Liberti v. Liberti
132 Conn. App. 869
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Liberti filed for divorce; parties have one child born in 2003 and initially shared joint legal custody with plaintiff having physical custody and defendant visiting.
- An August 2010 agreement via special master expanded visitation with shared physical custody, omitting a prior requirement that the defendant's mother be present during overnight visits.
- In November 2010, the plaintiff disclosed allegations of abuse about the defendant during deposition after filings; documentation appeared that neither defense counsel nor the guardian ad litem had previously seen.
- The plaintiff sought to withdraw her attorney; the defendant filed an emergency motion for immediate sole custody and supervised visitation on November 8, 2010.
- The court held an evidentiary hearing on the emergency motion the same day, granting the defendant sole custody and supervised visitation, and later allowed the plaintiff’s attorney to withdraw.
- The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, moved to reargue on November 29, 2010; the trial court denied the motion, and she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process in hearing on emergency motion | Liberti claims due process was violated by the evidentiary hearing and representation issues. | Defendant contends the hearing was proper and necessary to protect the child’s interests. | No reversible error; no preserved Golding review. |
| Review of denial of motion to reargue | Liberti asserts the court abused its discretion by denying reargument. | Liberti failed to show overlooked law or facts; record inadequate for meaningful review. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (preservation of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Commins, 276 Conn. 503 (2005) (burden to seek Golding review for unpreserved claims)
- Ghant v. Commissioner of Correction, 255 Conn. 1 (2000) (decline to review unpreserved claims without request)
- Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686 (2001) (motion to reargue not for second bite at apple)
- Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn.App. 436 (2006) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of motion to reargue)