229 Conn.App. 15
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- This case involves a custody dispute between Kenneth L. Thomas (plaintiff) and Meghan M. Cleary (defendant) over their three minor children.
- The trial court initially awarded the parties joint legal custody but primary physical custody to Thomas, following findings of Cleary’s untreated mental health and substance abuse issues, along with a documented history of making false abuse allegations.
- After Cleary refused to return the children following a scheduled visitation, Thomas filed for emergency and postjudgment modification of custody, citing noncompliance with prior orders and renewed false allegations by Cleary.
- The court found that Cleary made another unfounded sexual abuse allegation, refused to comply with psychological assessment and visitation protocols, and that her conduct negatively impacted the stability and well-being of the children.
- The trial court awarded Thomas sole legal and physical custody, severely restricted Cleary’s access, and denied her postjudgment motions as well as her motion to disqualify the judge.
- Cleary, self-represented, appealed, challenging the factual and legal bases of the trial court’s modification order, its alleged bias, and the imputation of her earning capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modification of custody was proper | Material change; best interests support modification | No competent evidence of new circumstances | Modification supported; no abuse of discretion |
| Court's findings on abuse allegations | Repeated false allegations, supported by evidence | No evidence of falsehood; court prejudged allegations | Findings were not clearly erroneous |
| Substance abuse findings | Ongoing concern; prior findings inform current risk | No competent evidence of current substance abuse | Reliance on prior findings not clearly erroneous |
| Judicial bias/disqualification | No actual or apparent bias by judge | Judge was biased/prejudged against self-represented | Claim inadequately briefed; not reviewed |
| Imputed earning capacity challenge | Not subject of current appeal; based on prior order | Imputed earning capacity unsupported by record | Collateral attack; not addressed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. Dolan, 211 Conn. App. 390 (standard for abuse of discretion in custody matters)
- J.Y. v. M.R., 215 Conn. App. 648 (requirements for modifying custody orders)
- Weyher v. Weyher, 164 Conn. App. 734 (collateral vs. direct attacks on judgments)
- Lambert v. Donahue, 78 Conn. App. 493 (review of factual findings in family matters)
- Lewis v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 49 Conn. App. 684 (standards for collateral attack)