325 Conn. 849
Conn.2017Background
- Mother (respondent) filed a motion in Connecticut trial court to modify/clarify visitation with her daughter after custody and guardianship were awarded to the father. The trial court had not entered specific visitation orders.
- At the time of the hearing counsel for mother represented mother lived in Massachusetts and both father and child lived in North Carolina; those facts were undisputed at hearing.
- Father objected, arguing Connecticut had no continuing jurisdiction and that North Carolina was exercising jurisdiction; he advised mother could seek relief there.
- Trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115q (inconvenient forum) and denied the mother’s motion, concluding North Carolina was a more appropriate forum.
- Mother appealed, arguing Connecticut retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and that the trial court abused discretion and denied due process by not holding an evidentiary hearing.
- Supreme Court affirmed: Connecticut did not have exclusive continuing jurisdiction and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction; mother’s due process claim was unpreserved and not of constitutional magnitude for Golding review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Connecticut retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Trial court’s prior jurisdiction over the neglect petition means Connecticut retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction over subsequent visitation motion | Parties and child no longer reside in Connecticut; UCCJEA permits loss of exclusive continuing jurisdiction when parties/child no longer reside here | Held: Connecticut did not retain exclusive continuing jurisdiction (trial court properly concluded it lost exclusive jurisdiction) |
| Whether pending appeal of neglect case to CT Supreme Court barred another state from exercising jurisdiction | Mother: pending appeal of neglect petition in CT prevents North Carolina from asserting jurisdiction over visitation | Father: appeal did not concern custody and CT was no longer exercising a custody proceeding; North Carolina may assert jurisdiction | Held: Pending appeal did not bar North Carolina because appeal did not involve an ongoing custody proceeding in CT |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction (forum non conveniens under §46b-115q) | Mother: Connecticut was familiar with the case and could decide expeditiously; mother lacked resources to travel to NC | Father: North Carolina is where child and most evidence are located; travel burden and evidence availability favor NC | Held: No abuse of discretion; the court properly considered statutory factors and reasonably concluded NC was more appropriate forum |
| Whether due process required an evidentiary hearing before relinquishing jurisdiction | Mother: was entitled to an evidentiary hearing; she claims denial of due process | Father: mother never requested an evidentiary hearing and residency facts were undisputed; trial court could rely on counsel’s representations | Held: Claim not preserved; further, not eligible for Golding review because decision declining jurisdiction did not itself infringe a fundamental parental right |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tabone, 301 Conn. 708 (standard of plenary review for subject matter jurisdiction)
- State v. Pires, 310 Conn. 222 (court may rely on counsel’s factual representations)
- State v. Smith, 289 Conn. 598 (reliance on counsel’s representations)
- Collins v. Lewis, 111 Conn. 299 (reliance on attorney representations binding on client)
- Brown v. Brown, 195 Conn. 98 (discretionary nature of relinquishing jurisdiction/forum non conveniens under UCCJEA)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Golding test for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123 (preservation rule; appellate review limited to issues raised at trial)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)