210 Conn.App. 331
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Stacy and Michael Taber divorced after litigation; they have a minor child and a pendente lite order (Aug 2017) appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL) billed at $150/hr, with parties each responsible for 50%.
- Plaintiff filed an emergency ex parte custody application in July 2020; the trial court (Aug 10, 2020) suspended the defendant’s overnight visits and limited parenting time.
- Plaintiff later moved for contempt; following hearings the court (Oct 13, 2020) suspended all of defendant’s access until he completed biweekly therapy for three months and found defendant responsible for GAL fees and required payment on arrearage.
- GAL requested a status conference; at an Oct 28, 2020 hearing the court found a GAL fee arrearage of $6,263.87 and ordered defendant to pay $100/week until paid in full.
- Defendant appealed the Aug 10 order (and later amended to include the Oct 28 GAL-fee order); he challenged the emergency ex parte custody decision and the weekly payment requirement for GAL fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard and made required findings when granting the emergency ex parte custody order (Aug 10, 2020). | Stacy: the ex parte custody relief was proper and supported by the record. | Michael: court failed to apply correct legal standard and make requisite findings. | Dismissed as moot — Oct 13 order superseded the Aug 10 order and was not appealed, so appellate court could not grant practical relief. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion ordering Michael to pay $100/week on the GAL fee arrearage (Oct 28, 2020). | Stacy/GAL: defendant should be required to pay the GAL fee arrearage (GAL asked for full payment within 14 days). | Michael: court didn’t properly consider the parties’ respective financial circumstances before ordering payments. | Affirmed — court required financial affidavit and pay stub, held a hearing, heard GAL testimony about defendant’s finances and ability to pay; record shows court considered finances and $100/week was within its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 109 Conn. App. 591 (Conn. App. 2008) (mootness and appellate jurisdiction principles)
- Ruggiero v. Ruggiero, 76 Conn. App. 338 (Conn. App. 2003) (courts must consider parties’ financial resources when awarding attorney/GAL fees)
- Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 107 Conn. App. 488 (Conn. App. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for awarding GAL fees)
- Burbank v. Board of Education, 299 Conn. 833 (Conn. 2011) (standards for capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review mootness exception)