188 Conn. App. 387
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Unmarried parents, Lopes (plaintiff) and Ferrari (defendant), share a minor child; Lopes filed for custody shortly after birth.
- Family Relations conducted a comprehensive evaluation and produced a report filed with the court.
- Lopes moved under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-6 for a court-ordered psychological examination of Ferrari, citing concerns about her daily prescription Xanax use; the motion lacked supporting factual allegations.
- The trial court denied the motion without prejudice, noting family relations would flag any concerns in its evaluation; the report did not recommend a psychological exam.
- After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the court awarded joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Ferrari, and final decision-making authority to Ferrari when parents disagreed.
- Lopes sought reconsideration and appealed, arguing (1) the denial of the psychological exam undermined the best-interests inquiry and (2) the custody decision failed to comply with §§ 46b-56 and 46b-56a(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by denying Lopes' motion to order Ferrari to undergo psychological exam | Lopes argued Ferrari’s daily Xanax use justified a court-ordered psychological evaluation to assess child safety | Ferrari and court argued motion was a fishing expedition with no factual basis; family relations evaluation was appropriate first step | Denial affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; motion lacked factual support and family relations report did not recommend exam |
| Whether the trial court failed to articulate that its orders served the child’s best interests under § 46b-56 | Lopes claimed the memorandum did not explicitly state findings that orders were in child’s best interests or explain weighting of statutory factors | Court and Ferrari noted the ten-page memorandum expressly considered statutory factors, witnesses, documents, and Family Relations report | Affirmed — memorandum sufficiently articulated basis; plaintiff could have requested further articulation but did not |
| Whether awarding final decision-making authority to Ferrari effectively awarded sole custody contrary to § 46b-56a(b) presumption favoring joint custody | Lopes argued final-decision authority functionally amounted to sole custody and court failed to explain departure from joint-custody presumption | Ferrari and court contended joint legal custody was awarded; final authority on disputes is distinct from sole legal custody and within court’s discretion | Affirmed — final decision-making authority does not equal sole legal custody; no violation of § 46b-56a(b) |
| Whether plaintiff was required to seek further articulation of findings | Lopes relied on appellate review of sufficiency of findings | Court pointed to Practice Book rules placing burden on party seeking more detailed findings to move for articulation | Held that Lopes failed to request articulation; appellate court assumes trial court acted properly without such request |
Key Cases Cited
- Tevolini v. Tevolini, 66 Conn. App. 16 (standard of review for denial of physical exam is abuse of discretion)
- In re Daniel C., 63 Conn. App. 339 (abuse of discretion standard for denial of psychological exam)
- Zilkha v. Zilkha, 180 Conn. App. 143 (trial court must articulate basis for custody decision under § 46b-56)
- Desai v. Desai, 119 Conn. App. 224 (ultimate decision-making authority in one parent is distinct from sole legal custody)
- Tabackman v. Tabackman, 25 Conn. App. 366 (same principle regarding joint custody with one parent having final authority)
- Baronio v. Stubbs, 178 Conn. App. 769 (presumption of joint custody explained; whether parents agreed is a trial-court question)
- Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316 (party should move for articulation when trial court findings lack sufficient detail)
- Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 131 Conn. App. 364 (discusses obligation to seek articulation and appellate deference if not sought)