203 Conn.App. 365
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Parties: Daisy G. Batista (mother/plaintiff) and Angel L. Cortes (father/defendant); child born 2004. 2006 parenting plan awarded primary residence to mother; 2008 order set father’s support at $71/week.
- Father alleged the mother used corporal punishment and, after an August 2018 hearing, the court referred the matter to the Department of Children and Families and appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL).
- Father filed a motion to modify custody (Sept. 2018) seeking primary residence in Connecticut and alleged overpayment of child support; he did not ask to modify support in that motion.
- Two-day hearing held April 11 and June 3, 2019; court heard testimony (including GAL and child support enforcement officers) and reviewed audits requested by the father.
- Court found the child was doing well with mother, noted continuity and sibling relationship, found father's arrearage ($6,533.11), denied the custody modification, retained joint legal custody with mother as primary residential parent, and increased future weekly support to $95 plus arrearage payments.
- Father filed for reconsideration; denial followed and this appeal ensued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Batista) | Defendant's Argument (Cortes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying father’s motion to modify primary residence (best interests) | Child is stable and thriving with mother; continuity, school, sibling contact favor mother | Court failed to investigate mother’s admitted corporal punishment; showed bias; failed to appoint counsel for child; improperly credited mother’s witness | Affirmed — court properly applied §46b‑56(c) factors; referred corporal‑punishment claims to DCF and appointed GAL; other complaints waived/not preserved or are credibility findings reserved to trial court |
| Whether court erred in addressing father’s claim that child‑support audits undercount his payments (alleged overpayment) | Audits are inaccurate; father overpaid and should receive a proper accounting | Audits were reviewed at hearing and support enforcement officers confirmed arrearage; past‑payment audits were not the subject of any court order | Not reviewable on appeal — trial court made no order resolving past‑payment audits; only future support was ordered, so audit dispute was not ripe for review |
Key Cases Cited
- LeSueur v. LeSueur, 186 Conn. App. 431 (standard of review in domestic relations matters)
- Clougherty v. Clougherty, 162 Conn. App. 857 (authority on custody modification and best‑interests analysis)
- Osborn v. Waterbury, 197 Conn. App. 476 (appellate court may not find facts; must accept trial court’s factual findings if reasonable)
- In re Omar I., 197 Conn. App. 499 (adverse rulings do not alone establish judicial bias)
- DeMattio v. Plunkett, 199 Conn. App. 693 (failure to seek recusal/disqualification waives bias claim)
- State v. Shin, 193 Conn. App. 348 (deference to trial court credibility determinations)