Eisenlohr v. Eisenlohr
135 Conn. App. 337
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- The parties, married in 1991, have one child and entered a separation agreement the court incorporated into its dissolution judgment, granting the defendant primary residence and joint legal custody.
- On July 28, 2010, the plaintiff moved to modify custody, alleging the defendant repeatedly denied his parenting access and engaged in alienation and manipulation of the child.
- The trial court granted temporary orders on December 1, 2010, giving the plaintiff sole physical custody and finding the defendant had harmed the child and violated parenting orders.
- After three days of hearings, the court on March 24, 2011 denied the defendant’s compliance/modification motions and granted the plaintiff’s motion to modify, concluding the child benefited from living with the plaintiff and that the defendant was not truthful.
- The court issued a detailed written ruling, awarding the plaintiff sole physical and legal custody and imposing conditions and restrictions on future modification and on the defendant’s ability to file further motions, including postjudgment counseling and coparenting requirements.
- The defendant, appearing pro se, appeals the custody modification and related orders, challenging due process, restrictions on modification filings, and the use of alleged parental alienation evidence; the appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the custody modification was an abuse of discretion | Modification aligned with best interests and substantial change in circumstances | Court overstepped discretion and fairness in altering custody | No abuse; modification in best interests and substantial change supported |
| Whether due process was violated by the modification proceeding | Proceeding provided adequate process and adequate opportunity to present evidence | Needed a full trial; unpreserved Golding claim | Claim not reviewed; unpreserved |
| Whether the court properly restricted future modification filings | Restrictions warranted by defendant’s pattern of litigation and contempt | Restrictions were improper constraints on rights | Restriction approved as appropriate under circumstances |
| Whether the court relied on parental alienation syndrome in its decision | Evidence showed manipulative conduct and coercive behavior by defendant | No reliance on alienation syndrome; unsupported theory | No error; court relied on documented manipulation and coercive behavior |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 83 Conn.App. 106 (2004) (best interests standard with change in circumstance)
- Strobel v. Strobel, 92 Conn.App. 662 (2005) (courts may impose restrictions on filing motions for modification)
- DiGiovanna v. St. George, 300 Conn. 59 (2011) (statutory authority to order counseling)
- Foster v. Foster, 84 Conn.App. 311 (2004) (authority to order postjudgment counseling in custody)
- Gina M.G. v. William C., 77 Conn.App. 582 (2003) (appellate review of discretionary control over custody)