Amanda L. Raymond v. Justin K. Briere

Summary

The Connecticut Appellate Court reviewed a custody judgment awarding the defendant primary physical custody of the parties' minor child. The court held that the trial court properly considered evidence concerning the plaintiff's conduct and its impact on her parenting ability, and declined to reverse based on an unpreserved claim of judicial bias. The court nevertheless held that the trial court lacked authority to order a postjudgment psychological evaluation under General Statutes § 46b-6, reversed the judgment in part, and vacated that order.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly considered evidence of the plaintiff’s actions taken as a result of her beliefs about human trafficking and cyberstalking because the evidence was relevant to the plaintiff’s conduct, parenting abilities, and the best interests and safety of the child. The court did not adjudicate the validity of the alleged criminal activity or improperly exercise jurisdiction over a potential criminal prosecution.
2. Reversal was not warranted under the plain-error doctrine because the plaintiff did not file a motion to disqualify and did not establish that the trial court acted with bias or partiality. Adverse procedural and evidentiary rulings, without more, did not demonstrate deep-seated favoritism or antagonism.
3. The trial court lacked statutory authority to order the plaintiff to undergo a psychological evaluation and comply with resulting treatment recommendations after entering a final custody judgment. The psychological-evaluation and treatment provision was therefore vacated, while the remainder of the custody judgment was affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly considered evidence of the plaintiff’s conduct related to her efforts to research and report alleged human trafficking and cyberstalking.
2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to reversal under the plain-error doctrine based on an unpreserved claim that the trial judge was biased in favor of the defendant.
3. Whether the trial court had statutory authority under General Statutes §§ 46b-3 and 46b-6 to order a postjudgment psychological evaluation and compliance with treatment recommendations as part of a final custody order.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded