178 Conn. App. 769
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Parties: Pascal Baronio (father/plaintiff) and Donna Stubbs (mother/defendant) share one minor child after a 13-year relationship; father moved out Oct 2014.
- Procedural history: Father filed for joint custody Dec 1, 2014; parties entered several temporary parenting agreements; guardian ad litem (GAL) appointed and ultimately recommended increased parenting time and joint legal custody.
- Trial: Contested custody hearing Sept 11, 2015; multiple witnesses (parents, GAL, teacher, therapists) testified; father submitted proposed orders seeking joint legal and shared physical custody; mother did not file proposed orders.
- At hearing counsel for mother initially said the status quo should remain but later stated she was requesting joint legal custody with primary physical residence and final decision-making authority for the mother. The GAL and father supported joint legal custody.
- Trial court found joint legal custody and shared physical custody were in the child’s best interest, approved a parenting plan, and awarded the father the parenting time he requested. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 46b-56a(b) presumption of joint custody applies | Father: parties agreed to joint legal custody; presumption applies | Stubbs: no agreement to joint legal custody on record, so presumption cannot apply | Court: Affirmed — record supports that parties agreed in open court; presumption properly applied and award was within trial court discretion |
| Whether trial court displayed pre-decision bias requiring reversal | Father: court acted within role and considered evidence | Stubbs: court signaled intention to increase father's parenting time and award joint custody before hearing all evidence; plain error | Court: No plain error — interruptions were to focus testimony; comments were not evidence of bias and occurred after relevant evidence; no mistrial/disqualification warranted |
| Whether counsel’s request that mother retain final decision-making authority = sole legal custody | Father: joint legal custody with final authority to mother acceptable | Stubbs: phrased request effectively sought sole custody | Court: Final decision-making authority within joint legal custody is distinct from sole custody; no error |
| Standard of review for custody award | Father: trial court appropriately exercised discretion | Stubbs: urges plenary review | Court: Abuse-of-discretion/clearly erroneous standards apply; court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Timm v. Timm, 195 Conn. 202, 487 A.2d 191 (1985) (statutory presumption of joint custody applies when parents agree or so agree in open court)
- Keenan v. Casillo, 149 Conn. App. 642, 89 A.3d 912 (2014) (appellate standard: domestic relations orders reviewed for abuse of discretion; findings for clear error)
- Desai v. Desai, 119 Conn. App. 224, 987 A.2d 362 (2010) (distinguishing ultimate decision-making authority from sole legal custody)
- Tabackman v. Tabackman, 25 Conn. App. 366, 593 A.2d 526 (1991) (award of joint legal custody with final decision-making authority in one parent is not equivalent to sole custody)
- Emerick v. Emerick, 5 Conn. App. 649, 502 A.2d 933 (1985) (whether parties agreed to joint custody is a question for the trial court)
- Wiegand v. Wiegand, 129 Conn. App. 526, 21 A.3d 489 (2011) (trial-court interruptions and corrective comments may be permissible to keep testimony focused and are not necessarily evidence of bias)
- Cameron v. Cameron, 187 Conn. 163, 444 A.2d 915 (1982) (example of reversal for judicial misconduct where judge repeatedly condemned party and held in contempt)
- Havis-Carbone v. Carbone, 155 Conn. App. 848, 112 A.3d 779 (2015) (plain error found where trial court action indicated predetermination prior to required hearing)