Emrich v. Emrich
15 A.3d 1104
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Parties married in 1986; five children; divorce action commenced in 2006 and judgment of dissolution entered February 26, 2008 with joint legal custody and plaintiff primary residence in Fairfield.
- Parenting plan restricted relocation within 20 driving miles of Fairfield without agreement or court order while minor children remain; defendant later seeks postjudgment modifications due to income loss.
- Plaintiff moves to relocate to Portland, Maine; defendant opposes relocation and seeks downward modification of support and alimony; trial court holds a hearing.
- November 5, 2009 memorandum of decision grants plaintiff relocation to Maine with three younger children, while two older children remain with defendant in Connecticut; continues joint legal custody; assigns primary custody to defendant for older children and to plaintiff for younger children.
- Court applies § 46b-56d relocation standards; guardian ad litem Henderson testifies in favor of separation for the younger children; evidence regarding sibling separation is weighed; appellate review is abuse of discretion standard for custody decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation to Maine with three children was in their best interests | Emrich contends relocation serves legitimate purpose and is best for children. | Emrich argues relocation disrupts children's relationships with nonrelocating parent and siblings; insufficient basis for best interests. | relocation upheld; in best interests |
| Whether the court properly applied § 46b-56d (b) relocation factors | Court considered statutory factors supporting relocation. | Court failed to address all factors, especially sibling separation and quality of relationships. | court properly applied factors |
| Whether the court properly addressed sibling separation and its impact | Separation is warranted given younger siblings' needs and circumstances. | Separation not in best interests; compelling circumstances required. | court considered separation; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether guardian ad litem's testimony supported relocation decision | GAL supported relocation for three younger children. | GAL did not interview extensively; testimony should not sustain separation. | court credited GAL's testimony |
| Whether the financial orders are reviewable on appeal | N/A | Challenges to alimony, child support, tax provisions; need articulation and proper record. | claims not reviewable due to failure to seek articulation/rectification |
Key Cases Cited
- Noonan v. Noonan, 122 Conn. App. 184 (2010) (abuse of discretion standard in custody matters)
- West Farms Mall, LLC v. West Hartford, 279 Conn. 1 (2006) (trial court credibility and weighing of witnesses)
- Blumenthal v. Kimber Mfg., Inc., 265 Conn. 1 (2003) (presumption in favor of trial court’s law application; record interpretation)
- Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (2010) (sole arbiter of credibility; court may accept or reject testimony)
- Ramondetta v. Amenta, 97 Conn. App. 151 (2006) (adequate record for review; articulation requirements)