The Federal Tax Exemption for a child can be allocated by the Trial Court to the parent who is paying support. Once the tax allocation is court ordered, it is considered a nonmodifiable property settlement and can not be changed.
Hoyt v Hoyt 64 Conn.L.Rptr 13,498(2017)
In a paternity matter a Superior Court held that a court has the inherent authority to open an acknowledgment of paternity solely on the grounds that an accurate determination of paternity would be in the child's best interests. Often men agree to paternity in the absence of a DNA test, have regrets and later obtain DNA results showing that they are not the biological father.
Muhammad v Murphy 62 Conn.L. Rpte 3, 2016
Edelson v Dubinsky 62 Conn.L. Rptr No 18, 2016
Alimony may be terminated upon cohabitation if the separation agreement stated that as the agreement of the parties. Typically alimony is reduced or terminated only after a hearing that the cohabitation changed the financial needs of the receiving spouse. this alimony issue was clarified in Kunschaft v Kunschaft, 2016 in 62 Con.L.Rptr.No14.
A court decision in Wroniak repeated the premise that a pension benefit allocation is a property distribution and is non-modifiable except for fraud , mutual mistake or duress. The parties are free to contract any terms they want and any later regrets of a bad decision will not change the order.
site 59 Conn.L.Rptr. 2009, 2015
Although there is a 60 day limit to challenge a paternity judgment a Superior Court ruled that the best interests of the child permit a paternity judgment to be reopened. But only the child has the right to reopen a paternity judgment to determine their biological parent. To learn morn about establishing or enforcing paternity Click Here
Muhammad v Murphy.
The mental health of a parent is relevant to the court in a child custody dispute. However the communications between the parent and their therapist are privileged. There are some exceptions to this rule such as if that parent put their mental health at issue. If a party is concerned about mental health issues, they can request that the court order a psychological evaluation; this can be expensive and the cost is paid by the parents, not the Court.
Frequent “video-taping” of a neighbor with a cell phone may not be a crime and not be grounds to secure a protective order under the general Civil Stalking statute. In order to qualify or rise to the level of a crime proof is required to show that the conduct was performed with knowledge that it would cause the victim "to fear for such person's physical safety". However, the opinion from the March 13, 2017 Connecticut Reporter mentions only cell-phones and does not deal with and consider whether "video-taping" from a drone constitutes grounds for a Stalking Protective Order.