Lukasik v. Kopinska

************************************************
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 postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially 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 Connecti-
cut 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 Jour-
nal 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.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Lukasik v. Kopinska

CZESLAW LUKASIK v. KAROLINA KOPINSKA
(AC 46578)
Moll, Westbrook and Bear, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff father appealed from the judgment of the trial court, which
had awarded him joint legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor child,
with respect to its award of child support. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia,
that the court’s child support award was arbitrary and not in accordance
with the state child support guidelines (§ 46b-215a-1 et seq.) because the
court’s application of the deviation criteria set forth in the applicable state
regulation (§ 46b-215a-5c (b)) was improper. Held:

The trial court improperly deviated from the child support guidelines in its
award of child support, as it failed to provide an explanation as to why the
presumptive amount of child support as determined under the guidelines
was inequitable or inappropriate and why a deviation was necessary to meet
the needs of the minor child, and, accordingly, the judgment was reversed
with respect to the child support order and the case was remanded for
further proceedings.

The trial court improperly deviated from the child support guidelines on
the basis of the coordination of total family support criterion in § 46b-215a-
5c (b) because, in the present case, the parties were never married, and,
accordingly, there was no alimony or division of property addressed in the
court’s decision.

The trial court improperly used the best interest of the minor child and
the disparity of the parties’ incomes as bases for its deviation from the
presumptive amount of child support in the child support guidelines, as it
failed to provide any reasons why a deviation on these bases was necessary
to meet the needs of the minor child.
Argued September 19, 2024—officially released March 11, 2025

Procedural History

Application for custody of the parties’ minor child,
and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in
the judicial district of Danbury and tried to the court,
Hon. Heidi G. Winslow, judge trial referee; judgment
granting joint legal and physical custody of the minor
child to the parties and issuing certain orders, from
which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Reversed in
part; further proceedings.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
Lukasik v. Kopinska

Alexander Copp, with whom was Neil R. Marcus, for
the appellant (plaintiff).
Christopher P. Norris, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion

BEAR, J. The plaintiff, Czeslaw Lukasik, appeals from
the judgment rendered by the trial court in this child
custody action filed against the defendant, Karolina
Kopinska. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the
court abused its discretion by failing to make a specific
finding of the presumptive child support amount before
applying the deviation criteria, and (2) its child support
award of $600 per week was arbitrary and not in accor-
dance with the child support guidelines (guidelines).
We agree with the plaintiff’s second claim and conclude
that the court improperly deviated from the guidelines.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment with respect to
the order of child support and remand the case for
further proceedings on that issue. We affirm the judg-
ment in all other respects.
The following facts and procedural history are neces-
sary for our resolution of the plaintiff’s appeal. The
plaintiff and the defendant, who never were married,
became parents to a son in December, 2015. After living
together for several years, the plaintiff filed the present
action seeking joint legal custody of the parties’ child
on January 19, 2022.1 He requested that the primary
residence of the child be with him and sought an order
1
In his child custody application, the plaintiff identified Connecticut as
the home state of the child at the time of the filing of the child custody
action and further indicated that the child had lived in Connecticut for the
past six months, that the child and at least one parent had a significant
connection to Connecticut, that there was substantial evidence in Connecti-
cut concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and
personal relationships, that no other state had an interest in this case, and
that it was in the best interest of the child for a Connecticut court to hear
the case. The court subsequently found these statements to be true.
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Lukasik v. Kopinska

regarding a parental physical access schedule and visi-
tation. The plaintiff also sought a parenting responsibil-
ity plan for the parental decision-making regarding the
child and an order of child support. On the same day,
the plaintiff filed an application for an emergency ex
parte order of custody, in which he requested an order
directing the defendant not to remove the child from
Connecticut. In his affidavit in support of the applica-
tion, the plaintiff averred that the defendant had
planned to take the child to live in her studio apartment
in New York City and also ‘‘threatened to take the . . .
child to Florida.’’ The plaintiff further averred: ‘‘The
[defendant] keeps threatening to take my son away
from me and I believe she and her mother are making
plans to take him against his and my will, so I am afraid
to say anything to her.’’ The court denied the plaintiff’s
application for an emergency ex parte order of custody.
The parties subsequently agreed that the child would
continue to reside in Brookfield until they reached an
additional written agreement or any change by order
of the court. The parties’ agreement was approved and
made an order of the court on February 14, 2022.
The court, Hon. Heidi G. Winslow, judge trial referee,
held a trial on May 25, 2023, to resolve the issues of
custody and child support. At this proceeding, both
parties testified. Additionally, each party submitted two
worksheets regarding child support. The plaintiff stated
that he owned and managed various properties. He fur-
ther testified that he had purchased a house in Brook-
field that he offered as a residence to the defendant
rent free for one year, so that the child could remain
in the same school and community. The plaintiff
claimed that, if he were to rent this property, which he
owned outright, he would receive $2500 per month. The
defendant testified that she did not accept this offer
due to her concerns about the plaintiff setting up sur-
veillance cameras and the resulting lack of privacy.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 5
Lukasik v. Kopinska

Following the presentation of evidence, the court
issued an oral decision. At the outset, it noted that the
parties had lived together for seven years, including for
eighteen months following the commencement of the
child custody action. The court ordered that the parties
would have joint legal custody of the child and that the
defendant would have the ‘‘final say . . . in the areas
of medical, dental, and health issues.’’ It further ordered
the parties to share physical custody2 of the child as
follows: ‘‘The plaintiff will have physical custody of the
child every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. . . . The
defendant will have physical custody of the child every
Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. The parties will alter-
nate Wednesdays with the drop-off at school and the
pickup from school.’’ It further stated that the child
would continue to attend school in Brookfield until
such a time that neither parent lived there or further
order of the court.
As to the matter of child support, the court ordered
the plaintiff to pay $600 per week, which constituted a
deviation from the guidelines. This deviation was based
on the coordination of total family resources, the best
interest of the child, and the extraordinary disparity
between the parties’ incomes. Payment of child support
was to commence the following day.3 This appeal fol-
lowed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused
its discretion by failing to make a specific finding of
the presumptive support amount4 before applying the
2
Section 46b-215a-1 (23) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies
provides: ‘‘ ‘Shared physical custody’ means a situation in which the physical
residence of the child is shared by the parents in a manner that ensures
the child has substantially equal time and contact with both parents. An
exactly equal sharing of physical care and control of the child is not required
for a finding of shared physical custody.’’
3
On July 19, 2023, the court noted that it had reviewed the judgment file
drafted by the clerk and determined it to be correct as ordered.
4
Section 46b-215a-1 (21) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies
provides: ‘‘ ‘Presumptive support amounts’ means the child support award
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Lukasik v. Kopinska

deviation criteria and that its child support award of
5

$600 per week was arbitrary and not in accordance
with the guidelines. With respect to the former, he spe-
cifically contends that the ‘‘court never made a finding
regarding the presumptive amount; it merely recited
the gross incomes of the parties as set forth on the
plaintiff’s worksheet.’’ As to the latter, the plaintiff
argues, inter alia,6 that the court improperly based its
support award on his offer to provide housing to the
defendant for a period of one year, improperly applied
the deviation criteria, and failed to support this devia-
tion on the basis of the needs of the child. The defendant
counters that the court indicated that it was relying on
a specific guidelines worksheet, which contained the
net income of the parties and, therefore, the ‘‘record is
clear as to which guidelines the court was utilizing.’’7
components calculated under sections 46b-215a-2c and 46b-215-3a of the
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, prior to consideration of the
deviation criteria specific in section 46b-215a-5c of the Regulations of Con-
necticut State Agencies.’’
5
Section 46b-215a-1 (10) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies
provides: ‘‘ ‘Deviation criteria’ means those facts or circumstances specified
in section 46b-215a-5c of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies,
which may justify an order different from the presumptive support amounts.’’
6
The plaintiff further contends that the court improperly awarded child
support that was ‘‘grossly excessive,’’ failed to impute income to the defen-
dant, and failed to calculate her earning capacity. The defendant counters
that the record is inadequate to reach the issue of earning capacity, as the
plaintiff failed to seek an articulation with respect to that issue. On the
basis of our resolution of this appeal, we need not address the parties’
arguments regarding these issues.
7
The defendant asserts that this appeal should be ‘‘dismissed’’ because
the plaintiff failed to raise the issues presented in his appellate brief to the
trial court in a postjudgment motion. We disagree. Putting aside that dis-
missal would be not the appropriate procedural outcome for such a failure,
in his proposed orders, the plaintiff requested that he pay child support in
accordance with the guidelines, whereas the defendant sought any amount
of support from the plaintiff that constituted an upward deviation from the
guidelines. Moreover, the parties submitted guidelines worksheets listing
varying amounts of support. We disagree, therefore, with the defendant’s
contention that the plaintiff raised the issue of the determination of the
child support for the first time on appeal.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 5

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 7
Lukasik v. Kopinska

She further disagrees with the plaintiff’s arguments
regarding the basis and amount of the deviation. We
agree with the plaintiff that the court’s award of child
support that deviated from the presumptive amount
was improper.
‘‘As a preliminary matter, we note the well settled
standard of review applicable in domestic relations
cases. [T]his court will not disturb trial court orders
unless the trial court has abused its legal discretion or
its findings have no reasonable basis in the facts. . . .
[T]he foundation for this standard is that the trial court
is in a clearly advantageous position to assess the per-
sonal factors significant to a domestic relations case.
. . . In determining whether a trial court has abused
its broad discretion in domestic relations matters, we
allow every reasonable presumption in favor of the
correctness of its action. . . . With respect to child
support, however, the parameters of the court’s discre-
tion have been somewhat limited by the factors set
forth in the child support guidelines.’’ (Citation omit-
ted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Battistotti v. Suzanne A., 182 Conn. App. 40, 44, 188
A.3d 798, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 904, 191 A.3d 1000
(2018); see also Pencheva-Hasse v. Hasse, 221 Conn.
App. 113, 121–22, 300 A.3d 1175 (2023); Gentile v. Car-
neiro, 107 Conn. App. 630, 636, 946 A.2d 871 (2008).
‘‘The question of whether, and to what extent, the child
support guidelines apply, however, is a question of law
over which this court . . . exercise[s] plenary review.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dowling v. Szym-
czak, 309 Conn. 390, 399, 72 A.3d 1 (2013).
The following additional facts are necessary for the
resolution of this appeal. As a precursor to its consider-
ation of the issue of child support, the court expressed
its concern regarding ‘‘controlling behaviors by [the
plaintiff]. He has a hard time convincing me that placing
cameras throughout the house is anything other than
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

8 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Lukasik v. Kopinska

a controlling behavior as to [the defendant]. Trying to
set up her home in the near vicinity that he owns is on
the one hand generous, on the other hand controlling.’’
It then stated: ‘‘So, what will happen is that the court,
when I get to the parenting schedule of this, will be
deviating from the child support guidelines so that,
instead of providing a home that’s worth whatever—
$2600 a month—[the plaintiff] will provide the equiva-
lent of that in child support so that [the defendant] can
find a place of her own to live in a comparable price.
He can then happily rent out that house and make up
that loss so all will be satisfactory.’’
The court subsequently explained: ‘‘The plaintiff has
a house in Brookfield [that is] apparently in move-in
condition at this point that could be rented at [$2500],
$2600 a month, which is sitting there to accommodate
his desire to have the defendant move into that house.
She may still choose to do so and pay him $2600 a
month—whatever—but she deserves the independent
decision-making on that . . . .’’
The court then ordered the plaintiff to pay $600 per
week to the defendant as child support. It further
observed that this award constituted a ‘‘clear deviation
from the guidelines’’ and was the equivalent of $2600
per month. It then stated: ‘‘The court believes that . . .
the guidelines reflect the incomes as reported by the
parties, today—and I’m referring to the guidelines sub-
mitted by the plaintiff in this action, which place the
obligation of the plaintiff at $221 per week and that of
the defendant at $66 per week.’’ The court noted that
the parties appeared to minimize their current income
and resources on their financial affidavits. It continued
as follows: ‘‘However, for the purposes of these pro-
ceedings, I’m accepting the numbers that I stated as
far as the guidelines are concerned, and those are the
income numbers that will prevail for purposes of future
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9
Lukasik v. Kopinska

examination of child support should it become neces-
sary to reexamine her income of $400 a week and his
income of $1759 per week. The deviation is based on
the coordination of the total family resources as well
as the best interests of the parties’ child and the
extraordinary disparity between the parties’
incomes.’’8 (Emphasis added.)
We begin our analysis with the observation that ‘‘[t]he
fundamental purpose of child support . . . is to pro-
vide for the care and well-being of minor children
. . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Blondeau
v. Baltierra, 337 Conn. 127, 172, 252 A.3d 317 (2020);
see also Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539, 555,
46 A.3d 112 (2012); LeSueur v. LeSueur, 186 Conn. App.
431, 464, 199 A.3d 1082 (2018). Connecticut courts have
been cautioned to avoid wealth transfers or disguised
alimony when awarding child support. Flood v. Flood,
199 Conn. App. 67, 85, 234 A.3d 1076, cert. denied, 335
Conn. 960, 239 A.3d 317 (2020).
Next, we turn to the child support guidelines, which
are based on an income share model, which requires
an accurate and complete determination of the parties’
respective incomes. Kirwan v. Kirwan, 185 Conn. App.
713, 729, 197 A.3d 1000 (2018). ‘‘We begin with the child
support guidelines; Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-
215a-1 et seq.; and our case law interpreting the guide-
lines. . . . General Statutes § 46b-215a provides for a
commission to oversee the establishment of child sup-
port guidelines, which must be updated every four
years, to ensure the appropriateness of criteria for the
8
We note that the court, in its oral decision, did not specifically find that
applying the presumptive amount of child support would be inequitable or
inappropriate under the circumstances. See, e.g., Tuckman v. Tuckman,
308 Conn. 194, 208, 61 A.3d 449 (2013); Moore v. Moore, 216 Conn. App. 179,
193–96, 283 A.3d 994 (2022); Righi v. Righi, 172 Conn. App. 427, 434–41,
160 A.3d 1094 (2017). The judgment file, which the court subsequently
reviewed and signed, did explicitly contain this necessary finding.
Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

10 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Lukasik v. Kopinska

establishment of child support awards. General Statutes
§ 46b-215b provides in relevant part: (a) The . . .
guidelines issued pursuant to section 46b-215a . . .
and in effect on the date of the support determination
shall be considered in all determinations of child sup-
port award amounts . . . . In all such determinations,
there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount
of such awards which resulted from the application of
such guidelines is the amount to be ordered. A specific
finding on the record at a hearing, or in a written judg-
ment, order or memorandum of decision of the court,
that the application of the guidelines would be inequita-
ble or inappropriate in a particular case, as determined
under the deviation criteria established by the Commis-
sion for Child Support Guidelines under section 46b-
215a, shall be required in order to rebut the presumption
in such case. . . .
‘‘The guidelines consist of the rules, schedule and
worksheet established under [the applicable sections]
of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies for
the determination of an appropriate child support
award . . . . Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-
1 (5). The guidelines are accompanied by a preamble
that is not part of the regulations but is intended to
assist in their interpretation. See Child Support and
Arrearage Guidelines (2015), preamble. The preamble
states that the primary purpose of the guidelines is [t]o
provide uniform procedures for establishing an ade-
quate level of support for children . . . and [t]o make
awards more equitable by ensuring the consistent treat-
ment of persons in similar circumstances. . . .
‘‘Moreover, [§] 46b-215a-5c (a) of the Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies provides in relevant part:
The current support . . . contribution amounts calcu-
lated under [the child support guidelines] . . . are pre-
sumed to be the correct amounts to be ordered. The
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 9

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 11
Lukasik v. Kopinska

presumption regarding each such amount may be rebut-
ted by a specific finding on the record that such amount
would be inequitable or inappropriate in a particular
case. . . . Any such finding shall state the amount that
would have been required under such sections and
include a factual finding to justify the variance. Only
the deviation criteria stated in . . . subdivisions (1) to
(6), inclusive, of subsection (b) of this section . . .
shall establish sufficient bases for such findings.
‘‘Our courts have interpreted this statutory and regu-
latory language as requiring three distinct findings in
order for a court to properly deviate from the child
support guidelines in fashioning a child support order:
(1) a finding of the presumptive child support amount
pursuant to the guidelines; (2) a specific finding that
application of such guidelines would be inequitable and
inappropriate; and (3) an explanation as to which devia-
tion criteria the court is relying on to justify the devia-
tion.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; footnote
omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Renstrup
v. Renstrup, 217 Conn. App. 252, 260–62, 287 A.3d 1095,
cert. denied, 346 Conn. 915, 290 A.3d 374 (2023); see
also Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194, 205–207, 61
A.3d 449 (2013); Becue v. Becue, 185 Conn. App. 812,
844–45, 198 A.3d 601 (2018), cert. denied, 331 Conn.
902, 201 A.3d 403 (2019).
In the present case, the court determined the pre-
sumptive amount of child support to be $221 per week,
payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.9 This determi-
nation was based on a child support guidelines work-
sheet filed by the plaintiff on May 25, 2023, that listed
9
‘‘The Supreme Court has determined that stating [this finding] on the
record will facilitate appellate review. Favrow v. Vargas, [supra, 231 Conn.
29].’’ Tracey v. Tracey, 97 Conn. App. 122, 126–27, 902 A.2d 729 (2006). ‘‘In
other words, the finding will enable an appellate court to compare the
ultimate order with the guideline amount and make a more informed decision
on a claim that the amount of the deviation, rather than the fact of a deviation,
constituted an abuse of discretion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
O’Brien v. O’Brien, 138 Conn. App. 544, 550, 53 A.3d 1039, cert. denied, 308
Page 10 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

12 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Lukasik v. Kopinska

the defendant’s gross weekly income at $400 and her
net weekly income at $362. The plaintiff’s gross weekly
income was listed at $1759 and his net weekly income
at $1193. The parties’ total net weekly income was listed
at $1555, with the defendant’s share as 23 percent and
the plaintiff’s as 77 percent. This worksheet provided
that the defendant’s share of the basic child support
obligation was $66 per week, and the plaintiff’s was
$221. Section 46b-215a-2c (c) (7) (B) of the Regulations
of Connecticut State Agencies provides in relevant part:
‘‘In a shared physical custody situation, as defined in
section 46b-215a-1 (23) of the Regulations of Connecti-
cut State Agencies, the presumptive current support
order shall equal the presumptive current support
amount of the parent with the higher net weekly
income, payable to the parent with the lower net weekly
income. . . .’’ The court’s child support award, how-
ever, deviated from the presumptive amount. Specifi-
cally, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defen-
dant $600 per week, which was ‘‘clearly a deviation
from the guidelines.’’
The judgment file prepared by the clerk, which the
court subsequently approved on July 19, 2023, noting
that it has been ‘‘[r]eviewed and determined to be cor-
rect as ordered,’’ did not include the presumptive
amount of child support. This document simply stated
that a deviation was ordered and articulated the follow-
ing reasons for such an award: ‘‘The plaintiff will pay
$600 per week to the defendant for child support. Wage
withholding shall apply. This deviation from the child
support guidelines is because of the disparity in the
parties’ incomes, the additional income resources avail-
able to the plaintiff and the coordination of total family
resources. It would be inappropriate and inequitable
NOT to deviate from the guidelines in this case. The
Conn. 937, 66 A.3d 500 (2012); see also K. S. v. R. S., 350 Conn. 692, 735–36,
326 A.3d 187 (2024).
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 11

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 13
Lukasik v. Kopinska

child support payments are to commence on [May
26, 2023].’’
The plaintiff contends that the court’s child support
award of $600 per week was arbitrary and not in accor-
dance with the guidelines. Specifically, he argues, inter
alia, the court improperly applied the deviation criteria
and failed to justify the deviation based on the needs
of the child. We agree.
At the outset, we note that, ‘‘[n]otwithstanding the
great deference accorded the trial court in [child cus-
tody] proceedings, a trial court’s ruling . . . may be
reversed if . . . the trial court applies the wrong stan-
dard of law. . . . The question of whether, and to what
extent, the child support guidelines apply . . . is a
question of law over which this court should exercise
plenary review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Wald v. Cortland-Wald, 226 Conn. App. 752, 761, 319
A.3d 769 (2024).
We iterate that all child support awards must be made
in accordance with the principles established in the
relevant statutes and guidelines to ensure that such
awards promote equity, uniformity, and consistency for
children at all income levels. Tuckman v. Tuckman,
supra, 308 Conn. 206; Deshpande v. Deshpande, 142
Conn. App. 471, 477–78, 65 A.3d 12 (2013). Additionally,
the support amount calculated under the guidelines
is presumed to be the correct amount to be ordered.
Renstrup v. Renstrup, supra, 217 Conn. App. 262; see
also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-5c (a). This
presumption may be rebutted by a specific finding on
the record that such amount would be inappropriate or
inequitable in a particular case. Renstrup v. Renstrup,
supra, 262. ‘‘Only the deviation criteria . . . shall estab-
lish sufficient bases for such findings.’’ (Internal quota-
tion marks omitted.) Id.; see also Pencheva-Hasse v.
Hasse, supra, 221 Conn. App. 123.
Page 12 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

14 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Lukasik v. Kopinska

‘‘The criteria enumerated in § 46b-215a-5c (b) of the
regulations are: (1) Other financial resources available
to a parent . . . (2) [e]xtraordinary expenses for care
and maintenance of the child . . . (3) [e]xtraordinary
parental expenses . . . (4) [n]eeds of a parent’s other
dependents . . . (5) [c]oordination of total family sup-
port . . . [and] (6) [s]pecial circumstances . . . .’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Renstrup v.
Renstrup, supra, 217 Conn. App. 262 n.7; see also Y.
H. v. J. B., 224 Conn. App. 793, 803, 313 A.3d 1245
(2024); Becue v. Becue, supra, 185 Conn. App. 845. We
are mindful that ‘‘[o]ur Supreme Court has instructed
that [t]he deviation criteria are narrowly defined and
require the court to make a finding on the record as to
why the guidelines are inequitable or inappropriate.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kavanah v. Kava-
nah, 142 Conn. App. 775, 781, 66 A.3d 922 (2013).

The court first explained that its deviation was based
on the coordination of the total family support criterion.
Section 46b-215a-5c (b) (5) of the Regulations of Con-
necticut State Agencies provides in relevant part: ‘‘In
some cases, child support is considered in conjunction
with a determination of total family support, property
settlement, and tax implications. When such consider-
ation will not result in a lesser economic benefit to
the child, it may be appropriate to deviate from the
presumptive support amounts for the following reasons
only: (A) division of assets and liabilities, (B) provision
of alimony, and (C) tax planning considerations.’’

In the present case, however, the parties never were
married. Accordingly, there was no alimony or division
of property addressed in either the court’s oral decision
or the written judgment file. Furthermore, there was
no evidence or discussion of tax considerations, aside
from which party would claim the dependency tax
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 15
Lukasik v. Kopinska

exemption. We conclude, therefore, that the court
10

improperly deviated from the guidelines on the basis
of the coordination of total family support criterion.
The court next stated that the deviation was based
on the extraordinary disparity between the parties’
incomes. Section 46b-215a-5c (b) (6) of the Regulations
of Connecticut State Agencies provides in relevant part:
‘‘In some cases, there may be special circumstances not
otherwise addressed in this section in which deviation
from presumptive support amounts may be warranted
for reasons of equity. Such circumstances are limited
to the following . . . (B) When the custodial parent
has high income, resulting in an extraordinary disparity
between the parents’ net incomes, it may be appropriate
to deviate from presumptive support amounts if: (i)
such deviation would enhance the lower income par-
ent’s ability to foster a relationship with the child; and
(ii) sufficient funds remain for the parent receiving sup-
port to meet the basic needs of the child after devia-
tion.’’
In Zheng v. Xia, 204 Conn. App. 302, 253 A.3d 69
(2021), the trial court ordered the plaintiff to pay 13
percent of his net bonus income as additional child
support annually. Id., 312. The trial court noted that
this constituted a deviation from the guidelines on the
basis of the coordination of total family support and
significant disparity in the parties’ incomes, but aside
from the allusion to this disparity, failed to include
specific findings as to why the guidelines amount would
be inequitable and inappropriate. Id. We concluded that
the trial court’s award was improper, stating: ‘‘That
reason to deviate from the child support guidelines, i.e.,
disparity between the incomes of the parties, fails as a
matter of law. Our Supreme Court has stated that
10
The court ordered the parties to claim the dependency tax exemption
in alternate years.
Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

16 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Lukasik v. Kopinska

[i]ncome disparity may be considered . . . only when
the custodial parent has the higher income and devia-
tion from the presumptive support amount would
enhance the lower income [noncustodial] parent’s abil-
ity to foster a relationship with the child . . . . This
consideration is unambiguously intended to protect the
noncustodial parent in circumstances where the income
of the custodial parent far exceeds the income of the
parent obligated to pay child support . . . .’’ (Emphasis
omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. This is
not the situation in the present case, as the parties share
custody of the child on an equal basis. Further, there
was no evidence that this deviation from the guidelines
would enhance the defendant’s ability to foster a rela-
tionship with the child. The court, therefore, improperly
considered the disparity between the parties’ incomes
when it ordered the plaintiff to pay $600 per week as
child support. See id.
Finally, the court in the present case stated that the
deviation from the presumptive amount of child support
as determined by the guidelines was based on the best
interest of the child. We agree with the plaintiff that
the court failed to explain why a deviation on this basis
was necessary to meet the needs of the child. See
Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80, 95–96, 995 A.2d 1
(2010); Ray v. Ray, 177 Conn. App. 544, 567, 173 A.3d
464 (2017); Chowdhury v. Masiat, 161 Conn. App. 314,
323, 128 A.3d 545 (2015). Accordingly, the court improp-
erly used the best interest of the child as a basis to
deviate from the presumptive amount of support.
The plaintiff further argues that, ‘‘[i]n the present
matter, there was no evidence as to the needs and
expenses of the minor child, and, in any event, the trial
court failed to tie the deviation criteria to those needs.
There was no testimony from the defendant regarding
her care and the expenses of the child warranting a
higher support order based on the needs of the child.’’
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 15

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 17
Lukasik v. Kopinska

We agree. The court failed to provide any reasons for
why a deviation from the presumptive amount of child
support was appropriate. See Chowdhury v. Masiat,
supra, 161 Conn. App. 323. Rather, the court merely
mentioned various criteria as its basis for doing so. As
we recently explained, merely citing a specific criterion
as a reason for deviation from the guidelines and failing
to make a specific finding to justify such an action is
improper. Wald v. Cortland-Wald, supra, 226 Conn. App.
767–68. ‘‘Without the specific findings that would sup-
port a deviation based on the shared physical custody
of the minor child, it is impossible to ascertain how the
court determined that application of the child support
guidelines was inequitable and inappropriate due to this
criterion.’’ Id., 768. Stated differently, ‘‘[a]ny deviation
from the schedule or the principles on which the guide-
lines are based must be accompanied by the court’s
explanation as to why the guidelines are inequitable or
inappropriate and why the deviation is necessary to
meet the needs of the child.’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Kirwan v. Kirwan, supra, 185 Conn. App.
744; see also Zheng v. Xia, supra, 204 Conn. App. 311
(any deviation must be accompanied by court’s explana-
tion as to why guidelines are inequitable or inappropri-
ate and why deviation is necessary to meet needs of
child); Ross v. Ross, 200 Conn. App. 720, 733, 239 A.3d
1280 (2020) (court must explain how application of
deviation criteria justifies variance); Fox v. Fox, 152
Conn. App. 611, 639–40, 99 A.3d 1206 (same), cert.
denied, 314 Conn. 945, 103 A.3d 977 (2014); see generally
Barcelo v. Barcelo, 158 Conn. App. 201, 216–17, 118 A.3d
657, cert. denied, 319 Conn. 910, 123 A.3d 882 (2015).
Here, the court failed to provide an explanation as
to why the presumptive amount of child support as
determined under the guidelines was inequitable or
inappropriate and why a deviation was necessary to
meet the needs of the child. In awarding weekly support
Page 16 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

18 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Lukasik v. Kopinska

of $600, the court appeared to have been concerned
with providing a solution to the plaintiff’s ‘‘controlling
behaviors’’ with regard to the defendant and her housing
situation.11 The use of child support constitutes an
improper remedy for those issues. Accordingly, we con-
clude that the judgment must be reversed only with
respect to the child support order and the case must
be remanded for a new hearing on that issue.
The judgment is reversed only as to the child support
order and the case is remanded for further proceedings
on that issue; the judgment is affirmed in all other
respects.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.

11
Specifically, the court stated: ‘‘So, what will happen is that the court,
when I get to the parenting schedule of this, will be deviating from the
child support guidelines so that, instead of providing a home that’s worth
whatever—$2600 a month—[the plaintiff] will provide the equivalent of that
in child support so that [the defendant] can find a place of her own to live
in a comparable price. He can then happily rent out that house and make
up that loss so all will be satisfactory.’’
It is unclear whether the court considered whether the $2600 per month
constituted gross or net rental income. See, e.g., Kirwan v. Kirwan, supra,
185 Conn. App. 738–41 (child support guidelines worksheet and calculation
of presumptive amount of support use net income).