Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Regina L. Carchia
Firm Juris No. 416710 · New Haven Judicial District (NNH) · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (28 contested cases) — treat rates as indicative, not definitive.
What this is. A data-driven scouting report on how this office litigates contested family cases. Every number below is computed from the firm's own filing history across the public CT family-court docket. This is a litigation-pattern analysis of public records — not legal advice, and not a claim about any individual case. Patterns describe tendencies, not guarantees.
This is general information about public litigation patterns — not legal advice, and not a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.
Snapshot
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 28 | A focused, single-attorney practice |
| Home turf | New Haven (NNH): 28 | One district — they live in this courthouse |
| Side they take | 0 plaintiff / 28 defendant | Always on the defense side. These are state-initiated matters; the office answers cases brought against its client |
| Motions per case | 1.57 (44 motions across 28 cases) | A lean, targeted motion practice — not a paper-storm shop |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 93% (26 granted vs 2 denied) | When they file, it usually goes their way — but see the sample caveat |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Jacquelyn Kercelius, FSM (3), then Hon. Jeanet Figueroa Laskos (1) | A family-support-magistrate (FSM) caseload |
Bottom line: a narrow, high-grant practice operating in a single courthouse on what the docket shows to be paternity and state child-support matters — not contested divorce. The volume is low, and the moves are formulaic. The defining features of this profile are procedure, paternity-establishment questions, and whether the record reaches the merits.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is narrow, formulaic, and procedure-driven. Three numbers define them:
- Two motion types account for nearly all of it. Of 44 motions, 20 are motions for genetic (paternity) testing and 20 are applications for writ of habeas corpus — the classic toolkit of a state child-support / paternity docket. This office runs the same play, case after case, rather than improvising case-specific strategy.
- Low filing volume — 2.32 filings per case. This is not an attrition shop that buries the other side in paper. The leverage comes from the type of motion (establish paternity, compel appearance), not the quantity.
- High grant rate on a thin record (93%, but only 28 decided motions). The decided-motion sample is small. The grant rate likely reflects that genetic-test and habeas applications are routine, largely unopposed, and procedurally easy to grant when the responding party does not appear or contest. The percentage is best read as indicative, not as a measure of courtroom dominance.
The takeaway: the office's grant rate is closely tied to default and non-appearance. The motions succeed largely because the other side often isn't there to contest them. When a responding party appears and contests on the record, the same motions are decided on a fuller record.
The filing pattern — and who sees the most
There is no barrage here. Across all cases the office puts only ~2.32 filings per case on the docket. But the distribution is telling:
- They file more against unrepresented opponents. Against a pro-se opponent: 2.38 filings/case (26 of 28 cases). Against a represented opponent: 1.5/case (2 cases). The party least equipped to respond sees a heavier — though still modest — load.
- Pro se is the norm, not the exception, in these matters: 26 of 28 opposing parties had no attorney. This is a docket built around unrepresented respondents in state-support and paternity proceedings.
The pattern is not exhaustion-by-paper. It is routine procedure against a largely unrepresented population. For a self-represented party in a paternity or child-support case, the standard genetic-test and habeas applications are the expected filings, and they are typically resolved on the record when contested rather than by default.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Genetic Test | 20 | Establish or confirm paternity — the opening move |
| Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus | 20 | Compel appearance / production of a party in the proceeding |
| Objection | 2 | Occasional defensive filing |
| Motion to Open Judgment | 1 | Reopen a prior support/paternity order |
| Motion to Modify — General | 1 | Adjust an existing order |
GAL strategy
- A guardian ad litem appears in 0% of their cases (0 of 28). This office does not use GALs as a lever. That tracks with the docket profile: paternity and state child-support matters, not the custody fights where GALs are appointed.
- Because no GAL pairings appear in the record, there is nothing here that reflects a recurring-GAL rotation. A GAL appearing in a matter handled by this office would be a departure from the docket pattern described above.
The bench
They appear most before Hon. Jacquelyn Kercelius, FSM (3 rulings), then Hon. Jeanet Figueroa Laskos (1). The "FSM" designation — family support magistrate — confirms the docket character: child-support and paternity enforcement, heard by support magistrates rather than the trial-court family bench. Because these proceedings are standardized, the assigned magistrate's standing procedures and the IV-D process are publicly described and consistent across matters.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a narrow, default-driven office, the docket shows that uncontested grants are the most common outcome. The following describes the procedural patterns above and the tools that exist in this kind of proceeding — informational only, not a recommendation about any case.
- Appearance and the grant rate. The 93% grant rate (on a small 28-motion sample) is driven largely by routine, often-unopposed motions, so non-appearance is closely correlated with grants. Appearance is recorded by filing an appearance form; when a responding party appears at hearings, the default basis for a grant is no longer present.
- The genetic-test motion. Genetic testing is the single most common move (20 filings). It is the standard mechanism for establishing or confirming paternity, and it bears on both parties. Timing and cost are matters that can be raised on the record; a motion that is responded to and attended is decided on that record rather than by default.
- The habeas application. The 20 applications for writ of habeas corpus in a family-support context are typically about compelling a party's appearance, not a criminal matter. Understanding what the application is removes its in-terrorem effect. A writ to compel appearance is satisfied by appearing and participating.
- The modest filing volume. At 2.32 filings per case, this is not an attrition opponent — this firm's volume is its defining feature, and it is low. A responding party is not buried in paper, which means each filing can be addressed individually. The office's outcomes are not driven by volume.
- The pro-se context. Opposing parties are unrepresented in 26 of 28 cases, and the office files slightly more against the unrepresented (2.38 vs 1.5/case). Self-help resources, the court service center, and the assigned support magistrate's standing procedures are publicly available; familiarity with the IV-D process is what narrows the represented-vs-unrepresented gap.
- Procedure vs. the merits. This office's defining feature is procedural routine in a single courthouse. The substantive questions in these matters — actual parentage, actual income, ability to pay, and any modification grounds — are what the merits turn on. A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner; continuances can be opposed on the record. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. Once a matter is contested on substance, a formulaic motion practice has a narrower record to work with.
Methodology & limits
Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Grant rate" = Granted ÷ (Granted + Denied) on the firm's own filed motions where the docket records an outcome; many entries record no outcome and are excluded, and the decided-motion sample here is small. Marker counts use keyword matching on docket event descriptions and may include related sub-types. Firm-name aggregation follows the docket's recorded firm name (the source truncates long names). Patterns reflect aggregate history, not the conduct of any one attorney or the merits of any one case.