141 Conn. App. 208
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Harris sued for custody; initial joint custody order (2006) with primary residence with Hamilton and plaintiff visitation.
- An August 14, 2008 custody agreement, amended 2009, set routine parenting time and Our Family Wizard use.
- Hamilton moved to modify custody in 2009; trial scheduled over 2010–2011 with multiple contempt motions.
- Harris’s case proceeded across nine days of testimony; court limited evidence to post‑2008 events for the modification analysis.
- Trial court granted Hamilton sole custody, denied contempt; Harris appeals asserting due process, evidentiary limits, custody ruling, and contempt denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court violated due process by ending the hearing before Harris completed his case | Harris argues termination without full opportunity to testify. | Hamilton contends hearing procedures were proper and generous. | Not preserved; Golding/plain error not satisfied; no reversal on due process. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by restricting evidence to post‑2008 events | Harris contends past conduct relevant to best interests should be admitted. | Hamilton maintains evidence restricted to 2008+ is appropriate for modification. | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence properly limited to material changes since 2008. |
| Whether the trial court properly found a material change in circumstances warranting modification | Harris asserts no sufficient change in circumstances. | Hamilton argues substantial credibility concerns and conduct support modification. | There was ample evidence of a material change supporting sole custody. |
| Whether the court properly denied Harris’s March 4, 2011 motion for contempt | Hamilton wilfully disobeyed a court order affecting parenting time (Feb. 24, 2011). | Court found credibility issues but ultimately denied contempt due to procedural record. | Judgment reversed on contempt issue; remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (establishes Golding plain‑error review for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Cutler, 293 Conn. 303 (2009) (preserves standard for reviewing unpreserved claims; requires review mechanics)
- Szot v. Szot, 41 Conn. App. 238 (1996) (due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard when facts disputed)
- Bruno v. Geller, 136 Conn. App. 707 (2012) (affords discretion in evidentiary rulings and preservation limits)
- Pestey v. Cushman, 259 Conn. 345 (2002) (requires proper briefing for preservation and review)
- Eilers v. Eilers, 89 Conn. App. 210 (2005) (limits on constitutional evidentiary rights balance with court’s control over proceedings)
- In re Aziza S.-B., 138 Conn. App. 639 (2012) (court weighs credibility and evidence in custody matters)
- Hall v. Hall, 186 Conn. 118 (1982) (factors for best interests and parental conduct in custody)