182 Conn. App. 353
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Kyle S. and Jayne K. divorced in 2009; judgment incorporated a custody agreement giving them joint custody and Kyle primary residence of their son, T (born 2004).
- In Feb. 2016 Jayne filed: (1) an emergency ex parte custody application (§46b-56f) alleging Kyle physically abused his fiancée in T’s presence and was arrested, and (2) an application for relief from abuse (§46b-15) seeking a restraining order for herself and T, alleging threats and a violent history.
- The trial court granted ex parte relief, awarded temporary custody to Jayne, and later (after hearings) ordered joint legal custody with primary residence to Jayne; it allowed Kyle limited, therapeutic contact with T under psychologist Dr. Corson’s supervision.
- The court admitted T’s mental‑health reports (with the parents’ waivers) into evidence at several hearings; Kyle later challenged that admission as plain error.
- In its oral ruling the court repeatedly stated it would “rely on” and allow Dr. Corson to “dictate” the scope, expansion, or contraction of Kyle’s contact with T; Kyle appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the court improperly delegated judicial authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kyle) | Defendant's Argument (Jayne) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Sufficiency of evidence for §46b-15 restraining order | Jayne failed to prove continuous present threat to her or T | Evidence of arrest, threats, and history supported relief | Court affirmed: sufficient evidence for restraining order protecting Jayne and T |
| 2) Sufficiency of evidence for emergency ex parte custody (§46b-56f) | No immediate/present risk to T to justify emergency custody | Incident with fiancée, teacher concerns, therapist reports, babysitter testimony showed risk | Court affirmed: evidence supported emergency ex parte custody order |
| 3) Plain error in admitting T’s mental‑health records after parental waiver | Waiver invalid because parents were conflicted custody combatants; guardian ad litem required | Parents (as joint guardians) waived; parties and counsel expressly agreed to admission and privacy protections | Court rejected plain‑error claim: appellant failed to show the error was obvious and harmful |
| 4) Delegation of judicial authority to nonjudicial actor (Dr. Corson) | Court impermissibly delegated decisionmaking about Kyle’s contact with T to the psychologist | Court characterized role as relying on expert guidance to protect T’s therapy progress | Court agreed with Kyle: trial court improperly delegated authority; reversed in part and remanded on that issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Putman v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162 (Conn. 2006) (adverse‑collateral‑consequences exception to mootness in domestic violence restraining orders)
- Garvey v. Valencis, 177 Conn. App. 578 (Conn. App. 2017) (standard for emergency temporary custody and appellate review of factual findings)
- Rosemarie B.-F. v. Curtis P., 133 Conn. App. 472 (Conn. App. 2012) (single incident plus present threat can satisfy §46b-15)
- Keenan v. Casillo, 149 Conn. App. 642 (Conn. App. 2014) (court may accept recommendations from nonjudicial actors but may not delegate judicial authority)
- Valante v. Valante, 180 Conn. 528 (Conn. 1980) (judicial functions, including issuing orders, cannot be delegated to nonjudicial persons)