McKechnie v. McKechnie
130 Conn. App. 411
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Barbara McKechnie challenged a trial court order awarding Dennis McKechnie sole legal custody of their two minor children after a 2009 dissolution trial.
- The court applied § 46b-56 (c)(12) to consider the best interests of the child, noting disability evidence should not be determinative.
- McKechnie argued on appeal that the court improperly applied § 46b-56 (c)(12), relied on accommodations, and misused disability evidence to favor the defendant.
- She also argued that § 46b-56 (c)(12) is vague and that the court abused its discretion in granting sole custody.
- An articulation petition raised questions about the standard of proof, the best-interests determination, disability findings, and accommodations; the court answered in part and the appellate court addressed the merits.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s custody decision, denying McKechnie relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was § 46b-56 (c)(12) properly applied? | McKechnie contends the court misapplied the factor governing disability. | McKechnie’s disability was not determinative and accommodations need not be considered on appeal. | No reversible error; proper application found. |
| Is § 46b-56 (c)(12) constitutionally vague? | Disability undefined—invites vagueness without ADA definition. | Core meaning is the best interests standard; disability may be considered but not determinative. | Not unconstitutionally vague; core meaning identified and applied. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion in awarding sole legal custody to the defendant? | Disability and custody evaluation flaws biased the decision. | Trial court credibility and factual findings support no abuse of discretion. | No abuse of discretion; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Golding v. State, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (conditions for reviewing unpreserved constitutional claims)
- In re Brendan C., 89 Conn. App. 511 (2005) (ADA applicability in termination as not a service or program)
- In re Antony B., 54 Conn. App. 463 (1999) (ADA not extending to custody proceedings)
- Lederle v. Spivey, 113 Conn. App. 177 (2009) (statutory factors in § 46b-56 (c) guidance; core meaning of factors)
- Stahl v. Bayliss, 98 Conn. App. 63 (2006) (best interests standard governs custody decisions)
- Reza v. Leyasi, 95 Conn. App. 562 (2006) (custody decisions guided by best interests)
- Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Comm'n, 249 Conn. 296 (1999) (statutory vagueness analysis and presumption of constitutionality)
- W. v. W., 248 Conn. 487 (1999) (appellate review limitations for issues not raised at trial)