J. Y. v. M. R.
215 Conn. App. 648
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Parents (J. Y. and M. R.), never married, entered a 2017 custody/parenting agreement giving joint legal custody, primary residence with mother in Cheshire, and a parenting schedule (initially seven overnights).
- Father filed a 2018 postjudgment motion seeking increased overnights and that the child attend school in the father’s town; parties later executed stipulations increasing overnights to ten.
- Mother filed a 2019 modification seeking restrictions on father’s time; after evidentiary hearings the court issued interim orders (Feb 2020) adopting the father’s proposed parenting schedule temporarily, kept joint custody, and required Practice Book §25-26(g) leave for future modification motions.
- Mother filed an emergency ex parte modification (May 8, 2020) over COVID-19 concerns; a hearing was scheduled but postponed and never held; court denied that motion on Sept. 1, 2020.
- Final orders (Sept. 1, 2020) incorporated the interim orders, designated the father’s residence as the child’s primary school residence, adopted the parenting schedule, and required leave under §25-26(g) for five years. Mother appealed and later filed two §25-26(g) leave-granted modification motions (Mar. 30, 2021); those were denied after an evidentiary hearing (Aug. 11, 2021).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Y) | Defendant's Argument (R) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of interim orders issued post-evidence (Yontef basis) | Interim temporary order appropriate to preserve stability pending final disposition | Yontef does not allow postjudgment interim modification without satisfying §46b-56 standards | Moot: interim orders were subsumed by final orders; no relief available; exception inapplicable |
| 2. Validity of final orders that incorporated interim orders | Final orders considered child’s best interests and properly adopted earlier temporary provisions | Final orders tainted by defective interim orders; court should have assessed change in circumstances since interim orders | Affirmed: court applied §46b-56 best-interests analysis; interim temporary nature did not become the ‘‘prior order’’ for modification analysis |
| 3. Transfer of child’s school residence to father | Father sought school-residence change as part of best-interest plan | Mother argued court speculated and lacked evidence (child not yet in kindergarten) | Affirmed: court reasonably found change served child’s best interests, supported by guardian ad litem and comparable school districts |
| 4. Five-year Practice Book §25-26(g) leave requirement | Necessary to curb repeated motions and protect child; applies to both parties | Such a restriction is allowed only in extreme, compelling cases and here was not justified | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion given protracted litigation, guardian ad litem support, and mutual application of the rule |
| 5. Denial of mother’s March 30, 2021 modification motions (after final orders) | COVID and parenting disruptions since Feb–Sept 2020 justified reopening/comparing to earlier conditions | Motions seek modification of Sept. 1, 2020 orders; court should compare current facts to those at final order date | Affirmed: court used correct legal standard (compare to Sept. 1, 2020) and reasonably found no material change |
| 6. Denial without hearing of May 8, 2020 emergency modification (COVID concerns) | Court erred by denying without an evidentiary hearing | Hearing later held on overlapping issues in Mar. 30, 2021 motions | Moot: issues were litigated at Aug. 11, 2021 hearing on later motions, so remand for a hearing would be superfluous |
Key Cases Cited
- Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275 (Conn. 1981) (trial courts may enter interim protective postjudgment custody orders to ensure continuity pending final disposition)
- Petrov v. Gueorguieva, 167 Conn. App. 505 (Conn. App. 2016) (modification requires material change in circumstances or that prior order was not in child’s best interests)
- Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729 (Conn. 1994) (limits on retrial of issues in modification; focus is change since prior court order)
- Ahneman v. Ahneman, 243 Conn. 471 (Conn. 1998) (recognizes narrow circumstances to refuse to consider motions, e.g., harassing litigation)
- Eisenlohr v. Eisenlohr, 135 Conn. App. 337 (Conn. App. 2012) (upholding filing restrictions where record showed contemptuous or repetitive conduct)
- Schult v. Schult, 40 Conn. App. 675 (Conn. App. 1996) (temporary custody order becomes moot when merged into final decree)
- Dolan v. Dolan, 211 Conn. App. 390 (Conn. App. 2022) (standards of review and statutory factors under §46b-56 for custody/visitation decisions)