Modification of Agreements and Orders

The Court always retains jurisdiction over issues relating to the custody and well-being of minor children. Any orders relating to child support can be modified upon a showing of a "substantial change in circumstances." Conn. Gen. Stat. §46b-86. When reviewing child support orders, the courts use a benchmark of a 15% deviation from the guidelines to determine whether a change in circumstances qualifies as "substantial."

As to alimony, the parties can restrict the right of the Court to awards by making them "non-modifiable" as to either amount or duration of payments (or both).

Once marital property is distributed, it is very difficult to modify an agreement or order and obtain a redistribution. Property settlements between parties are usually final as of the date of the divorce and can only be revisited if there are specific special circumstances (i.e. fraud, duress, mutual mistake) that are brought to the court's attention within a specific time period.

Contempt

A party can be found to be "in contempt" for willfully failing to comply with an order of the court. A Motion for Contempt is the mechanism by which a party raises the other party's non-compliance to the court and the mechanism by which the family court enforces its orders. A party found to be in contempt can be required to pay the other party's attorneys' fees.

"Self Help"

In Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523 (1998) the Supreme Court (Justice Katz) demonstrated the degree to which it disfavors "self help". In Eldridge the husband discovered years after the fact that his wife was earning income that entitled him to an offset from his alimony payments. Figuring that he had actually overpaid his wife, he stopped making payments. His wife filed a motion for contempt. Even though he was entitled to a $10,000 credit, the Supreme Court found that it was appropriate to find him in contempt because he did not receive an order from the court before reducing or suspending payments.

In Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 8 (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that a party who fails to comply with a judgment, even though a provision may be deemed ambiguous, can be held in contempt of court.