149 Conn. App. 642
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Marriage in 2007; two children born 2007 and 2009.
- October 2010: plaintiff filed for dissolution and sought joint custody.
- November 2010: defendant accused plaintiff of sexual abuse; pendente lite motions for sole custody filed.
- Trial in 2012; court awarded joint legal custody and ordered permanent alimony and child support.
- Guardian ad litem and issues surrounding their role discussed; court’s custody order upheld.
- Court considered § 46b-56 and related statutes; found joint custody in best interests given neither parent’s suitability for sole custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had statutory authority to order joint custody | Keenan lacked authority due to pendente lite motions; due process | Casillo and court complied with statutory framework and pleadings | Yes; court had authority given pleading requesting joint custody and best interests findings |
| Whether the joint custody order flowed from trial findings | Findings favored plaintiff; joint custody not supported | Findings supported joint custody given both parents’ weaknesses | Joint custody logically and legally flowed from findings and best interests determination |
| Guardian ad litem issues and removal | Dornfeld biased, should be removed; improper influence | No bias shown; best interests standard controls | Court did not err in denying removal; no plain error in guardian ad litem testimony and role |
| Whether court abused discretion in permanent alimony award | Health, disability, and marriage length do not justify permanent alimony | Statutory criteria under §46b-82 support alimony | No abuse of discretion; alimony justified based on all factors and evidence |
| Whether court delegated judicial authority to guardian ad litem | Guardian’s role effectively bound court orders | Court appropriately used GAL recommendations without binding nonjudicial authority | Court did not improperly delegate judicial authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Demartino v. Demartino, 79 Conn. App. 488 (2003) (standard for reviewing custody findings; clearly erroneous)
- Emerick v. Emerick, 5 Conn. App. 649 (1985) (joint custody considerations; statutory framework)
- Giordano v. Giordano, 9 Conn. App. 641 (1987) (pleading for joint custody permits court to award it)
- Tabackman v. Tabackman, 25 Conn. App. 366 (1991) (joint custody where one party seeks it or agreement exists)
- In re Jason M., 140 Conn. App. 708 (2013) (due process requires notice of custody issues)
- Nashid v. Andrawis, 83 Conn. App. 115 (2004) (court may rely on guardian ad litem recommendations)
- Clougherty v. Clougherty, 131 Conn. App. 270 (2011) (plain error standard; rarity)
- Wiegand v. Wiegand, 129 Conn. App. 526 (2011) (alimony statutory criteria; broad discretion in dissolution)