What does JD-FM-164 ask for in a Connecticut divorce or custody case?

Fast read before you start typing

Think of JD-FM-164 as the court's child-jurisdiction checklist rather than a parenting narrative. The official form and C.G.S. § 46b-115s show that the point is to tell the court where the children lived, with whom, and whether another court or caregiver might already be part of the picture. It is not enough to say the children live with you now. The affidavit is designed to expose time gaps, hidden proceedings, and competing claims before the judge is asked to issue custody or visitation orders in the current Connecticut case.

The answers people usually overthink

Most filers spend too long worrying about whether the city line is enough detail and not enough time making the five-year timeline continuous. JD-FM-164 asks for current and past residence periods, the adults the child lived with, those adults' present addresses, and their relationship to the child. The form also gives you a same-as-above option for a sibling only when the history matches exactly. If you moved often, changed caretakers, or had a child spend time with relatives, that is the part to slow down on. Precision matters more than writing style because the affidavit is supposed to resolve factual uncertainty, not create it.

Where JD-FM-164 connects to other filings

Connecticut family filing guidance lists JD-FM-164 with other child-related paperwork, so the affidavit should line up with the complaint, summons, and any parenting-plan materials. If there are more children than the main form can handle, the JD-FM-164 form tells you to use JD-FM-164A. If another state, probate court, or protection-order docket has touched the children, the affidavit needs to reflect that reality. The practical rule is that any document in the file that tells a different story about where the children lived or who had rights over them can turn this form into a credibility problem.

Mistakes that create avoidable jurisdiction trouble

The biggest mistake is leaving gaps in the residence history because you plan to explain them later. Another common problem is omitting a prior court matter because it seems old, temporary, or irrelevant. Linda Douglas, Chief Legal Officer at Untangle, advises treating JD-FM-164 as a disclosure form, not a persuasion form: if a prior order or third-party claim exists, it is safer to identify it and let the court evaluate it. People also create problems by listing outdated adult addresses, assuming siblings automatically share the same history, or forgetting that the affidavit is sworn. Those errors can slow down hearings even when the underlying custody arrangement is straightforward.

Why the oath and signature rules matter

JD-FM-164 is not complete until it is sworn and witnessed correctly. The Judicial Branch PDF says you must sign in front of a clerk, notary, or attorney who also signs and dates it. That rule matters because the court is relying on the affidavit as verified information, not casual notes. Review the document against your records before you swear to it, and bring the unsigned form with you instead of trying to fix a prematurely signed copy. A clean, sworn affidavit gives the court confidence that the child-history facts in the case file can actually be used.

Frequently Asked Questions

People who search by code usually want the shortest explanation of what JD-FM-164 really covers and which parts are most likely to cause trouble. These answers focus on the child-history timeline, the sibling shortcut, the addendum trigger, and the oath requirement. Use them as a final review pass, because JD-FM-164 looks administrative but still helps determine whether the court has a clean record to issue child-related orders at the first hearing and every stage beyond.

Is JD-FM-164 only about where the children live right now?

No. The form asks for much more than the current address. It requires five years of residence history, the adults the child lived with, those adults' present addresses, and information about related cases or competing claims. The court is trying to understand whether Connecticut is the proper forum and whether another proceeding may already affect the child. Treating the affidavit like a one-line current-address form misses the main reason it exists.

Do I have to list old custody or protective-order cases on JD-FM-164?

If the case fits the disclosure language on the affidavit, yes. JD-FM-164 asks whether you have been involved in custody or visitation proceedings and whether you know of other cases that could affect the current matter. Even if an older case feels resolved, it may still matter to the court's jurisdiction analysis or safety review. Leaving it out because it seems unimportant is riskier than giving the court a fuller picture and letting the judge decide what weight it deserves.

What if I have more than two children to list?

Then you usually need the addendum. The JD-FM-164 form tells filers to use JD-FM-164A when additional children must be listed. Do not compress several children into one line or assume the clerk will fix it for you. It is better to attach the addendum at filing than to patch the record after a deficiency notice or clerk rejection. That early fix keeps the packet complete for review.

Can I swear to JD-FM-164 at home and file it later?

No. The official affidavit requires the signature to be witnessed by a clerk, notary public, or attorney. Signing first can force you to start over. Finish the document, check every date and disclosure carefully, and keep it unsigned until the witness is present so the affidavit reaches the file as a properly verified record that the clerk can accept. That timing rule protects the affidavit's credibility in court.