131 Conn. App. 270
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- The plaintiff and defendant married on May 10, 2003, and have a son born September 21, 2006.
- They sought dissolution and joint legal custody with shared physical custody of the child.
- A trial resulted in a dissolution judgment, awarding joint legal custody and shared physical custody without relocation restrictions.
- The court found the plaintiff’s life in Texas preferable to Connecticut and ordered two residences to accommodate the child’s best interests.
- The court allowed the plaintiff to move to Texas with the child, while maintaining a Connecticut residence for the defendant and scheduling visitation.
- The defendant challenged post-judgment motions, including requests related to the guardian ad litem’s testimony, on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plain error review applies | Clougherty argues plain error review is improper here. | Clougherty contends the issue should be reviewed under plain error doctrine due to unpreserved testimony. | Plain error review not warranted |
| Did the guardian ad litem's testimony about failure to thrive and parental fitness constitute reversible error | Plaintiff asserts GAL testimony supported best-interests findings. | Defendant contends GAL was unqualified to opine on failure to thrive and parental sensitivity. | No reversible error; GAL testimony admissible in context |
| Did defendant's failure to object affect plain error analysis | Plaintiff notes lack of objection does not require reversal under plain error. | Defendant argues lack of objection undermines preservation and favors reversal if error obvious. | No plain error; no manifest injustice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Perricone v. Perricone, 292 Conn. 187 (2009) (plain error doctrine described as extraordinary remedy)
- State v. Myers, 290 Conn. 278 (2009) (plain error is a reversible, sparing remedy)
- State v. Ortiz, 71 Conn.App. 865 (2002) (plain error standard requires extraordinary circumstances)
- In re Tayquon H., 76 Conn.App. 693 (2003) (guardian ad litem testimony permissible)
- Derderian v. Derderian, 3 Conn.App. 522 (1985) (hearsay admissible if no objection; weight for trier to decide)
- Baugher v. Baugher, 63 Conn. App. 59 (2001) (no plain error without obvious, patent error)