For more than 20 years now, family lawyers and trial judges have relied on the Connecticut Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines to determine appropriate child support amounts. But despite the trial court’s broad discretion in domestic cases, there is a growing trend at the higher court level to upend child support awards that do not strictly adhere to those guidelines.

The guidelines are set forth in §46b-215a-1 et seq. of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, promulgated by the Commission for Child Support Guidelines. The goal is to provide uniformity in establishing adequate child support, and to promote equity and consistent treatment of parents. Presumptive child support figures are based on parents’ net weekly income, the percentage of that income presumed to be spent on child support, and the number of children at stake. At present, the maximum number of children contemplated is six, and the highest net family weekly income is $4,000.

Statutes mandate that these child support and arrearage guidelines shall be considered in all determinations of child support award amounts. And in determining those awards, there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount that results from the application of the guidelines is the amount to be ordered. If the parties or court seek to deviate from that amount, there must be a specific factual finding that applying the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate. The deviation criteria are also set forth by the Commission.

Despite the obligation that these guidelines be considered, and that the presumptive amount is correct, albeit rebuttable, recent higher court decisions in Connecticut suggest an erosion of judicial discretion, making it harder for courts to draft orders deviating from them.

The goal of uniformity, equity and consistency in calculating basic child support amounts is laudable and certainly essential given the enormous number of lower-income families and self-represented parties navigating domestic disputes in Connecticut. It has generally not been these parents testing the limits in child support awards.

In 2010, the Connecticut Supreme Court released Maturo v. Maturo, immediately followed by Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, striking down awards that ordered the father to pay 20 percent of a substantial bonus to the custodial mother as child support. Specifically, the Court treated the percentage set forth in the guidelines schedule at the highest income level — 11.83 percent of net weekly income of $4,000 for one child — as the presumptive ceiling on the bonus amount, subject to rebuttable application of the deviation criteria and statutory factors in 46b-84(d).

The reasoning was simple: “Trial courts should not have unfettered discretion in high income cases to make lavish child support awards that appear to be unrelated both to the needs of the children . . . and the principles articulated in the guidelines.” Merely acknowledging that the guidelines were considered before crafting an order was insufficient. It appears that the Supreme Court’s intention was to reinforce the percentages set forth under the guidelines, limit judicial discretion and make it more difficult to make any child support order in excess of the presumptive maximum.

This is not to say that needs of the children, as set forth in General Statutes §46b-84, is removed from the analysis. However, there is a clear message being sent by the courts: The presumptive guideline amounts presumably meet the child’s needs absent specific factual findings otherwise.

A presumptive support amount must be established first, and any deviation must follow accordingly. In Kiniry v. Kiniry, the Supreme Court stressed that even in cases involving shared custody and fairly equal parenting time, “it is good policy to establish a presumptive support amount…because a guideline of this nature provides the court with a means of comparing a party’s request for child support with a fair and objective standard.”