Merkel v. Hill, 189 Conn. App. 779

Parents never married; one child born Dec. 2008. Massachusetts Probate Court (2013) awarded defendant sole physical and legal custody; plaintiff granted visitation and child support. Massachusetts judgment was domesticated in Connecticut in 2013.
Plaintiff filed multiple motions to modify custody/visitation between 2014–2017; family relations counselor Nancy E. Fraser prepared a comprehensive evaluation filed Dec. 2016 recommending joint legal custody, defendant primary physical custody, and expanded visitation.
Plaintiff scheduled a short-calendar hearing limited to a September 7, 2017 motion to modify only the parental access plan; other pending motions (including custody modification requests) were not scheduled for that hearing.
At the Oct. 11, 2017 hearing the court admitted Fraser’s Dec. 2016 report over defendant’s objections; Fraser was present but unprepared to testify and repeatedly said the report was stale (more than six months old) and she could not endorse it as current.
On Jan. 26, 2018 the trial court modified both the parental access plan and custody, adopting Fraser’s recommendations from the year-old report; defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court violated procedural due process by modifying custody without notice when only a parental access plan motion was scheduled	Plaintiff sought to have report recommendations adopted at the short calendar and treated the hearing as proper to implement changes	Defendant argued the hearing was limited to parental access plan; modifying custody without notice denied her meaningful opportunity to be heard	Court held due process violated: custody was modified without notice and without a meaningful opportunity to be heard; modification improper
Whether trial court abused its discretion by adopting a year-old family relations report whose author disclaimed present recommendations	Plaintiff relied on the report and asked court to adopt its recommendations temporarily pending full trial	Defendant argued report was stale; Fraser testified she could not vouch that recommendations were still valid and that reports become outdated after six months	Court held adoption was an abuse of discretion because report was outdated, author unprepared, and could not provide current recommendations

State v. Harris, 277 Conn. 378 (discusses plenary review of constitutional procedural due process)
In re DeLeon J., 290 Conn. 371 (notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard required when rights affected)
Barros v. Barros, 309 Conn. 499 (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest requiring due process)
Collins v. Collins, 117 Conn. App. 380 (trial court must consider children’s present best interests, not past conditions)
O’Neill v. O’Neill, 13 Conn. App. 300 (abuse of discretion where court relied on outdated evidence rather than present ability to parent)
Balaska v. Balaska, 130 Conn. App. 510 (recognizes reliance on outdated information may be improper, but permissible if adequate current information exists)
Reinke v. Sing, 328 Conn. 376 (distinguishes motion-procedure authority from subject matter jurisdiction)
Lopes v. Ferrari, 188 Conn. App. 387 (standard of review for custody/visitation appeals)