142 Conn. App. 613
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Kristen S. Nweeia appeals a trial court order granting Martin T. Nweeia sole legal custody and modifying the parenting plan after postdissolution motions.
- The dissolution decree (2008) initially granted joint custody; the plan specified that the plaintiff’s address would be used for registration purposes when only one address could be used.
- The plaintiff relocated from Kent to Greenwich (Greenwich, CT) and later sought to relocate the child to Irvington, NY, asserting a substantial change in circumstances.
- The trial court held extensive hearings (2010–2011) and ultimately awarded the defendant sole legal custody and moved the child’s residence to the defendant’s home.
- The plaintiff challenged (1) whether the in-state relocation was a substantial change of circumstances and (2) the court’s denial of calling the child as a rebuttal witness; the court affirmed the custody and evidentiary rulings.
- The court’s articulation addressed the evidentiary basis for precluding the child’s testimony, emphasizing the child’s best interests and potential harms from testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether in-state relocation can be a material change in custody | Nweeia argues relocation within state is not a material change | Nweeia admitted relocation is substantial; change warranted custody ruling | Relocation within state constitutes substantial change; review barred due to trial strategy |
| Whether the court properly precluded calling the child as a rebuttal witness | Nweeia intended to show the child’s reading ability to rebut expert | Court acted to protect child; evidence not probative and potentially harmful | Court did not abuse discretion; preclusion affirmed, evidence not probative and harmful to child |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C., 262 Conn. 163 (2000) (preservation of claims and trial strategy limitations on appeal)
- State v. Colon, 82 Conn. App. 658 (2004) (requirement that claims be distinctly raised at trial)
- Glenn v. Glenn, 133 Conn. App. 397 (2012) (appellate waiver and trial strategy considerations)
- Dockter v. Slowik, 91 Conn. App. 448 (2005) (ambuscade concerns and procedural limits on appeal)
- Gennarini v. Gennarini, 2 Conn. App. 132 (1984) (due process concerns in custody matters)
- Motzer v. Haberli, 300 Conn. 733 (2011) (trial court evidentiary discretion; waste of time; best interests)
- Linnell v. Linnett, (unofficial docket; cited in decision) (2010) (guardian ad litem duties and child welfare considerations)
- State v. Adorno, 121 Conn. App. 534 (2010) (impeachment and extrinsic evidence concerns in evidentiary ruling)