196 Conn.App. 31
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Parties: Karol Nietupski (plaintiff, Polish-born) and Nerida Del Castillo (defendant, Peru-born); married 2011; one child, Matthew (born 2013).
- Plaintiff filed for legal separation in early 2018; defendant filed a cross‑complaint seeking dissolution under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b‑40(c)(1).
- Trial court issued pendente lite orders allowing Matthew to attend Charter Oak International Academy (West Hartford) and permitting each parent up to two weeks vacation travel (including international travel) with Matthew.
- After a bench trial, the court dissolved the marriage and incorporated school and travel orders into the final judgment; plaintiff appealed pro se.
- On appeal plaintiff argued (1) dissolution violated his First Amendment free exercise rights and (2) the court abused its discretion on orders about Matthew’s school placement and international travel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry of a judgment dissolving the marriage violated plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise rights | Nietupski: divorce conflicts with his religious belief that marriage is a sacrament; he sought separation instead of divorce | Del Castillo: defendant properly sought dissolution under the statute; statute is neutral and generally applicable | Court: rejected plaintiff’s First Amendment claim; §46b‑40(c)(1) is a valid, neutral law and prior precedent forecloses the claim |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by keeping Matthew enrolled at Charter Oak (West Hartford) | Nietupski: Matthew should attend Glastonbury public school—higher ranked and safer; sought change of school district | Del Castillo: continuing at Charter Oak is in Matthew’s best interests given his progress, mother’s involvement/knowledge of his needs, proximity, and comparable school systems | Court: no abuse of discretion; factual findings supported by evidence (guardian ad litem and principals); trial court’s credibility findings stand |
| Whether the court abused its discretion permitting international travel (including to Peru) | Nietupski: Peru is unsafe and defendant might not return with Matthew; risk of wrongful retention | Del Castillo: travel important for cultural ties; no evidence she would not return; Hague Convention and lack of travel advisories mitigate risk | Court: no abuse of discretion; credited guardian ad litem’s support and noted Hague Convention provides a remedy if wrongful retention occurs |
Key Cases Cited
- Grimm v. Grimm, 82 Conn. App. 41 (rejected First Amendment challenge to entry of divorce under §46b‑40(c)(1))
- Joy v. Joy, 178 Conn. 254 (upholding constitutionality of Connecticut divorce statute)
- Powell‑Ferri v. Ferri, 326 Conn. 457 (standard of review in domestic relations appeals—abuse of discretion/clearly erroneous standards)
- Kiniry v. Kiniry, 299 Conn. 308 (trial court is sole arbiter of witness credibility)
- Turner v. Frowein, 253 Conn. 312 (explaining Hague Convention procedures for return of wrongfully removed or retained children)
- Sweeney v. Sweeney, 271 Conn. 193 (pendente lite orders lapse on entry of final dissolution judgment)