207 Conn.App. 244
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Parties divorced in 2010; dissolution incorporated a separation agreement allocating custody to the mother and unallocated alimony/child support; modifications followed in 2014.
- Defendant (Kennedy) moved to Florida in October 2017; in April 2018 the plaintiff (De Almeida‑Kennedy) relocated with the two minor children to Tennessee.
- Defendant filed multiple postjudgment motions in Connecticut in 2018–2019, including a motion for modification (alimony/support/visitation), two contempt motions, motions for a Strobel order, to remove the guardian ad litem, to compel discovery, and an emergency ex parte custody application.
- Plaintiff moved to dismiss the defendant’s custody/visitation‑related motions under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), asserting Connecticut lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because the family had lived in Tennessee for more than six months.
- Trial court found Connecticut lacked exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under §46b‑115l(a)(1), dismissed certain custody/visitation motions and stayed proceedings pending a Tennessee filing; it also dismissed several other motions—some unrelated to custody—which the Appellate Court later reviewed.
- On appeal the court affirmed dismissal of custody/visitation matters for lack of UCCJEA jurisdiction, reversed dismissal of motions unrelated to custody (child support/alimony, Strobel, remove GAL, compel), and remanded those for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | De Almeida‑Kennedy's Argument | Kennedy's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff produced admissible evidence to support UCCJEA dismissal (residences, children’s location, finances) | Submitted affidavit and exhibits (school IEP, Tennessee utility bill) showing Tennessee residency and children’s ties | Plaintiff produced no admissible evidence of residency, children’s location, or finances | Court: affidavit + exhibits sufficed; plaintiff introduced admissible evidence supporting dismissal under UCCJEA |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by staying enforcement of the emergency ex parte custody order | Stay appropriate while jurisdictional issues resolved | Stay was an abuse of discretion | Not reviewed on appeal—defendant failed to seek motion for review under Practice Book §66‑6, so claim is unpreserved |
| Whether Connecticut retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under §46b‑115l(a)(1) | Connecticut lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because parents and children did not presently reside in Connecticut (defendant in FL; plaintiff and children in TN) | Connecticut reacquired exclusive, continuing jurisdiction when defendant returned to Connecticut in Sept 2018 | Court: §46b‑115l covers continuing, not intermittent, jurisdiction; exclusive continuing jurisdiction ceased when family left and was not reestablished by defendant’s return; dismissal of custody/visitation motions affirmed |
| Whether the court properly dismissed non‑custody motions under the UCCJEA and whether deferral of modification motion was proper | Dismissal was proper because court lacked jurisdiction over related proceedings | Dismissal of alimony/support, Strobel, remove GAL, compel was improper because those matters are monetary/procedural and outside the UCCJEA; deferral of modification prejudiced defendant | Court: dismissed custody/visitation motions properly, but reversed dismissal of motions unrelated to custody (alimony/support modification, Strobel order, remove GAL, compel). Deferral of the modification motion pending resolution of jurisdictional issues was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Parisi v. Niblett, 199 Conn. App. 761, 238 A.3d 740 (Conn. App. 2020) (UCCJEA is the enabling statute and limits jurisdiction to custody/visitation matters)
- Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531, 590 A.2d 914 (Conn. 1991) (court must resolve subject‑matter jurisdiction before proceeding)
- Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 305 Conn. 539, 46 A.3d 112 (Conn. 2012) (explaining unallocated alimony/child support orders)
- Strobel v. Strobel, 92 Conn. App. 662, 886 A.2d 865 (Conn. App. 2005) (procedure for seeking limitations on further postdissolution filings)
- Mendillo v. Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP, 329 Conn. 515, 187 A.3d 1154 (Conn. 2018) (standards of appellate review cited)
- N.S. v. D.M., 21 Cal. App. 5th 1040, 231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 67 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (illustrative authority that exclusive, continuing jurisdiction ceases when parties and child move out of state)