178 Conn.App. 769
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Parties: Pascal Baronio (father) v. Donna Stubbs (mother); one minor child; parents separated in Oct 2014.
- Father filed for joint custody Dec 1, 2014; mother filed objection and emergency ex parte custody application; temporary parenting plans were entered and modified pendente lite.
- Guardian ad litem (GAL) appointed and recommended increasing father's parenting time and joint legal custody after evaluation.
- Contested hearing on Sept 11, 2015; testimony from both parents, GAL, teacher, and therapists; father submitted proposed orders requesting joint legal and shared physical custody; mother did not file proposed orders.
- At hearing mother's counsel both initially and at closing indicated she did not oppose joint legal custody; court ordered joint legal custody and shared physical custody (adopted parents’ agreed parenting plan); mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly applied §46b-56a presumption that joint custody is in child’s best interests | Father: parties had agreed to joint legal custody; presumption applied; joint legal/shared physical custody appropriate | Stubbs: no agreement to joint legal custody by defendant; presumption inapplicable and court erred in treating shared physical custody as presumed best | Court: Affirmed — record showed defense counsel stated no objection and requested joint legal custody at close; father filed proposed orders; court reasonably found agreement and acted within discretion |
| Whether trial judge exhibited bias or predetermination (plain error) by indicating inclination to increase father’s time / award joint custody before all evidence | Father: statements reflected proper evaluation of evidence and GAL recommendations; no bias | Stubbs: judge interrupted testimony, made pre-hearing remarks suggesting intent to increase father's time and grant joint custody, warranting reversal | Court: No plain error — remarks aimed to focus testimony; decisions followed evidence, GAL report, and parties’ positions; no appearance of unfair bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Timm v. Timm, 195 Conn. 202 (Conn. 1985) (trial court decides whether parties agreed to joint custody; statutory presumption explained)
- Keenan v. Casillo, 149 Conn. App. 642 (Conn. App. 2014) (standard of review in domestic relations: abuse of discretion/clearly erroneous for factual findings)
- Wiegand v. Wiegand, 129 Conn. App. 526 (Conn. App. 2011) (court interruptions and impatience do not necessarily show bias when aimed at keeping testimony relevant)
- Desai v. Desai, 119 Conn. App. 224 (Conn. App. 2010) (distinguishing joint legal custody from sole custody where ultimate decision-making authority may be allocated)
- Cameron v. Cameron, 187 Conn. 163 (Conn. 1982) (mistrial required where judge’s statements showed prejudice and contempt undermining impartiality)