Brown v. Brown
132 Conn. App. 30
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Denise E. Brown appeals from pendente lite visitation orders in a long-running dissolution action against William A. Brown.
- First appeal (May 18, 2010 order) seeks to increase father's visitation on grounds of future best interests and eldest daughter's issues; the second appeal (Oct. 21, 2010) seeks to modify parenting time for younger daughters.
- The trial court adopted and later modified a parenting plan, including increased visitation for the father and overnight visits with the younger daughters.
- Guardian ad litem Dr. Elizabeth Bergen recommended overnight weekend visitation with the father for the younger daughters; she testified and was cross-examined.
- The mother challenges the October 21, 2010 order on grounds of alleged fault-finding against her, failure to apply § 46b-56(c) factors, and improper reliance on the guardian ad litem.
- The appellate court sua sponte determines mootness of the May 18, 2010 order due to superseding modifications, and affirms the October 21, 2010 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 18, 2010 order is moot | Brown argues the appeal is not moot and seeks relief from the May 18 order. | Brown contends superseding orders render the first appeal moot. | First appeal dismissed as moot. |
| Whether the October 21, 2010 order increasing visitation was an abuse of discretion | Brown claims the court blamed her and failed to consider 46b-56(c) factors and children's preferences. | Brown contends the court weighed the evidence and best interests appropriately, including factors and child preferences. | Court acted within discretion; the findings and balancing were proper. |
| Whether the guardian ad litem was properly treated as neutral and its testimony/recommendation properly weighed | Brown argues GAL was treated as neutral and her recommendation improperly adopted. | Brown asserts GAL's disinterested status supports credibility and adoption of her recommendation. | Court properly weighed credibility; GAL's role as disinterested advisor does not require adoption of the recommendation. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, 291 Conn. 502 (2009) (mootness affects appellate subject matter jurisdiction)
- McKechnie v. McKechnie, 130 Conn. App. 411 (2011) (broad discretion in custody/visitation appeals; deference to trial court findings)
- Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776 (1993) (child's preferences are a factor but not the sole consideration)
- Strobel v. Strobel, 73 Conn. App. 428 (2002) (high conflict proceedings; sequential modification appropriate)
- In re Tayquon H., 76 Conn. App. 693 (2003) (guardian ad litem duties include investigation and recommendations)
- Krystyna W. v. Janusz W., 127 Conn. App. 586 (2011) (standard of review for trial court findings in family matters)
- Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316 (2008) (credibility assessment and appellate deference to trial court)