J. B. v. C. B.

── J. B. v. C. B. ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 28, 2026 Author: Clark Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  J. B. v. C. B. J. B. v. C. B.* (AC 47360) Clark, Westbrook and Flynn, Js. Syllabus The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff had previously been dis- solved, appealed from the trial court’s judgment resolving certain motions for contempt and for modification of child support filed by the parties. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly relied on incomplete or inaccurate financial disclosures in modifying the plaintiff’s child support obligations. Held: The trial court did not improperly rely on incomplete or inaccurate financial disclosures by the plaintiff in making the requisite child support calcula- tions in conjunction with its downward modification of child support, as the defendant did not direct this court to anything in the record from which it could conclude that it was error for the trial court to credit the plaintiff’s testimony that certain payments from his parents were not likely to continue indefinitely or that its decision not to include those payments as income constituted legal error or an abuse of its discretion. The trial court did not improperly deny the defendant’s motion for contempt, as the court, rather than ignoring what the defendant maintained to be extensive evidence of misconduct by the plaintiff, marked off the motion for contempt with the consent of the defendant because she was unable to identify a specific clear and unambiguous order of the court that the plaintiff failed to comply with or otherwise violated and the court simply concluded that such evidence was not relevant to the defendant’s motion for contempt. This court declined to review the defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly modified child support without accounting for the extensive litigation between the parties that already had occurred, including the finan- cial burden placed on the defendant, as the claim was inadequately briefed. The trial court did not improperly admit unqualified expert testimony from the court-ordered reunification therapist, F, as this court concluded, on the basis of its review of the record, that the trial court only permitted F to testify as a fact witness regarding the parties’ efforts to engage in reunification services as ordered by the court. * In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the victims of family violence, we decline to identify the parties or others through whom the victim’s identity may be ascertained. S