169 Conn. App. 669
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Parties married in 1989; two children (born 1998 and 2002). Trial taken in 2014 after prolonged litigation; plaintiff lived with children in Monroe, defendant lived in marital home in Fairfield.
- Key factual dispute centered on defendant Dianne Hart‑D’Amato’s long‑term alcohol abuse (hospitalized 12/31/2011 with very high BAC) and its impact on the children; guardian ad litem reported children’s strong aversion to contact with the defendant.
- Trial court found defendant had abused alcohol since at least 2006, had minimized the problem, and although sober since 2012 continued to lack insight; children reported harm from defendant’s conduct and preferred limited contact.
- Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the minor child to the plaintiff, limited supervised/conditional visitation for the defendant (three hours on a three‑week rotating basis), required sobriety and random testing, and ordered counseling for reunification over time.
- Financial orders: defendant ordered to pay $252/week child support, share of unreimbursed medical/dental/childcare expenses (47% defendant / 53% plaintiff), equitable distribution of deferred income; no alimony awarded.
- Postjudgment motions (continuance, motion to open/new trial, reargue, clarification) and motions to disqualify judge were denied; defendant appealed raising due process, custody, financial distribution, and recusal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of hearings on pre‑ and posttrial motions (due process) | Court acted within Practice Book §11‑18 discretion; defendant had opportunity to present views in writing | Denial of hearings on continuance, motion to open/new trial, reargue, clarification deprived her of right to be heard | No due process violation; court did not abuse discretion in denying oral argument/hearings; written submissions sufficed |
| Motion to open/new trial based on alleged perjury and ineffective counsel | Evidence (guardian ad litem, therapist) supported findings; alleged misattribution and purported perjury were not newly discovered or dispositive | Mager (GAL) committed perjury about hospital records and conversations with therapist; counsel ineffective for failing to expose perjury | Denial of motion to open affirmed: misattribution was harmless; contested record evidence was available at trial, so not "newly discovered"; no abuse of discretion |
| Award of sole legal custody to plaintiff (best interests) | Custody decision guided by §46b‑56 factors; children’s strong, consistent preference and safety risks supported award | Joint legal custody or more liberal access warranted; court ignored evidence favorable to defendant | Affirmed: trial court’s credibility assessments and §46b‑56 analysis supported sole custody and limited conditional visitation; no abuse of discretion |
| Financial orders (child support, expense shares, pension transfer, life insurance) | Orders within court’s discretion and interwoven in equitable distribution; support and visitation obligations can coexist | Orders are inequitable, exceed defendant’s ability to pay, punitive (pension/life insurance) | Affirmed: no basis in record to disturb distribution; retirement happened after judgment and cannot be considered on appeal; orders not punitive or abusive of discretion |
| Motions to recuse judge (bias/appearance of impropriety) | Judge’s rulings and some comments did not show extrajudicial bias; rulings adverse to litigant are not proof of bias | Judge displayed bias (rulings against her, remarks about therapy community, retaining case after transfer) | Denied: no reasonable appearance of impropriety; rulings and remarks stemmed from case participation and findings, not extrajudicial sources |
Key Cases Cited
- Brochard v. Brochard, 165 Conn. App. 626 (Conn. App. 2016) (abuse of discretion review for denial of oral argument under Practice Book §11‑18)
- Lambert v. Donahue, 78 Conn. App. 493 (Conn. App. 2003) (harmless error analysis for trial court factual findings)
- Worth v. Korta, 132 Conn. App. 154 (Conn. App. 2011) (standard for "newly discovered" evidence in motion to open)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (Conn. 2010) (standard of review and discretion in domestic relations financial orders)
- McKenna v. Delente, 123 Conn. App. 137 (Conn. App. 2010) (standards for judicial disqualification; appearance of impropriety)