A lengthy, sixteen-month long divorce case is over but the decision has outraged many people. A North Carolina mother, who has been raising her two children, claims that she lost custody because she has cancer.
The judge awarded custody of the children to the father who lives in Chicago. It appears that he argued that it would be in the best interest of the children, both emotionally and economically, if they resided with him.
A psychiatrist testified that the children should reside with the father because of the mother’s deteriorating health.
I would be interested in reading the full decision to understand the judge’s ruling and how it relates to Connecticut’s best interest statute. I trust there are strong arguments on both sides.
I am also curious about the visitation time awarded to the mother as well as the overall parenting plan, including decision making.
The following summary is based on a recent article in the Connecticut Law Tribune regarding a truck accident which occurred in Bloomfield, Connecticut.
Plaintiff’s claims: The victim stated that she had a green light and as she drove through an intersection the vehicle she was operating was struck by a truck. The Plaintiff’s attorney alleged that the driver violated a federal law by driving more than eleven hours in a day. Furthermore, it was claimed that at the time of the accident the truck driver was talking on his cell phone.
Plaintiff’s injuries: Head trauma, injuries to her hip and shoulder which required three surgeries and a partial hip replacement. She also suffered blood clots in her lungs and continues to struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Defendant’s claims: Truck driver argued that he had the right of way. A witness supported this argument. He also stated that he was using a “hands free” device when speaking on his cell phone.
The verdict/award: The jury found total damages at 6.7 million. The jury found the defendant 73% negligent for the accident and the plaintiff 27% negligent. Therefore, the award was reduced to 4.9 million based on plaintiff’s own negligence. I trust she was still satisfied with the award.
A New York judge has awarded custody to a father after finding that the mother attempted to “brainwash” the children against the father. In addition, the mother put signs around town that the father was a “deadbeat” and allegedly had her friends picket outside the courthouse when the custody case was being heard. Not surprisingly, the judge found her in need of psychiatric help and restricted her parenting time with the children.
If this case were decided in Connecticut, the result would likely have been the same. Our “best interest” statute, Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-56, sets forth sixteen factors for a judge to consider when making or modifying custody or visitation orders. At least three of these factors were present in the New York case:
1. The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
2. Any manipulation by the or coercive behavior by the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parent’s dispute; and
3. The mental health of the parents.
Clearly, not all sixteen factors will be present in every case and there is no requirement that any of the factors be weighed equally. Many custody and visitation cases are extremely fact dependent. However, the three factors listed above, if proven, are often “game changers” and will typically result in the non-offending parent being awarded custody.
What is the law in Connecticut concerning the rights of grandparents to visit with their grandchildren?
Connecticut General Statutes §46b-59 allows grandparents (and other third parties) to file an application for visitation with a minor child. However, many of these applications are dismissed. This is because Connecticut requires a third party, such as a grandparent, to satisfy both elements of a two-part test before their application will be considered:
1. A grandparent must have a relationship with the child that is similar to a parent-child like relationship; and
2. The grandparent must establish that denial of the visitation will cause real and significant harm to the child. Note that this is a much higher standard than what might be in the child’s best interest.
If both these elements are not established, no visitation will be ordered and the case will be dismissed. If, however, both elements are established a judge will then decide visitation based upon what is the child’s best interest.
States laws vary concerning third party visitation over the objection of a fit parent. Is the law in Connecticut too restrictive or does it protect the fundamental right of a parent to raise a child free from interference?
This is subject is understandably emotional and often creates spirited discussions amongst attorneys and family members alike.
Feedback welcome.
If a parent believes that the current custody or visitation order should be changed a Motion for Modification can be filed. For a Motion for Modification of Custody to be granted the court must make two findings:
1. A Modification of Custody involves an initial determination as to whether there has been a “substantial change in circumstances” since the date of the last court order. This requirement is designed to prevent parents from filing modifications of court orders for minor changes within the family dynamic and to avoid courts with the burden of re-litigating issues which have already been decided.
If a judge decides that there has not been a “substantial” change in circumstances the motion will be denied. The current court orders will therefore remain in effect.
2. However, if there has been a “substantial change in circumstances” then a judge will reconsider the current custody orders. But, a judge is not required to modify the orders. Rather the “best interests of the child” standard controls in deciding whether the current order should be modified and, if so, what the new order should be.
If the request is to Modify Visitation, then the judge does not need to a find a “substantial change in circumstances.” The judge can change visitation orders if it is in the child’s best interest to do so.
Before a judge decides the modification, a guardian ad litem may be appointed by the court to advocate for the “best interest” of the child. A judge may also request Family Relations to perform a study regarding the issues surrounding the modification.
It is unwise to disregard court orders or take unilateral action concerning orders of custody or visitation. A Motion for Modification is the proper procedure to address these situations concerning children.
I represent parents throughout Fairfield County including Easton, Fairfield, Monroe, Trumbull, Stratford, Bridgeport, Westport, Weston, New Canaan, Wilton, Norwalk, Darien, Stamford and Greenwich.
Contact me online or call my Fairfield office at (203) 259-5251 or my Stamford office at (203) 356-1475 if you have questions about a Connecticut Modification of Custody. Or reach out if your parenting time with your child is being withheld by the other parent.
Connecticut relocation cases involving children are usually hotly contested. This is especially true when the relocation involves a great distance. Family Court judges say these issues are one of the most difficult decisions they make.
So – what is the process in Connecticut if a parent wishes to relocate?
If a parent wishes to relocate and the proposed relocation will have a significant impact on the noncustodial parent’s visitation then the relocating parent must prove to a judge that:
- Relocating is for a legitimate purpose;
- The proposed relocation is reasonable in light of such purpose; and
- The proposed relocation is in the best interests of the child.
Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-56d, a judge will consider the following:
- Each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation;
- The quality of the relationships between the child and each parent;
- The impact of the relocation on the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the nonrelocating parent;
- The degree to which the relocating parent’s and the child’s life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the relocation; and
- The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements.
A few points worth mentioning.
- A judge has the authority to prevent a child from relocating but cannot prevent a parent from relocating. Therefore, if a custodial parent files a request to relocate and that request is ultimately denied that parent may leave but not with the child. Depending on the circumstances of the case a custodial parent may be faced with a difficult decision.
- In addition, a noncustodial parent may file a motion for Modification of Custody requesting primary custody of the child rather than having the child leave the state.
- Finally, the law cited above applies specifically to cases where a divorce has already entered. For cases involving a request to relocate while a divorce is pending or for cases where a parent wishes to move at the time of divorce, the court applies the best interest of the child standard.
Stamford and Fairfield Relocation Attorney
I represent clients in Connecticut Family Court proceedings though out Fairfield County including Easton, Fairfield, Monroe, Trumbull, Stratford, Bridgeport, Westport, Weston, New Canaan, Wilton, Norwalk, Darien, Stamford and Greenwich.
Please email me or call me in Stamford at (203) 356-1475 or in Fairfield at (203) 259-5251 for a consultation concerning relocation issues in Connecticut.