised of both assets existing at the time of marriage and assests contributing during the marriage, only the principal of the amount existing as of the date of marriage should be treated as a non-marital asset; interest earned during the marriage on both the pre- and post-marriage contributions should be considered a marital asset subject to allocation bewteen the spouses. An escalator clause in a dissolution decree increasing child support by one-third of any salary increase is interpreted as not self-executing; rather, the parent receiving the support must move for a modification. Therefore, the payor cannot be held in contempt for not voluntarily increasing support payments with each pay increase. Mendizabal v. Mendizabal, 31 CLR 712 (Pickard, J.) State v. Swanson, 27 CLR 393 (Rodriguez, J.), holds that the imposition of a restraining order restricting the defendant's access to a family home as a condition of bail following an arrest under the Family Violence Prevention and Response Act does not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and state constitutions, even though the order can be entered (a) without a hearing, (b) based solely on hearsay evidence, and (c) without representation by counsel. Hillis v. Hillis, 27 CLR 465 (Harrigan, J.) holds that the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Matrimonial Judgments Act, which authorizes the enforcement in Connecticut of foreign judgments establishing support and alimony obligations as though the foreign judgment were a judgment of this state, C.G.S. § 46b-71, applies only to judgments rendered by another state of the United States, not to a judgment entered in a foreign country. The tort of interference with a custodial parent's rights to a child, C.G.S. § 53a-98, requires proof that the defendant physically removed the child from the plaintiff's custody. Therefore, allegations that the plaintiff's former spouse provided false information that induced the children of the marriage to refuse to visit the plaintiff are not sufficient to state a cause of action for custodial interference. Bouchard v. Sundberg, 27 CLR 407 (Shortall, J.). The opinion also holds that one parent cannot sue the other parent and that parent's new spouse for alienation of affections from the children from the first marriage, because Connecticut does not recognize a cause of action for alienation of the affections of a child. An order in a dissolution decree permitting a spouse to retain pension rights under a pension plan owned by that spouse does not revoke an earlier appointment of the other spouse as the beneficiary. Therefore, a former spouse is entitled to pension benefits if the owner of the pension dies before changing the beneficiary. Martineau v. Martineau, 27 CLR 422 (Sferrazza, J.). In Re David W., 254 Conn. 676 (2000). Ex parte contact between court-appointed expert witness and party on whose behalf witness testifies does not require per se exclusion of expert's testimony. Way v. Way, 60 Conn. App. 189 (2000). A clear and unambiguous nonmodification provision precludes modification of that support provision as a matter of law, reaffirming Amodio v. Amodio. Bender v. Bender, 60 Conn. App. 252 (2000). Award of percentage of unvested pension benefits proper where parties acquired few assets due to husband's excessive spending. McCarthy v. McCarthy, 60 Conn. App. 636 (2000). Court may require recipient of tax exemptions to compensate party who transfers those exceptions. Sachs v. Sachs, 60 Conn. App. 337 (2000). Parties' unambiguous agreement awarding wife percentage of future post-dissolution pension benefits upheld. Szczerkowski v. Karmelowicz, 60 Conn. App. 429 (2000). Substantial change of circumstances need not be proven as threshold matter on motion to modify visitation. Lasky v. Pivnick, 46 Conn. Supp. 539 (2000) (Bridgeport). Grandparents awarded visitation rights because of dissolution of old intact family unit do not lose these rights upon creation of new intact family unit via marriage and adoption. Cuillo v. Cuillo, 46 Conn. Supp. 553 (2000) (Hartford). § 46b-84's prospective application of child support until 19th birthday is not violative of the equal protection clause. Young v. Young, 27 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 20, 707 (2000) (Bridgeport). Court denies request for marriage dissolution based on insufficient evidence of irretrievable breakdown. Zellner v. Zellner, 27 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 20, 720 (2000) (Norwich). "Child Care Costs" under guidelines include costs incurred to permit custodial parent to obtain normal sleep during the day. Freeman v. Freeman, 28 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 1, 11 (2000) (Rockville). Post-majority Texas support order may be enforced in Connecticut after child reaches majority even if Texas law would have barred such an action. Ramos v. Ramos, 6 Conn. Ops. 1205 (2000) (RFTD-Middletown). Mother's request to relocate from Windham to Southington to give her shorter commute to New Britain denied where father is responsible for children 3 days out of 8.

Watch this space for recent case developments in Connecticut Divorce Law, which will be reviewed as frequently as they come out.