Szymonik v. Szymonik, 167 Conn. App. 641

Dissolution judgment entered 2008; parties had joint legal custody with a shared parenting plan.
In 2012 defendant filed postjudgment motion to modify custody; guardian ad litem (Morra) was appointed and recommended a detailed parenting plan; court adopted detailed plan in 2013.
Although the court had indicated a separate hearing would be held on financial issues, it issued a memorandum of decision addressing custody and financial orders (child support, attorney’s fees, and allocation of guardian ad litem fees) without a separate financial hearing.
The court ordered defendant to pay two-thirds of remaining GAL fees, $200/week child support, and attorney fees; defendant appealed and the court later ruled GAL fee obligation was not stayed on appeal because such fees were "in the nature of child support."
Contempt proceedings followed for nonpayment of GAL fees; after partial payment the parties entered a stipulation in which defendant paid a reduced amount and withdrew certain appellate claims; defendant preserved other appeals challenging financial orders and due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Authority to award postjudgment guardian ad litem (GAL) fees	Court properly may allocate postjudgment GAL fees	Court lacked legislative authorization to order postjudgment GAL fees	Not reviewed: defendant did not preserve issue and appellate precedent recognizes authority under §46b-62; claim declined
2) Characterization of GAL fees as "in the nature of child support" (effect on appellate automatic stay)	GAL characterized as child-support-like so payments not stayed on appeal	That characterization was improper and could subject defendant to contempt during appeal	Dismissed as moot: defendant settled and paid; issue not justiciable on appeal
3) Due process — entering new financial orders without promised separate hearing	Plaintiff/ court proceeded appropriately given custody-first approach	Defendant was denied promised opportunity to cross-examine and a hearing on financial affidavits	Reversed as to financial orders: court violated due process; remanded for a hearing on financial issues
4) Contempt/capias for nonpayment of GAL fees and enforcement steps	Contempt and purge order were appropriate to enforce unpaid obligations	Contempt was improper given appeal and lack of clear stay; defendant challenged enforcement	Contempt-related claims largely mooted by stipulation and payment; appellate relief on contempt not granted here

Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394 (Conn. 2005) (party cannot advance inconsistent positions at trial and on appeal)
Nweeia v. Nweeia, 142 Conn. App. 613 (Conn. App. 2013) (same: litigant cannot switch trial strategy on appeal)
Ruggiero v. Ruggiero, 76 Conn. App. 338 (Conn. App. 2003) (trial court may order postjudgment GAL fees under §46b-62)
Boccanfuso v. Conner, 89 Conn. App. 260 (Conn. App. 2005) (appellate panels generally follow prior panel precedent absent en banc review)
Goldberg v. Miller, 371 Md. 591 (Md. 2002) (addressing characterization of GAL fees and enforcement during appeal)
Wendy V. v. Santiago, 319 Conn. 540 (Conn. 2015) (mootness doctrine and requirement that an actual controversy exist throughout appeal)
Styrcula v. Styrcula, 139 Conn. App. 735 (Conn. App. 2012) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard before modifying support orders)
Loisel v. Rowe, 233 Conn. 370 (Conn. 1995) (explaining the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" mootness exception)