Background
In 2001, Susan Gainty filed a petition to establish paternity and secure child support for two children. The trial court ordered Michael Infantino to pay $250 per week in child support and 50 percent of daycare and medical expenses. Beginning in 2008, Infantino repeatedly failed to comply with these orders and was found in contempt on multiple occasions. In 2019, Gainty filed motions to extend child support for their daughter, who has a qualifying disability, through age 21 under Connecticut law.
In April 2022, the court awarded Gainty $31,200 in postmajority child support ($300 per week for two years) plus $683.10 in overdue premajority obligations, and subsequently awarded $44,651.78 in medical and school expenses. Infantino appealed twice and sought certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court, both efforts unsuccessful. Despite these orders, Infantino continued to fall behind on payments. By October 2023, after crediting his intervening payments, the magistrate found he still owed $5,574.58.
Infantino appealed the balance determination, the plaintiff moved for attorney’s fees to defend the Supreme Court petition, and the plaintiff filed a contempt motion for continued non-payment. The trial court affirmed the balance, granted $3,500 in appellate attorney’s fees, and found Infantino in contempt for the full amount of unpaid obligations.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court held that the trial court properly affirmed the magistrate’s finding that Infantino owed $5,574.58. Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a factual finding must stand if the trier of fact reasonably could have reached it based on evidence before it. Here, Support Enforcement Services records clearly showed that Infantino made $16,991.52 in payments between February 2023 and October 2023. Subtracting this amount from the $22,566.10 balance established in February 2023 yielded exactly $5,574.58. Critically, because Infantino failed to appeal the February 2023 decision establishing the earlier balance, he could not collaterally attack it through the contempt proceeding—doing so would allow reconsideration of the legal and factual bases of an order in a contempt proceeding, which Connecticut law prohibits.
The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $3,500 in appellate attorney’s fees to Gainty for defending against Infantino’s petition to the Supreme Court. Connecticut law permits attorney’s fees awards even when both parties have adequate funds if denying the award would undermine the court’s prior financial orders. Here, that condition was satisfied: Infantino had repeatedly lost at every level (trial court, appellate court, and Supreme Court petition denial), forcing Gainty to incur legal fees at each stage to defend child support orders designed to support their disabled daughter. Denying reimbursement would undermine those financial orders and produce an inequitable result.
Finally, the court upheld the contempt finding and ordered Infantino to pay $56,651, representing unpaid postmajority support, medical expenses, and various attorney’s fees owed.
Key Takeaways
- A party who fails to timely appeal a magistrate’s decision cannot later challenge it collaterally in a contempt proceeding—contempt proceedings enforce existing orders, not retry underlying facts.
- Attorney’s fees in family court can be awarded based on protecting prior financial orders, not only on disparities in the parties’ ability to pay.
- Payment records from support enforcement agencies constitute reliable evidence for calculating outstanding child support balances.
- Repeated appellate losses without payment compliance do not excuse the underlying obligation or bar further fee awards for defending it.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Connecticut’s commitment to enforcing child support obligations, particularly for disabled children requiring support beyond majority. It clarifies that courts will not permit defendants to undermine financial support orders through strategic appellate litigation followed by continued non-payment. By upholding attorney’s fees based on the need to protect prior orders rather than requiring proof of one party’s indigence, the court ensured that custodial parents cannot be forced to absorb the costs of defending support orders themselves.
The decision also establishes important procedural limits: a contempt proceeding is not an opportunity to retry the entire underlying case through collateral attacks on unappealable orders. This prevents endless relitigation and protects the finality of family court judgments, which serve vulnerable dependents relying on predictable support obligations.