Samuel V. Schoonmaker, IV of the The Schoonmaker Legal Group, LLC provides an informative update of family law cases in the State of Connecticut through his "Appellate Preview." Here is a recently submission by Attorney Schoonmaker:

The following Supreme Court decision will be officially released on April 1, 2008:

Testa v. Geressy, __ Conn. __. Affirmed. This child support case has a complicated procedural history in the family support magistrate division (FSMD) and the superior court, as well as in Illinois and Indiana courts.
(1) Support Enforcement Services had statutory authority to help an out of state child support recipient (the obligee).
(2) The state (Attorney General) had statutory authority to provide legal services on behalf of Support Enforcement Services in assisting the obligee.
(3) Providing legal services did not create an attorney-client relationship. Neither the state, Support Enforcement Services nor the obligee enjoy any rights, privileges or obligations attendant to an attorney-client relationship, or to any other fiduciary relationship.
(4) The superior court improperly refused to review several of the obligor's claims on appeal from the FSMD. This case already had been heard by Magistrate Colella, Judge Prestley (on appeal), Magistrate Lifshitz (on remand) and Judge Caruso (on appeal). In the interest of judicial economy the Supreme Court decided to resolve the issues rather than remand them.
(5) The superior court's remand order from the first appeal did not end the case or controversy. No new petition was required before Magistrate Lifshitz could make additional factual findings.
(6) Magistrate Lifshitz properly determined that the Illinois order was valid and enforceable. The court correctly applied UIFSA when it telephoned both a clerk and a judge in Illinois to determine whether the Illinois order was in effect, and when it resolved a conflict between the answers it received by relying on the judge rather than the clerk.
Note: This case raised additional issues, highlighting the complexities of proceeding in the FSMD. Note the relaxed rules of evidence under UIFSA. Although not discussed, different Supreme Court rulings on several issues may have imperiled Federal assistance to Connecticut that is linked to using specific support enforcement procedures. See 71 C.B.J. 303, 335-36.