Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Maturo v. Maturo

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 4, 2010No. SC 17776Published

1ConcurrenceMcLACHLAN, J.

As attractive as the dissent’s liberation from the principles of the child support and arrearage guidelines (guidelines)* 1 may be for the family bench and bar in cases where the net income of the parties exceeds the amount set forth in the schedule of basic child support obligations (schedule), I find the reasoning of the plurality opinion’s adherence to the *138principles of the guidelines persuasive.2 I, therefore, join the plurality. I also note that applying only the statutory standard of General Statutes § 46b-84 (d)3 when the schedule is exceeded, in my view, provides a stronger case for…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Tobey v. TobeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
  2. Issler v. IsslerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  3. Bornemann v. BornemannSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  4. Fahy v. FahySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  5. Collette v. ColletteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API