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
§ 7. Parental relocation out of state
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
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:
|
|
|
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.”
|
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
Chapter 10. Custody disputes between parents § 10.06. Standards for selecting the custodial parent [2]. Best interest of the child
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).
ALR Annotations on Factors
Used by the Courts
ALR AnnotationsFactors 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).
|
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 principal issue in this appeal is the proper construction and application of General Statutes §46b-56b, which creates a rebuttable persumption ‘that it is in the best interest of the child to be in the custody of the parent’ in any dispute as to the custody of a minor child involving a parent and a nonparent.” · Antedomenico v. Antedomenico, 142 Conn. 558, 562, 115 A.2d 558 (1955). “The contest is not one primarily to determine the rights of the respective parties but rather the best interest of the child.”
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS
|
· Thomas R. Trenkner, Annotation, Modern Status Of Maternal Preference Rule Or Presumption In Child Custody Cases, 70 ALR3d 262 (1976). · Child Custody Determination On Termination Of Marriage, 34 POF2d 407 (1983). § 2. Rights of respective parents § 3. Determining factors
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES: |
· 1 Alexander Lindey and Louis I. Parley, Lindey and Parley on Separation Agreements and Antenuptial Contracts (2007). Chapter 20. Child custody § 20.72. Criteria § 20.73. Custodial arrangements · 3 Arnold H. Rutkin et al., Family Law & Practice (2005). Chapter 32. Child custody and visitation [by Linda Henry Elrod and Steven C. Windsor] § 32.01[2]. Historical Background [a]. Paternal preference and rights of father [b]. Maternal preference [c]. Gender-neutral best interests § 32.06. Standards used to determine custody between parents [2]. Statutory factors [c]. joint custody [5]. Application of Best Interest Standard · 1 Donald T. Kramer, Legal Rights of Children (Rev.2d ed. 2004). Chapter 2. Child custody §2.15 Preference of natural parent(s) over others; Generally §2.16 Preference of natural parent (s) over grandparent(s) §2.17 Preference of natural parent over adult siblings or other relatives § 2.23. Joint custody
Chapter 10. Custody disputes between parents § 10.04. Relative rights of mothers and fathers; married parents § 10.05. Relative rights of mothers and fathers; nonmarital parents § 10.06. Standards for selecting the custodial parent
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
Best Interest of the Child Standard
Statute and case citations |
Rutkin, A. Family Law and Practice (M. Bender). § 32.06 “Standards used to determine custody.” Footnote 2. |
Statute and case citations |
Alexander Lindey and Louis I. Parley, Lindey on Separation Agreements and Antenuptial Contracts , 2d ed. (1999). §14.02 “Best interests” Standard. Footnote 1. |
Case citations |
Donald T. Kramer, Legal Rights Of Children (2d Ed. 1994). §2.04 Best interest of the child rule. Footnote 71, p. 38. |
Statute and case citations |
Susan A. Lentz, Cause of Action for Modification of Child Custody Based on Neglect of Child by Custodial Parent, 19 Causes of Action 143 §3, pp. 167-168 (1989).
|
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic sources relating to the parental responsibility plan
|
|
DEFINITION: |
· PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY PLAN: “In any proceeding before the Superior Court involving a dispute between the parents of a minor child with respect to the custody, care, education and upbringing of such child, the parents shall file with the court, at such time and in such form as provided by rule of court, a proposed parental responsibility plan that shall include, at a minimum, the following: (1) A schedule of the physical residence of the child during the year; (2) provisions allocating decision-making authority to one or both parents regarding the child's health, education and religious upbringing; (3) provisions for the resolution of future disputes between the parents, including, where appropriate, the involvement of a mental health professional or other parties to assist the parents in reaching a developmentally appropriate resolution to such disputes; (4) provisions for dealing with the parents' failure to honor their responsibilities under the plan; (5) provisions for dealing with the child's changing needs as the child grows and matures; and (6) provisions for minimizing the child's exposure to harmful parental conflict, encouraging the parents in appropriate circumstances to meet their responsibilities through agreements, and protecting the best interests of the child.” Conn. Gen. Stats § 46b-56a(d) (2007)
|
|
STATUTES: |
· CONN. GEN. STATS. (2007) Chapter 815j. Dissolution of marriage, legal separation and annulment § 46b-56(a). “. . . Subject to the provisions of section 46b-56a, the court may assign parental responsibility for raising the child to the parents jointly, or may award custody to either parent or to a third party, according to its best judgment upon the facts of the case and subject to such conditions and limitations as it deems equitable. The court may also make any order granting the right of visitation of any child to a third party to the action, including, but not limited to, grandparents.” § 46b-56a. Joint custody. Definition. Presumptions. Conciliation. Parental responsibility plan. Modification of orders.
|
|
COURT RULES: |
CONN. PRACTICE BOOK (2007) § 25-26(g). “Any motion for modification of a final custody or visitation order or a parental responsibility plan shall be appended to a request for leave to file such motion and shall conform to the requirements of subsection (e) of this section. The specific factual and legal basis for the claimed modification shall be sworn to by the moving party or other person having personal knowledge of the facts recited therein. If no objection to the request has been filed by any party within ten days of the date of service of such request on the other party, the request for leave may be determined by the judicial authority with or without hearing. If an objection is filed, the request shall be placed on the next short calendar, unless the judicial authority otherwise directs. At such hearing, the moving party must demonstrate probable cause that grounds exist for the motion to be granted. If the judicial authority grants the request for leave, at any time during the pendency of such a motion to modify, the judicial authority may determine whether discovery or a study or evaluation pursuant to Section 25-60 shall be permitted.” Emphasis added. |
|
COURT CASES
|
· Bock v. Bock, No. FST FA 05 4005415 S (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. Stamford-Norwalk, Aug. 15, 2006) “The parties shall use their best efforts to enter into a written Parenting Responsibility Plan. Until such Parenting Responsibility Plan is entered as an order of the Court, the following are the Court orders: The parties shall have joint legal custody of the minor children. In the event of any disagreement between the parties as to the minor children, the wife shall have the final decision-making authority. The children will reside primarily with the wife. The husband will have reasonable and flexible visitation and access to all the children.” · Brooks v. Brooks, No. FA05-4002166S (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. New London at New London, Mar. 24, 2006) “The parties have entered into parental responsibility plan concerning the minor children. This agreement is approved by the court, found to be in the best interest of the children and is incorporated by reference in the court's decree.” |
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic sources relating to the identification of a child’s psychological parent as a factor in determining the best interest of the child prior to October 1, 2005.
|
|
DEFINITION: |
· “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.” Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 712, 433 A.2d 1005 (1980).
|
|
COURT CASES
|
· In Re Brea B., 75 Conn. App. 466, 473, 816 A.2d 707 (2003). “The child experienced her great aunt, rather than her mother, as her psychological parent and expressed a clear preference to have no further contact with her mother. On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the court's finding that there was no ongoing parent-child relationship was not clearly erroneous.” · Azia v. Dilascia, 64 Conn. App. 540, 552-553, 780 A.2d 992 (2001). “The fact that the defendant had been the child's primary psychological parent and caretaker in the past was relevant but was not dispositive on the issue of physical custody. Our Supreme Court in Blake v. Blake, supra, 207 Conn. 224-25, specifically indicated that an evaluation of the past was not enough. Although the mother had been important in the past and the father had not been as involved in the child's life for her first several years, he had become very involved in her life at the time of trial. The child's own therapist acknowledged that both parties were psychological parents of the child. We conclude that the court properly applied the standard established in Blake.” · Temple v. Meyer, 208 Conn. 404, 410, 544 A.2d 629 (1988). “Even if the plaintiff had demonstrated that he has been . . . psychological parent, such a finding would not have demonstrated that visitation continued to be in the best interest of the child.” · Cappetta v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10, 490 A.2d 996 (1985). · Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 711, 433 A.2d 1005 (1980). “. . . the concept of the psychological parent is not a fixed star by which custody decisions can invariably be guided.”
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES |
· 8 Arnold H. Rutkin et al. Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law and Practice With Forms (2d ed. 2000). §42.25 The Psychological Parent · 2 Family Law Practice in Connecticut (1995). Chapter 10. Child Custody and Visitation by Jeffrey D. Ginzberg § 10.28 Psychological Parent · 1 Donald T. Kramer, Legal Rights of Children (2d ed. 1994). Chapter 2. Child custody § 2.08. The “Psychological Parent” doctrine
|
|
LAW REVIEWS:
|
· Martha F. Leonard and Sally Provence, The Development Of Parent-Child Relationships And The Psychological Parent, 53 Connecticut Bar Journal 320 (August 1979).
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
Table 5: Proof of denial of child visitation rights
Proof of Denial of Child Visitation Rights2 POF2d 801 (1974)
|
|
A. Elements of Proof
|
§5. Guide and checklists |
B. Testimony of Noncustodial Parent (Situation 1) |
§ 6. History of visitation, and attempts to exercise rights |
C. Testimony of Noncustodial Parent (Situation 2) |
§7. Alienation of affection
|
Table 6: Proof of justification of denial of visitation rights
|
Proof of Justification of Denial of visitation rights 2 POF2d 808 (1974)
|
|
|
A. Elements of proof |
§8 Guide and checklist
|
|
B. Testimony of Custodial Parent |
§9 Marital history and terms of decree §10 Exercise of visitation by noncustodian §11 Denial of visitation and justification
|
|
C. Testimony of Noncustodial Parent on Cross-Examination |
§12 Motivation of noncustodian; reason for nonexercise of visitation rights
|
|
D. Testimony of Third Party with Knowledge of Situation
|
§13 Corroboration of custodian's testimony |
|
E. Testimony of Police Officer Regarding Incident
|
§14 Expert testimony regarding noncustodian's behavior
|
Table 7: Proof as to which parent should be awarded custody of child
|
Proof As To Which Parent Should Be Awarded Custody Of Child 34 POF2d 426 (1983)
|
|
|
A. Elements of proof |
§11 Guide and checklists
|
|
B. Illustrative Case in Which Father Seeks Custody of Children 1. Evidence Offered on Father's Behalf
|
|
|
a. Testimony of Father |
§ 12 Introduction; mother's departure with children § 13 Neighbor environment § 14 Church attendance § 15 Witness' employment § 16 Provisions for child care § 17 Mother's neglect of children § 18 Mother's poor housekeeping § 19 Mother's mental problems¾Violent temper, other unusual behavior § 20 ¾ Depression and suicidal tendencies § 21 Mother's alcoholism
|
|
b. Testimony of Police Officer
|
§ 22 Neighbor environment |
|
c. Testimony of Neighbor |
§ 23 Mother's mental problems, alcoholism, and poor housekeeping
|
|
d. Testimony of child |
§24 Child's wishes as to custody §25 Mother's attempted alienation of affection
|
|
2. Evidence Offered on Mother's Behalf (p. 443)
|
|
|
a. Testimony of Mother |
§ 26 Introductions, relationship with husband and children § 27 Recognition of drinking problem § 28 Response to allegations as to poor housekeeping and child neglect [cont’d]
|
|
3. Father's Cross-Examination of Court-Appointed Psychologist |
§ 33 Possible inaccuracy of diagnosis of mother's condition¾Fallibility of tests § 34 ¾Lack of reasonable justification for mother's behavior § 35 ¾Possibility of different diagnosis by different psychologist § 36 Poor prognosis for mother's recovery; re-evaluation of recommendation
|
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic sources relating to the wishes of a child as a factor in determining the best interest of the child
|
|
STATUTES:
|
Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) § 46b-56(b). “In making or modifying any order as provided in subsection (a) of this section, the rights and responsibilities of both parents shall be considered and the court shall enter orders accordingly that serve the best interests of the child and provide the child with the active and consistent involvement of both parents commensurate with their abilities and interests. Such orders may include, but shall not be limited to: (1) Approval of a parental responsibility plan agreed to by the parents pursuant to section 46b-56a; (2) the award of joint parental responsibility of a minor child to both parents, which shall include (A) provisions for residential arrangements with each parent in accordance with the needs of the child and the parents, and (B) provisions for consultation between the parents and for the making of major decisions regarding the child's health, education and religious upbringing; (3) the award of sole custody to one parent with appropriate parenting time for the noncustodial parent where sole custody is in the best interests of the child; or (4) any other custody arrangements as the court may determine to be in the best interests of the child.”
|
|
COURT CASES
|
· Azia v. Dilascia, 64 Conn. App. 540, 546, 780 A.2d 992 (2001). “The defendant first claims that the court improperly failed to consider the child's desire to live with her mother. Specifically, the defendant argues that the court improperly discounted the child's preference without finding that the child was not of a sufficient age or was incapable of forming an intelligent preference. We disagree.” · Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 788, 621 A.2d 267 (1993). “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.” · Faria v. Faria, 38 Conn. Supp. 37, 40, 456 A.2d 1205 (1982). “In this case it is concluded that the minor child, five years old, at the time of the hearing, is not of sufficient age or capable of forming an intelligent preference. · Gennarini v. Gennarini, 2 Conn. App. 132, 137, 477 A.2d 674 (1984). “First, whether the child's preferences and feelings as to custody and visitation are a significant factor in the court's ultimate determination of the best interest of the child will necessarily depend on all the facts of the particular case, including the child's age and ability intelligently to form and express those preferences and feelings.”
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES |
· 8 Arnold H. Rutkin et al. Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law and Practice With Forms (2d ed. 2000). § 42.27. Preference of the child · 2 Family Law Practice in Connecticut (1995). Chapter 10. Child Custody and Visitation by Jeffrey D. Ginzberg §10.32. Child’s preference
Chapter 10. Custody disputes between parents. § 10.08. The wishes of the child [1]. In general [2]. Consideration of the child’s preference [3]. Factors affecting the weight given a child’s preference [4[. Procedures for ascertaining the child’s preference · 1 Alexander Lindey and Louis I. Parley, Lindey and Parley on Separation Agreements and Antenuptial Contracts (2007). Chapter 20. Child custody § 20.72[2][c]. Child’s Wishes · 1 Donald T. Kramer, Legal Rights of Children (rev. 2d ed. 2005). Chapter 2. Child custody § 2.6. The child’s custodial preference § 2.7. —Manner of eliciting the child’s custodial preference
|
|
LAW REVIEWS:
|
· Lloyd Cutsumpas , Contested Custody In Connecticut, 54 Connecticut Bar Journal 193-212 (1980).
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic sources relating to a parent’s decision to relocate child out of state as a factor in determining the best interest of the child
|
|
DEFINITIONS: |
· POSTJUDGMENT RELOCATION CASES: “We, therefore, hold that that burden-shifting scheme in Ireland, and the additional Tropea factors, do not pertain to relocation issues that arise at the initial judgment for the dissolution of marriage. Rather, we find that Ireland is limited to postjudgment relocation cases. We conclude that because the Ireland court did not expand its holding to affect all relocation matters, relocation issues that arise at the initial judgment for the dissolution of marriage continue to be governed by the standard of the best interest of the child as set forth in § 46b-56. While the Ireland factors may be considered as ‘best interest factors’ and give guidance to the trial court, they are not mandatory or exclusive in the judgment context.” Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn. App. 173, 184, 789 A.2d 1104 (2002). (Emphasis added).
|
|
STATUTES: |
Conn. Gen. Stats (2007) Chapter 815j. Dissolution of marriage, legal separation and annulment § 46b-56d. Relocation of parent with minor child. Burden of proof. Factors considered by court. See Table 1-8 for text of statute.
|
|
LEGISLATIVE: |
· 2006 Conn. Acts 169 (Reg. Sess.). An Act Concerning Relocation of Parents Having Custody of Minor Children.
|
|
COURT CASES
|
· Cantalini v. McGovern, No. FST FA 06 4008738 S (Conn. Super. J.D. Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, May 8, 2007). “Suitable visitation arrangements will require air flights, the expenses of same as well as the room and board incurred. It was proven that several years ago the plaintiff made seven or eight flights in 1997 and 1998 to visit friends in Arizona. It will involve visiting far less frequently. It does not appear particularly feasible to the court. The court has concluded that it is not in the best interests of their son at the present time that the mother be allowed to remove him from Greenwich to a home in Arizona, based on the evidence. The defendant's proposal is denied.” · Butler v. Butler, No. FA01-0165427-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Judicial District of Waterbury, at Regional Family Trial Docket, Apr. 27, 2007). “The effect of General Statutes § 46b-56d(a) is essentially to codify the tripartite provisions of the Ireland rule, at the same time relieving the party opposing relocation of its former Ireland burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that despite the moving party's showing that relocation is for a legitimate purpose and is reasonable in light of that purpose, the relocation nevertheless fails to be in the best interests of the child. Section 46b-56d(a) now places squarely on the shoulders of the party advocating relocation the entire burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, not only that the relocation is for a legitimate purpose and is reasonable in light of that purpose, but also that the relocation is affirmatively in the best interests of the child.” · Mellor v. Payne, No. FA-01-0076477 S (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. Tolland at Rockville, Feb. 23, 2007, 2007 WL 825217) “The mother has met the burden of establishing the criteria set forth in the § 46b-56d and the Court will grant her permission to relocate to Florida, with Emily subject to the following orders, which substantially conform to the recommendations of the GAL, and which meet with the approval of the mother.” · Brennan v. Brennan, 85 Conn. App. 172, 182-183, 857 A.2d 927 (2004). “The authority of a court to render custody, visitation and relocation orders is set forth in General Statutes § 46b-56. ‘To determine whether a custodial placement is in the best interest of the child, the court uses its broad discretion to choose a place that will foster the child's interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, and in the continuity and stability of its environment. . . . We have stated that when making the determination of what is in the best interest of the child, [t]he authority to exercise the judicial discretion under the circumstances revealed by the finding is not conferred upon this court, but upon the trial court, and . . . we are not privileged to usurp that authority or to substitute ourselves for the trial court. . . . A mere difference of opinion or judgment cannot justify our intervention. Nothing short of a conviction that the action of the trial court is one which discloses a clear abuse of discretion can warrant our ,interference. . . . In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Haley B., 81 Conn. App. 62, 67, 838 A.2d 1006 (2004). · Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn. App. 528, 541, 805 A.2d 766 (2002). “Our Supreme Court did not intend for the burden shifting analysis [Ireland v. Ireland] to act as a means to preclude an inquiry into the best interest of the child. Accordingly, it does not follow that evaluating the best interest of the child, despite a custodial parent's inability to prove the legitimacy of a proposed relocation by a preponderance of the evidence, in any way erodes the purpose and goal of the burden shifting scheme.” · 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.” · Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413, 428, 717 A.2d 676 (1998). “In summary, we hold, therefore, that a custodial parent seeking permission to relocate bears the initial burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the relocation is for a legitimate purpose, and (2) the proposed location is reasonable in light of that purpose. Once the custodial parent has made such a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the noncustodial parent to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child.” · Blake v. Blake, 207 Conn. 217, 223, 541 A.2d 1201 (1988). “Both parents agreed upon joint legal custody, but they disagreed about whether the defendant should have joint physical custody. Under these circumstances, 46b-56a (a) permits a court to award joint legal custody, but to award physical custody to one parent. The term ‘joint custody’ used in the judgment in the present case implies that the court awarded joint legal custody, but its specific provisions concerning removal of the children by the plaintiff and visitation by the defendant make it clear that primary physical custody has been awarded to the plaintiff. We hold that a court under 46b-56a (a) may award joint legal custody, when both parents agree, but at the same time deny joint physical custody, when both parents have not agreed to such an award, provided that the court finds that such an award is appropriate under 46b-56a (b).” · Presutti v. Presutti, 181 Conn. 622, 436 A.2d 299 (1980). “The controlling principle in a determination respecting custody is that the court shall be guided by the best interests of the child. General Statutes 46b-56 (b) . . . . In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court is vested with a broad discretion.”
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES |
· 8 Arnold H. Rutkin et al. Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law and Practice With Forms (2d ed. 2000). § 42.35 Parental residence within or outside Connecticut · 2 Family Law Practice in Connecticut (1995). Chapter 10. Child Custody and Visitation by Jeffrey D. Ginzberg § 10.36 Parental relocation outside of the state of Connecticut
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL |
Table 8 New Factors used in relocation
|
Conn. Gen. Stats. § 46b-56d (2007) An Act Concerning Relocation of Parents Having Custody of Minor Children
|
|
(a) In any proceeding before the Superior Court arising after the entry of a judgment awarding custody of a minor child and involving the relocation of either parent with the child, where such relocation would have a significant impact on an existing parenting plan, the relocating parent shall bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the relocation is for a legitimate purpose, (2) the proposed location is reasonable in light of such purpose, and (3) the relocation is in the best interests of the child.
|
Factors
|
(b) In determining whether to approve the relocation of the child under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall consider, but such consideration shall not be limited to: (1) Each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation; (2) the quality of the relationships between the child and each parent; (3) the impact of the relocation on the quantity and the quality of the child's future contact with the nonrelocating parent; (4) the degree to which the relocating parent's and the child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the relocation; and (5) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements.
|
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic sources relating to a parental misconduct as a factor in determining the best interest of the child
|
|
STATUTES: |
· General Statutes of Connecticut (2005) § 46b‑56. Orders re custody, care, education, visitation and support of children. Best interest of the child. Access to records of minor child by noncustodial parent. Orders re therapy, counseling and drug or alcohol screening.
|
|
COURT CASES
|
· Cappetta v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10, 17, 490 A.2d 996 (1985). “It may, however, be useful to add a cautionary note that this court has consistently rejected ‘any presumption that a parent's lifestyle necessarily has an adverse effect on a child.’” · Greenwood v. Greenwood, 191 Conn. 309, 464 A.2d 771 (1983). · Hall v. Hall, 186 Conn. 118, 439 A.2d 447 (1982). · Faria v. Faria, 38 Conn. Supp. 37, 456 A.2d 1205 (1982). · Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 283, 440 A.2d 899(1981). “In the exercise of its awesome responsibility to find the most `salutary custodial arrangement for the children of divorce, the court must however take account of the parents' past behavior, since it must evaluate their present and future parenting ability and the consistency of their parenting for the purpose of determining which parent will better foster the children's growth, development and well-being.” · Adams v. Adams, 180 Conn. 498, 430 A.2d 19 (1980). · Friedman v. Friedman, 180 Conn. 132, 439 A.2d 823 (1980). · Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 713, 433 A.2d 1005 (1980). “Once it is definitively established . . . that each parent is loving, caring and otherwise suitable, the court must look to other factors to come to a decision about custody. The court was not in error in basing its award of custody to the mother on . . . her willingness to facilitate visitation by the father.”
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS: |
· 24A Am. Jur 2d Divorce & Separation (1998). § 936. Effect of parent’s misconduct
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES |
· 8 Arnold H. Rutkin et al. Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law and Practice With Forms (2d ed. 2000). § 42.33. Parental misconduct as to custody § 42.34 Other parental misconduct · 3 Arnold H. Rutkin et al., Family Law & Practice (2001). Chapter 32. Child custody and visitation § 32.06[5][f]. Moral fitness · 1 Alexander Lindey and Louis I. Parley, Lindey and Parley on Separation Agreements and Antenuptial Contracts (2002). Chapter 20. Child custody § 20.72[2][i]. Moral character [i]. In general [ii]. Adultery and promiscuity [iii]. Drugs and alcohol addiction [iv]. Sexual orientation
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|