KATE B. CYGANOVICH
THOMAS J. CYGANOVICH
January 8, 2019
for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief,
brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of
Stamford-Norwalk and tried to the court, Hon. Stanley
Novack, judge trial referee; judgment dissolving the
marriage and granting certain other relief; thereafter, the
court, Heller, J., granted the defendant's
motion for modification of child support and denied the
plaintiff's motion for contempt, and the defendant
appealed to this court. Affirmed.
J. Cyganovich, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).
B. Cyganovich, self-represented, the appellee (plaintiff).
Alvord, Sheldon and Eveleigh, Js.
postdissolution matter, the defendant, Thomas J. Cyganovich,
appeals from the judgment of the trial court resolving
several of the parties' post-judgment motions. On appeal,
the defendant claims that the court improperly calculated his
modified child support obligation. We affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural
history. The defendant married the plaintiff, Kate B.
Cyganovich, on December 30, 2008. During the marriage, the
parties had one child together. On June 13, 2016, the
plaintiff filed the underlying complaint for dissolution of
marriage. On June 30, 2016,  the court rendered judgment
dissolving the parties' marriage.
judgment of dissolution incorporated by reference the terms
of a separation agreement, which was dated June 22, 2016, and
had been filed with the court on June 23, 2016. Under the
terms of the separation agreement, the defendant was
obligated to pay to the plaintiff $1291 per month, or $298
per week, in child support. In addition, the separation
agreement provided for a shared custody arrangement with
respect to the parties' child.
September, 2017, pursuant to the terms of the separation
agreement,  the plaintiff informed the defendant that
her income had increased. At the time the dissolution
judgment was rendered, the plaintiff's net weekly income
had been $674. Because she had changed employment, the
plaintiff's net weekly income had increased to $1000.
September 14, 2017, the defendant filed a motion for
modification, postjudgment, in which he sought a reduction in
the amount of child support that he is obligated to pay, due
to a substantial change in the financial circumstances of the
parties. On September 27, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion
for modification, postjudgment, to modify the terms of the
dissolution judgment with respect to the allocation of the
health insurance premiums paid by the parties for their minor
to the parties' hearing on the postjudgment motions, a
family relations officer prepared a child support guidelines
worksheet for the parties. According to the worksheet, the
family relations officer concluded that the presumptive child
support obligation was $424 per week, of which the
plaintiff's share was 37 percent, or $157 per week, and
the defendant's share was 63 percent, or $267 per week.
In addition, on the first page of the worksheet, the family
relations officer provided a handwritten notation:
‘‘Split custody $110.''
November 6, 2017, the trial court, Heller, J., held
a hearing on the parties' postjudgment motions. In
addition to arguing that the child support order should be
modified due to a substantial change in the parties'
financial circumstances, the defendant urged the court to