Summary
The plaintiff mother appealed a trial court's custody and visitation order granting primary physical custody to the father in Florida. The appellate court found that while the shared physical custody order was not an abuse of discretion, the unbalanced visitation order significantly limited the mother's in-person visitation without adequate findings, violating statutory requirements for both parents' active involvement. Consequently, the court reversed in part and remanded for a new hearing on visitation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its shared physical custody order.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its visitation order that limited the plaintiff’s in‑person visitation.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a Practice Book § 25‑26(g) order requiring leave of court to modify custody or visitation.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion; the shared physical custody order stands.
- The trial court abused its discretion; the visitation order is reversed and the case remanded for a new hearing on visitation.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion; the inclusion of the § 25‑26(g) order is upheld.
Key quotations
“The trial court abused its discretion by issuing an unbalanced visitation order that significantly limited the plaintiff’s in‑person visitation with the child because the record did not contain any findings of the court demonstrating why such a limited visitation schedule was warranted.”
“The trial court failed to credit evidence demonstrating that the defendant was unwilling to facilitate the child’s relationship with the plaintiff, as it was not the province of this court to reweigh the evidence or to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.”
Factual background
The parties are not married and have one minor child born in 2019. They lived together in New York until the defendant moved to Florida in January 2021. In August 2021 the plaintiff was arrested in Florida for alleged assault, later resolved with a deferred prosecution. The child has primarily resided with the defendant in Florida, while the plaintiff resides in Connecticut.
Procedural history
The parties filed custody applications in the Superior Court, Danbury Judicial District. The trial court awarded joint legal custody, primary physical custody to the defendant, and limited visitation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed the custody and visitation orders to this Court.
Remand instructions
Remand for a new hearing on visitation.