Clark v. Clark, 150 Conn.App. 551

Dissolution judgment entered August 18, 2009, awarding defendant sole custody and permitting plaintiff to receive health insurance, with支 alimony and child support and fees for guardian ad litem and minor child’s attorney to be paid from real estate proceeds.
Parties repeatedly litigated postdissolution disputes, including hundreds of motions and multiple appeals, culminating in hearings April 4–11, 2013 before Judge Emons on access and guardian ad litem issues.
Feltman was appointed as guardian ad litem for the children; the court vacated Feltman’s appointment due to funding concerns and replaced her with a different guardian ad litem for limited purposes.
At the April 4–11 hearings, the court required defendant to sign release authorizations so plaintiff could directly contact schools, therapists, and health providers; the court also ordered shared payment of Feltman’s fees initially.
The court ultimately clarified that the plaintiff has statutory access to educational, medical, and welfare information under 46b-56(g), and while it affirmed most rulings, it dismissed portions of the appeal relating to Feltman’s appointment and fee award as moot or due to lack of final judgment.
The court’s final disposition: affirm in most respects, but dismiss the appeal as moot regarding Feltman’s appointment and dismiss the fee-amount issue for lack of finality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Feltman’s appointment as guardian ad litem was properly handled	Clark contends appointment was improper and fees should be allocated.	Clark argues appointment and fee allocation were necessary steps.	Feltman’s appointment was vacated; moot as to challenge.
Whether the court improperly modified postdissolution access orders	Clark argues changes exceeded permissible clarification.	Clark argues modifications altered custody rights.	Court clarified/enforced 46b-56(g) access; not a material modification.
Whether defendant was improperly compelled to sign release authorizations	Clark needed releases to obtain information directly from providers.	She had not agreed and issues were unpreserved.	Signings occurred; claim unpreserved; reviewed only for preservation.
Whether appellate stay issues are reviewable on direct appeal	Stay status affected appealability of orders on access.	Stay should be reviewable on appeal.	Practice Book stay rules impede direct-review; declined.

Upjohn Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 224 Conn. 106 (1992) (finality and standard of review principles cited)
McKeon v. Lennon, 131 Conn. App. 585 (2011) (attorney’s fees lack of final judgment lacks appellate jurisdiction)
Morgan v. Morgan, 136 Conn. App. 371 (2012) (lack of final judgment defeats appeal on fees)
Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619 (2005) (preservation and review of unbriefed issues)
Holcombe v. Holcombe, 22 Conn. App. 363 (1990) (interpretation/clarification motions permitted; not substantive modification)
Fewtrell v. Fewtrell, 87 Conn. App. 526 (2005) (substance of relief governs review over labeling as modification)
Gianetti v. Gerardi, 122 Conn. App. 126 (2010) (construction of orders is a question of law)