Gillespie v. Jenkins
127 Conn. App. 228
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Gillespie v. Jenkins, 14 A.3d 1019 (2011); Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. 31315.
- Parents were never married and share one minor child born in May 2004.
- 2007 judgment awarded joint custody with primary physical custody to Jenkins and child support to Gillespie.
- December 2008 postjudgment agreement increased Gillespie's visitation and clarified access.
- Jenkins moved to open and modify, seeking final decision-making authority; Gillespie moved to terminate child support.
- July 14, 2009 hearing: court granted Jenkins’ motion, designated her primary decision-maker, suspended child support; both parties won in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a material change in circumstances justifying modification | Gillespie: no material change to justify modification | Jenkins: retirement and ongoing disputes constitute change warranting change in authority | No abuse of discretion; material change supported modification |
| Whether the court properly relied on representations of counsel as evidence | Gillespie: statements of counsel are not evidence | Jenkins: uncontested counsel representations may support relief | Court properly relied on uncontested counsel representations corroborated by file |
| Whether giving Jenkins primary decision-making authority serves the child’s best interests | Gillespie: no basis to shift authority absent evidence | Jenkins: frequent disputes and retirement justify giving primary authority to one parent | Modification aligned with best interests given disputes and planned retirement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chambers, 296 Conn. 397 (Conn. 2010) (courts may rely on counsel representations when corroborated by record)
- Payton v. Payton, 103 Conn.App. 825 (Conn. App. 2007) (standard for adjusting custody involves material change and best interests)
- Simms v. Simms, 283 Conn. 494 (Conn. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard in domestic relations appeals)
- In re Anthony E., 96 Conn.App. 414 (Conn. App. 2006) (trial court findings reviewed for clear error or abuse of discretion)