211 Conn.App. 390
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Parties divorced in 2018; one minor child. The separation agreement required the mother (Christina) to relocate within ~1 hour of her Hartford job after the 2018–2019 school year and the father (Russell) to explore moving in Massachusetts to be within 30 minutes.
- Agreement set a shared parenting schedule contingent on both parents living near each other (a "5-2-2-5" split); interim schedules applied until relocation.
- Christina received a promotion after the decree that increased salary and career prospects but largely eliminated routine remote work, making relocation to Massachusetts incompatible with maintaining her job.
- The trial court credited Christina, found Russell less credible, held Russell in contempt for verbal abuse and failing to pay required mortgage contributions, and determined his conduct had financial and coparenting consequences.
- The court granted Christina’s motion to modify: it vacated the relocation-triggered parenting plan, ordered the child to remain primarily in the Hartford area, and returned to an every-other-weekend schedule for the father; it later awarded Christina $7,700 in appellate attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to modify relocation/parenting provisions | Promotion made relocation infeasible; staying in Hartford serves child’s best interests (stability, school, activities) | Promotion/prospects were foreseeable under the agreement; modification undermines the parties’ relocation bargain and joint-custody expectations | No abuse of discretion. Court reasonably found promotion a substantial change and that child’s best interests favored remaining in Hartford; parenting schedule was appropriate |
| Award of appellate attorney’s fees | Christina lacks liquid funds and used awarded assets/401(k) to pay counsel; fee award needed to avoid undermining prior financial orders | Christina has sufficient liquid assets and income; fees unnecessary | No abuse of discretion. $7,700 awarded because failure to award would undermine prior financial orders and was supported by Christina’s testimony about using investments/401(k) funds |
Key Cases Cited
- M. S. v. P. S., 203 Conn. App. 377 (Conn. App. 2020) (abuse-of-discretion standard for custody/modification; best-interests framework)
- Zhou v. Zhang, 334 Conn. 601 (Conn. 2020) (appellate deference to trial court credibility assessments and discretionary custody decisions)
- Leonova v. Leonov, 201 Conn. App. 285 (Conn. App. 2020) (§46b-62 permits awarding fees for postjudgment proceedings, including appeals)
- Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324 (Conn. 2007) (attorney’s fees appropriate when a party lacks liquid assets or failure to award would undermine prior financial orders)
- Lopes v. Ferrari, 188 Conn. App. 387 (Conn. App. 2019) (trial court credibility findings are entitled to substantial weight)