Hibbard v. Hibbard
139 Conn. App. 10
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Lori J. Hibbard appeals after the trial court granted Tony E. Hibbard's postdissolution motions to modify custody and hold Lori in contempt.
- Dissolution in 2007 provided joint legal custody and primary residence with Lori; Tony had scheduled visitation.
- From 2008 onward, the parties filed about thirty postjudgment motions; disputes centered on parenting time and visitation
- Visitation was repeatedly modified, including supervised visits, overnight visits on alternating weekends, and later reductions.
- On May 26, 2011, Tony moved to hold Lori in contempt for four missed visits on May 18, 19, 21, 2011; on May 31, 2011, he moved to modify custody to sole custody with supervised visitation for Lori.
- A comprehensive evaluation by family relations counselor Matthew Walker was admitted as evidence; Lori objected to hearsay statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the Walker report | Walker report contains prejudicial hearsay not redacted. | Report admissible under Practice Book § 25-60 with cross-examination. | Report properly admitted; objection overruled. |
| Contempt for missed visitation | Fears for the child's safety justified temporary noncompliance. | No justification; noncompliance was wilful. | No abuse of discretion; Lori held in contempt. |
| Custody modification | No substantial change in circumstances; modification not warranted. | Enduring parental conflict rendered joint custody unworkable; modification appropriate. | Modification affirmed; sole custody awarded to defendant in the child's best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. Stewart, 177 Conn. 401 (1979) (admissibility of family report; objecting to entire report insufficient)
- Lambert v. Donahue, 78 Conn. App. 493 (2003) (change in circumstances and best interests standard for custody modification)
- Gillespie v. Jenkins, 127 Conn. App. 228 (2011) (abuse of discretion in custody modification; deference to trial court findings)
- Eisenlohr v. Eisenlohr, 135 Conn. App. 337 (2012) (ownership of coercive/alienation evidence justified custody transfer under § 46b-56(c)(7))
- Payton v. Payton, 103 Conn. App. 825 (2007) (coparenting failure to communicate supports custody change)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn. App. 50 (1999) (finding changed circumstances and best interests in custody decisions)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 418 A.2d 62 (1979) (see above (used for hearsay/objection analysis in reports))