Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries

 

Copyright © 2007, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved.

 

 

Best Interest of the Child Standard in Connecticut

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

 

·         “We have consistently held in matters involving child custody that while the rights, wishes and desires of the parents must be considered it is nevertheless the ultimate welfare of the child which must control the decision of the court.” In re Appeal of Kindis, 162 Conn. 239, 242, 294 A.2d 316 (1972).

·         “The guiding principle in determining custody is the best interest of the child." Schult v. Schult, 241 Conn. 767, 777, 699 A.2d 134 (1997).

·         JOINT CUSTODY: “There shall be a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child where the parents have agreed to an award of joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child or children of the marriage. If the court declines to enter an order awarding joint custody pursuant to this subsection, the court shall state in its decision the reasons for denial of an award of joint custody.” CONN. GEN. STATS. § 46b-56a(b) (2007)

·         NONPARENT: “In any dispute as to the custody of a minor child involving a parent and a nonparent, there shall be a presumption that it is in the best interest of the child to be in the custody of the parent, which presumption may be rebutted by showing that it would be detrimental to the child to permit the parent to have custody.” CONN. GEN. STATS. § 46b-56b (2007).

 

Sections in this chapter:

§ 1. New statutory factors (effective October  1, 2005)

§ 2. Prior factors used by the courts

§ 3. Custody orders and presumptions in Connecticut

§ 4. Parental responsibility plan

§ 5. The psychological parent

§ 6. Wishes of the child

§ 7. Parental relocation out of state 

§ 8. Parental misconduct

 

Tables in this chapter:

Table 1. Factors court may consider effective October 1, 2005

Table 2. Criteria Used by the Courts in Determining Best Interest of the Child

Table 3. ALR Annotations on Factors Used by the Courts

Table 4. Survey of the States: Best Interest of the Child Standard

Table 5. Proof of denial of child visitation rights

Table 6. Proof of justification of denial of visitation rights

Table 7. Proof as to which parent should be awarded custody of child

Table 8. New Factors used in relocation

               

 

Section1

New Statutory Factors

(Effective October 1, 2005)

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

 

 

SCOPE:

Bibliographic sources relating to the statutory factors the courts may consider in determining the best interest of the child effective October 1, 2005.

 

DEFINITIONS:

·         FACTORS: In making or modifying any order as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the court shall consider the best interests of the child, and in doing so may consider, but shall not be limited to, one or more of the following factors . . . .”   Conn. Gen. Stats. § 46b-56(c) (2007)

·         see  Table 1-1 for enumeration of statutory factors

 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

 

Preliminary legislative history of P.A. 05-258

CASES:

·         Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125, 143-144 (2007). “As this court recently noted in Fish v. Fish, 90 Conn. App. 744, 881 A.2d 342, cert. granted, 275 Conn. 924, 883 A.2d 1243 (2005), the petition for child custody and the application for child visitation are two different animals. Whereas the paramount concern of the court in Roth was the right of a fit parent to raise a child free of interference by the state and nonparents, the paramount concern in awarding custody is the best interest of the child. Id., 756-57. The plaintiffs posit that by amending § 46b-56 to require the court to consider the best interest of the child in making or modifying any order as to the custody or care of a child, the legislature effectively overruled Roth's statement that in reviewing an application for visitation, ‘the best interests of the child are secondary to the parents' rights.’ Roth v. Weston, supra, 259 Conn. 223. Nothing in either the plain language of P.A. 05-258 or its legislative history supports that assertion. As such, the plaintiffs' claim fails.”

·         Diez-Canseco v. Hunt, No. FA04-4001769 (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. New London ( Apr. 19, 2006) 2006 WL 1230063.  “The court has also weighed all of the relevant factors now enumerated in General Statutes § 46b-56(c), particularly the developmental needs of Carlos, the capacity and the disposition of the parent to understand and meet his needs, the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent, including compliance with court orders, any manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to include the child in the parents' dispute, the stability of the child's existing and proposed residences, and the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child. Clearly the present custodial arrangement of two weeks in Connecticut with the plaintiff and two weeks in Maine with the defendant is not in Carlos' best interests. Unfortunately due to the defendant's lack of transportation and funds, the plaintiff has had to bear all the burdens of transportation.”

·         Fish v. Fish, 90 Conn. App. 744, 757, 881 A.2d 343 (2005). “There is no question that the defendant, as a father, enjoys due process protection in disputes over the custody of the child. Our legislature has recognized as much in enacting § 46b-56b, which creates a rebuttable presumption that, in custody disputes between a parent and a nonparent, it is in the best interest of the child to be in the custody of the parent . . . . Given the court's findings of fact as reported previously, however, there was ample evidence for the court to conclude that the presumption in the defendant's favor was rebutted.”

·         Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 789 A.2d 431 (2002).

 

COMPILER:

Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL

 

 

Table 1  Factors court may consider effective October 1, 2005

 

Statutory Factors

Conn. Gen. Stats § 46b-56(c) (2007)

 

“In making or modifying any order as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the court shall consider the best interests of the child, and in doing so may consider, but shall not be limited to, one or more of the following factors:

 

 

(1) The temperament and developmental needs of the child;

 

 

(2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child;

 

 

(3) any relevant and material information obtained from the child, including the informed preferences of the child;

 

 

(4) the wishes of the child's parents as to custody;

 

 

(5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child's siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the best interests of the child;

 

 

(6) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage such continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent as is appropriate, including compliance with any court orders;

 

 

(7) any manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents' dispute;

 

 

(8) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child;

 

 

(9) the child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community environments;

 

 

(10) the length of time that the child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity in such environment, provided the court may consider favorably a parent who voluntarily leaves the child's family home pendente lite in order to alleviate stress in the household;

 

 

(11) the stability of the child's existing or proposed residences, or both;

 

 

 

(12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a

proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of custom unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interests of the child;

 

 

 (13) the child's cultural background;

 

 

(14) the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or the child;

 

 

(15) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected, as defined respectively in section 46b-120; and

 

 

(16) whether the party satisfactorily completed participation in a parenting education program established pursuant to section 46b-69b. The court is not required to assign any weight to any of the factors that it considers.

 

 

The court is not required to assign any weight to any of the factors that it considers.”

 

 

 

Section 2  

Prior Factors Used

by the Courts

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

 

 

SCOPE:

Bibliographic sources relating to the factors used by the courts in Connecticut to determine the best interest of the child prior to October 1, 2005

 

SEE ALSO:

·         § 1  Statutory  factors court may consider after October 1, 2005

 

DEFINITIONS:

·          “We continue to adhere to the view that the legislature was acting wisely in leaving the delicate and difficult process of fact-finding in family matters to flexible, individualized adjudication of the particular facts of each case without the constraint of objective guidelines.” Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 710, 433 A.2d 1005 (1980).

 

STATUTES: 

 

·         Conn. Gen. Stat. (2005)

§ 46b‑56. [Prior to October 1, 2005] Superior Court orders re custody or visitation, the court shall:

(b). In making or modifying any order with respect to custody or visitation, the court shall:

(1) be guided by the best interest of the child, giving consideration to the wishes of the child if the child is of sufficient age and capable of forming an intelligent preference, provided in making the initial order the court may take into consideration the causes for dissolution of the marriage or legal separation if such causes are relevant in a determination of the best interest of the child and

(2) consider whether the party satisfactorily completed participation in a parenting education established pursuant to section 46b-69b.

(f) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, when a motion for modification of custody or visitation is pending before the court or has been decided by the court and the investigation ordered by the court pursuant to section 46b-6 recommends psychiatric or psychological therapy for a child, and such therapy would, in the court's opinion, be in the best interests of the child and aid the child's response to a modification, the court may order such therapy and reserve judgment on the motion for modification.

§ 45a-719. Reopening judgment terminating parental rights. “ . . . For the purpose of this section, "best interest of the child" shall include, but not be limited to, a consideration of the age of the child, the nature of the relationship of the child with the caretaker of the child, the length of time the child has been in the custody of the caretaker, the nature of the relationship of the child with the birth parent, the length of time the child has been in the custody of the birth parent, any relationship that may exist between the child and siblings or other children in the caretaker's house­hold, and the psychological and medical needs of the child. The determination of the best interest of the child shall not he based on a consideration of the socio-economic status of the birth parent or the caretaker.”

 

CASES:

 

·         Denardo v. Bergamo, 272 Conn. 500, 514, 863 A.2d 686 (2004). “Moreover, in a contested visitation case, the ultimate question is: What is in the child's best interest?”

·         Foster v. Foster, 84 Conn. App. 311, 323, 853 A.2d 588 (2004). “It is well established that the court may require the parties and the child to undergo a psychiatric or psychological evaluation for the purpose of properly disposing of a family matter, in a modification of custody case, to assist in determining the best interest of the child. See General Statutes §§ 46b-3 and 46b-6; Pascal v. Pascal, 2 Conn. App. 472, 478-79, 481 A.2d 68 (1984). Until recently, the trial court was without statutory authority to order parties to undergo counseling after entering orders regarding the custody of the minor child. See Janik v. Janik, 61 Conn. App. 175, 180, 763 A.2d 65 (2000) (concluding that "nothing in §§ 46b-3 and 46b-6 authorizes the court to order parties in a custody battle to undergo psychiatric therapy or counseling postjudgment since those provisions apply to pending family matters"), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 940, 768 A.2d 949 (2001). Our legislature, however, amended General Statutes § 46b-56 (g) in 2002, as follows: ‘As part of a decision concerning custody or visitation, the court may order either parent or both of the parents and any child of such parents to participate in counseling and drug or alcohol screening, provided such participation is in the best interest of the child.’ On the basis of that unambiguous statutory language, the court had the authority to order the plaintiff to undergo postjudgment counseling.”

·         Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn. App. 528, 538, 805 A.2d 766 (2002).  “At the very outset of its analysis in Ireland, our Supreme Court announced that it had created the burden shifting scheme to further ‘our commitment to the best interests of the child standard. . . .’ Id., [ Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413,] 421. Moreover, after articulating the shifting burdens of proof, our Supreme Court again took the ‘opportunity to reaffirm that the best interests of the child must always govern decisions involving custodial or visitation matters.’ Id., [ 246 Conn. 425,] 430.”

·         Crockett v. Pastore, 259 Conn. 240, 250, 789 A.2d 453 (2002). “In Roth [v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 223, 789 A.2d 431 (2002)], however, we determined that the best interest of the child was not a sufficiently compelling interest to warrant the state's intrusion into a fit parent's decision regarding visitation.” 

·         Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn. App. 173, 173-74, 789 A.2d 1104 (2002). “The defendant's claim to the contrary notwithstanding, the trial court properly decided whether the plaintiff should be allowed to relocate with the child pursuant to the statutory (§ 46b-56) best interest of the child standard; because the interests and circumstances of the parties at the postjudgment stage differ from those existing at the time of dissolution, the Ireland factors and its burden-shifting scheme do not apply to relocation issues arising when the initial custody determination is made.”

·         Schult v. Schult, 241 Conn. 767, 777, 699 A.2d 134 (1997). “The guiding principle in determining custody is the best interest of the child.

·         Garrett’s Appeal from Probate, 44 Conn. Supp. 169, 187, 677 A.2d 1000 (1994). “Moreover, the court finds that the defendant's ‘parental acts or deficiencies’ support the conclusion that he should not, in the children's best interests, be their guardian at this time, based on the evidence of events transpiring up to the dates of the Probate Court hearings.”

·         Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 788-789, 621 A.2d 267 (1993). “[Conn. Gen. Stats. ] Section 46b-56(b) does not require that the trial court award custody to whomever the child wishes; it requires only that the court take the child's wishes into consideration.”

·         Rudolewicz v. Rudolewicz, 1 Conn. Sup. Ct. Repts. 664 (1986).  Enumerates 22 factors to be used in determining the best interests of the child.  See Table 5-2

·         Cappetta v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10, 16, 490 A.2d 996 (1985). “In the search for an appropriate custodial placement, the primary focus of the court is the best interest of the child, the child’s interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, and in continuity and stability of its environment.”

·         Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 712, 433 A.2d 1005 (1980). “While psychological parenting is thus one indicator of the best interest of a child, a court has an independent responsibility to assure itself of the suitability of the parent to whom the child is primarily attached.”

·         Hall v. Hall, 186 Conn. 118, 124, 439 A.2d 447 (1982). The plaintiff’s wilful disobedience of these court orders . . . evidenced gross disrespect for the law and raised questions about her character, which are relevant to the welfare of the child.”

·         Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 281, 440 A.2d 899 (1981).  “We have never held, and decline now to hold, that a trial court is bound to accept the expert opinion of a family relations officer. As in other areas where expert testimony is offered, a trial court is free to rely on whatever parts of an expert’s opinion the court finds probative and helpful.”

·         Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn. 533, 541, 429 A.2d 801 (1980). “In this case, the evidence showed that the children were living in a familiar and stable environment with love and attention from their paternal grandparents; that the plaintiff at times had an adverse effect upon the children; and that the plaintiff’s psychological instability was such that it posed a threat to the children’s well-being.”

·         Trunik v. Trunik, 179 Conn. 287, 288, 426 A.2d 274 (1979). “. . . the trial court’s order changing the award of custody was based on evidence which revealed: (1) that the plaintiff father had remarried and he and his present wife were capable of caring for his children; and (2) that while the children were home, the defendant mother, inter alia, frequently entertained a variety of nocturnal male visitors.”

·         Pi v. Delta, 175 Conn. 527, 533, 400 A.2d 709 (1978). “Similarly, in accordance with this court's constant emphasis upon consideration for the welfare of minor children, legitimate or not, we perceive no valid reason for denying the admitted natural father of an illegitimate child at the least the opportunity to obtain a judicial determination of custody where, as here, there is an allegation that the present custodian is unfit and that the interests of the children will best be served by a change in custody.”

 

WEST KEY NUMBERS:

·         Divorce #298. Grounds for award of custody

·         Parent & Child  #2(3)

·         Infant #19.2

(2) Welfare and best interest of the child

(4)     Preference & age of child

(5)     Religion, moral and social factors

§         Infant #19.3

Proceedings affecting custody. Determination of right to custody

 

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

·         27C C.J.S. Divorce (2005). 

§§ 999-1010. Considerations affecting determination [custody]

§ 1000. Interest or welfare

§ 1001. Child’s Preference

§         67A C.J.S. Parent & Child (2002).

§§ 63-68. Considerations affecting custody of child

§         59 Am. Jur. 2d Parent & Child  (2002).

§ 30. Custody disputes between parents—factors affecting choice

§         24A Am. Jur. 2d Divorce & Separation (1998).

§§ 931-938. Factors in determining custody

 

TEXTS & TREATISES

·         8 Arnold H. Rutkin et al. Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law And Practice with Forms (2d ed. 2000). 

§ 42.24  Factors for consideration by the court

·         2 Family Law Practice in Connecticut (1995).

Chapter 10. Child Custody and Visitation by Jeffrey D. Ginzberg

      §10.26  Factors in awarding custody and visitation

      §10.27  Focus of the Court

·         1 Alexander Lindey and Louis I. Parley, Lindey and Parley on Separation Agreements and Antenuptial Contracts (2007).

Chapter 20. Child custody

§ 20.71. “Best Interests” standard

§ 20.72. Criteria

·         3 Arnold H. Rutkin et al., Family Law & Practice (2005).

Chapter 32. Child custody and visitation

[by Prof. Linda Henry Elrod and Steven C. Windsor]

§ 32.06. Standards used to determine custody between parents

[5]. Application of the Best Interests Standard

  • 2 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody and Visitation (2007).

Chapter 10. Custody disputes between parents

§ 10.06. Standards for selecting the custodial parent

[2]. Best interest of the child

  • Donald T. Kramer, Legal Rights of Children (rev.2rd ed. 2005).

Chapter 2. Child custody

§ 2.4. Best interest of the child rule

§  3:20. Child’s best interests [visitation rights]

 

LAW REVIEWS:

 

·         Lloyd Cutsumpas , Contested Custody In Connecticut, 54 Connecticut Bar Journal 193-212 (1980). List of factors used to determine “best interest of the child” from the Family Relations Office Manual.

 

COMPILER:

Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL

 

 

 

Table 2: Criteria Used by the Courts

in Determining Best Interest of the Child

 

#

Factors

 

Authorities Cited

 

 

1.

 

 

Parenting skills

 

 

Cappetti v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10,16-17, 490 A.2d 996 (1985)

 

 

 

2.

 

 

"Each person's relationship with the child"1

 

"emotional ties of each parent with the child"2

 

"the child's primary psychological parent"3

 

 

1 Cappetti v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10, 17, 490 A.2d 996 (1985)

2 Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 711, 433 A.2d 1005 (l980)

3 Seymour, supra, at 711-712

 

 

3.

 

Character of parent by reason of willful disobedience of court orders

 

 

Hall v Hall, 186 Conn. 118, 124, 439 A.2d 447 (1982)

Stewart v. Stewart, 177 Conn. 401, 407, 418 A.2d 62 (1979)

Simmons v. Simmons, 172 Conn. 341, 348, 374 A.2d 1040 (1977)

 

 

4.

 

Willingness to facilitate visitation by the other parent.

 

 

Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 713, 433 A.2d 1005 (l980)

 

 

 

5.

 

 

"[P]ast behavior as it relates to parenting ability . . . .”

 

 

Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 711, 433 A.2d 1005 (l980)

Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 283, 440 A.2d 899 (1981)

 

 

6.

 

 

Family Relations Division Report recommendations

 

 

See Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 281, 440 A.2d 899  (1981)

 

7.

 

 

Independent advice of attorney appointed to represent minor children

 

 

See Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 281, 440 A.2d 899  (1981)

 

8.

 

 

Credibility

 

 

Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 277, 440 A.2d 899  (1981)        [con’d]

 

 

9.

 

"[M]anipulative and coercive behavior in . . . efforts to involve children in the marital dispute."

 

 

Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 281, 440 A.2d 899  (1981)

 

10.

 

A parent’s  behavior and its effects on the child(ren).

 

Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 282, 440 A.2d 899  (1981)

 

 

11.

 

Continuity and stability of environment.

 

 

Cappetti v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10, 16, 490 A.2d 996 (1985)

 

 

12.

 

"[T]he flexibility of each parent to best serve the psychological development and growth of the child.”

 

 

Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 711, 433 A.2d 1005 (l980)

 

13.

 

Which parent is more willing and able to address medical and educational problems of the child and to take appropriate steps to have them treated and corrected.”

 

 

Faria v. Faria, 38 Conn. Supp. 37, 47-50, 456 A.2d 1205 (1982)

 

14

 

"[C]hildren living in a familiar and stable environment with love and attention from their paternal grandparents."

 

 

Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn..533, 541, 429 A.2d 801 (1980).

 

15

 

Psychological instability of one parent posing a threat to the children well-being.

 

 

Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn..533, 541, 429 A.2d 801  (1980)

 

16

 

 

Recommendation that one party immediately commence in-patient treatment.

 

 

Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn..533, 541, 429 A.2d 801  (1980)

 

17

 

Visitation having an adverse effect on the child at times.

 

Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn..533, 540, 429 A.2d 801  (1980)

 

18

 

 

Remarriage.

 

Trunik v. Trunik, 179 Conn. 287, 289, 426 A.2d 274 (1979)

 

19

 

 

Parental sexual activity,

 

Trunik v. Trunik, 179 Conn. 287, 288, 426 A.2d 274  (1979)

 

20

 

"[C)onsistency in parenting and life style, insofar as these factors might affect the child's growth, development and well being."

 

 

Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 711, 433 A.2d 1005 (l980)

 

21

 

“[T]he time each parent would be able to devote to the child on a day-to-day basis.”

 

 

Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 711, 433 A.2d 1005 (l980)

 

 

22

 

Untidy condition of home, alcoholism, leaving home unattended, and emotional problems.

 

 

Simmons v. Simmons, 172 Conn. 341, 346, 374 A.2d 1040  (1977)

 

* Rudolewicz v. Rudolewicz, 1 Conn. Sup. Ct. Repts. 664, 666 (1986).

 

 

Table 3

ALR Annotations on Factors

Used by the Courts  

 

ALR Annotations

Factors Used by Courts

 

 

Subject

 
 
Citation

 

Age of parent

 

Danny R. Veilleux, Annotation, Age Of Parent As Factor In Awarding Custody, 34 ALR5th 57 (1995).

 

 

AIDS

 

Claudia G. Catalano, Annotation, Child Custody And Visitation Rights Of Persons Infected With AIDS, 86 ALR4th 211 (1991).

 

 

Continuity of residence

 

Carol A. Crocca, Annotation, Continuity Of Residence As Factor In Contest Between Parent And Nonparent For Custody Of Child Who Has Been Residing With Nonparent—Modern Status, 15 ALR5th 692 (1993).

 

 

Disability of parent

 

Kristine Cordier Karnezis, Annotation, Parent’s Physical Disability Or Handicap As Factor In Custody Award Or Proceedings, 3 ALR4th 1044 (1981).

 

 

Domestic violence

 

Jack M. Dalgleish, Annotation, Construction and effect of statutes mandating consideration of, or creating presumption regarding, domestic violence in awarding custody of children, 51 ALR5th 241(1997).

 

 

Drug use by parent

 

Mary E. Taylor, Annotation, Parent’s Use Of Drugs As Factor In Award Of Custody Of Children, Visitation Rights, Or Termination Of Parental Rights, 20 ALR5th 534 (1994).

 

 

Extramarital sexual relations

 

·         Diane M. Allen, Annotation, Propriety Of Provision Of Custody Or Visitation Order Designed To Insulate Child From Parent’s Extramarital Sexual Relationships, 40 ALR4th 812 (1985).

·         Robin Cheryl Miller, Annotation, Restrictions on parent’s child visitation rights based on parent’s sexual conduct, 99 ALR5th 475 (2002).

 

 

Foreign country (residence)

 

M. David LeBrun, Annotation, Propriety Of Awarding Custody Of Child To Parent Residing Or Intending To Reside In Foreign Country, 20 ALR4th 677 (1983).  [cont’d]

 

 

 

Grandparent

 

·         Annotation, Award Of Custody Of Child Where Contest Is Between Child’s Father And Grandparent, 25 ALR3d 7 (1969).

·         D.E. Yteberg, Annotation, Award Of Custody Of Child Where Contest Is Between Child’s Parent And Grandparents, 31 ALR3d 1187 (1970).

·         D.E. Yteberg, Annotation, Award Of Custody Of Child Where Contest Is Between Child’s Mother And Grandparent, 29 ALR3d 366 (1970).

 

 

Grounds for divorce

 

Annotation, Award Of Custody Of Child To Parent Against Whom Divorced Is Decreed, 23 ALR3d 6 (1969).

 

 

Mental health

 

Linda A. Francis, Annotation, Mental Health Of Contesting Parent As Factor In Award Of Child Custody, 53 ALR5th 375 (1997).

 

 

Preference or wishes of child

 

·         Wanda Ellen Wakefield, Annotation, Desire Of Child As To Geographic Location Of Residence Or Domicile As Factor In Awarding Custody Or Terminating Parental Rights, 10 ALR4th 827 (1981).

·         Annotation, Child’s Wishes As Factor In Awarding Custody, 4 ALR3d 1396 (1965).

 

 

Primary caretaker role

 

Annotation, Primary Caretaker Role Of Respective Parents As Factor In Awarding Custody Of Child, 41 ALR4th 1129

 

 

Religion

 

·         George L. Blum, Annotation, Religion As Factor In Child Custody, 124 ALR4th 203 (2004).

·         George L. Blum, Annotation, Religion As Factor In Visitation Cases, 95 ALR5th 533 (2002).

·         Annotation, Religion As Factor In Child Custody And Visitation Cases, 22 ALR4th 971 (1983).

 

 

Relocation

 

 

Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, Custodial Parent’s Relocation As Grounds For Change Of Custody, 70 ALR5th 377 (1999).

 

 

Separating children

 

Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, Child Custody: Separating Child By Custody Awards To Different Parents—Post-1975 Cases, 67 ALR4th 354 (1989).  [cont’d]

 

 

 

Sexual orientation

 

·         Elizabeth Trainor, Annotation, Custodial Parent’s Homosexual Or Lesbian Relationship With Third Person As Justifying Modification Or Child Custody Order, 65 ALR5th 591 (1999).

·         Michael P. Sullivan, Annotation, Parent’s Transsexuality As Factor In Award Of Custody Of Children, Visitation Rights, Or Termination Of Parental Rights, 59 ALR4th 1170 (1988).

·         Caroll J. Miller, Annotation, Visitation Rights Of Homosexual Or Lesbian Parent, 36 ALR4th 997 (1985).

 

·         Wanda Ellen Wakefield, Annotation, Initial Award Or Denial Of Child Custody To Homosexual Or Lesbian Parent, 6 ALR4th 1297 (1981).

 

 

Smoking

 

Harriet Dinegar Milks, Annotation, Smoking As Factor In Child Custody And Visitation Cases, 36 ALR5th 377 (1996).

 

 

Stepparent

 

Wendy Evans Lehmann, Annotation, award of custody of child where contest is between natural parent and stepparent, 10 ALR4th 767 (1981).

 

 

Working mother

 

Edward L. Raymond, Annotation, Mother’s Status As “Working Mother” As Factor In Awarding Child Custody, 62 ALR4th 259 (1988).

 

 

 

 

Section 3  

Custody Orders

and Presumptions

in Connecticut

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

 

 

SCOPE:

Bibliographic sources relating to custody arrangements in Connecticut that the court may determine to be in the best interest of the child, including joint, sole or third party custody. Also presumptions in Connecticut that joint custody is in the best interest of the child to joint custody and that the best interest of child to be in the custody of the parent.

 

DEFINITION;

·         Joint Custody: “means an order awarding legal custody of the minor child to both parents, providing for joint decision-making by the parents and providing that physical custody shall be shared by the parents in such a way as to assure the child of continuing contact with both parents. The court may award joint legal custody without awarding joint physical custody where the parents have agreed to merely joint legal custody.” CONN. GEN. STATS. § 46b-56a(a) (2007)

·         Joint Custody Presumption: “There shall be a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child where the parents have agreed to an award of joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child or children of the marriage. If the court declines to enter an order awarding joint custody pursuant to this subsection, the court shall state in its decision the reasons for denial of an award of joint custody.” CONN. GEN. STATS. § 46b-56a(b) (2007).

·         Sole Custody: “The difference between a sole custodian and a joint legal custodian is that the sole custodian has the ultimate authority to make all decisions regarding a child's welfare, such as education, religious instruction and medical care whereas a joint legal custodian shares the responsibility for those decisions.” Emerick v. Emerick, 5 Conn. App. 649, 657 n.9, 502 A.2d 933 (1985).

·         Third Party Custody: “. . . any other custody arrangements as the court may determine to be in the best interests of the child.” Conn. Gen. Stats. § 46b-56(b)(4) (2007).

·         Presumption Re Best Interest Of Child To Be In Custody Of Parent. In any dispute as to the custody of a minor child involving a parent and a nonparent, there shall be a presumption that it is in the best interest of the child to be in the custody of the parent, which presumption may be rebutted by showing that it would be detrimental to the child to permit the parent to have custody. CONN. GEN. STATS. § 46b-56b(2007).

 

STATUTES: 

 

·         Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007)

§ 46b-56a.  Joint custody Presumption.

(b). There shall be a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child where the parents have agreed to an award of joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child or children of the marriage. If the court declines to enter an order awarding joint custody pursuant to this subsection, the court shall state in its decision the reasons for denial of an award of joint custody.

§ 46b-56b. Presumption re best interest of child to be in custody of parent.

(b)  In any dispute as to the custody of a minor child involving a parent and a nonparent, there shall be a presumption that it is in the best interest of the child to be in the custody of the parent, which presumption may be rebutted by showing that it would be detrimental to the child to permit the parent to have custody.

 

COURT CASES

 

·         Zitnay v. Zitnay, 90 Conn. App. 71, 77, 875 A.2d 71 (2005). “Joint legal custody involves equal sharing of decisions regarding a child's welfare, such as education, religious instruction and medical care.”

·         Doe v. Doe, 244 Conn. 403, 455, 710 A.2d 1297 (1998). “As these authorities make clear, the presumption does not mean that the nonparent must, in order to rebut it, prove that the parent is unfit. It means that the parent has an initial advantage, and that the nonparent must prove facts sufficient to put into issue the presumed fact that it is in the child's best interest to be in the parent's custody. Once those facts are established, however, the presumption disappears, and the sole touchstone of the child's best interests remains irrespective of the parental or third party status of the adults involved. In that instance, then, neither adult - the parent or the third party - enjoys any advantage or suffers any disadvantage as a result of his or her parental or third party status.”

·         Schult v. Schult, 40 Conn. App. 675, 676, 672 A.2d 959 (1996). “The