Regan v. Regan, 143 Conn. App. 113

Marriage in 2001; child born 2002; dissolution in 2004 with primary residence to defendant and a 32.5 mile relocation restriction
First relocation motion denied (2006) after two-day trial; relocation study recommended against

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court properly analyzed best interests under § 46b-56d	Regan argues best interests analysis omitted	Court correctly applied statutory criteria	Yes; no additional criterion required by statute
Whether court erred by using two improper considerations	Court penalized remarriage and prior relocation attempts	Court considered relevant history and circumstances	No; no improper punitive considerations
Whether court improperly required economic necessity under § 46b-56d(b)(4)	Court demanded economic necessity beyond statutory criterion	Court analyzed economic enhancement aspects per statute	No; error if any was harmless
Whether court misconstrued statute vis-a-vis nonrelocating parent’s needs	Court prioritized nonrelocating parent’s relationship improperly	Court weighed access and contact as statutorily required	No; court properly applied factors and denied relocation

Tow v. Tow, 142 Conn. App. 45 (Conn. App. 2013) (standard for abuse of discretion in relocation cases)
Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn. App. 528 (Conn. App. 2002) (statutory interpretation and burden of proof)
LaPlante v. Vasquez, 136 Conn. App. 805 (Conn. App. 2012) (ambiguity and statutory interpretation principles)
Stone-Krete Construction, Inc. v. Eder, 280 Conn. 672 (Conn. 2006) (court cannot supply omissions in statute)
Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission, 284 Conn. 838 (Conn. 2008) (statutory interpretation framework)
Taylor v. Taylor, 119 Conn. App. 817 (Conn. App. 2010) (relocation factors and balancing interests)
Emrich v. Emrich, 127 Conn. App. 691 (Conn. App. 2011) (weighing feasible solutions in relocation)