Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves the dissolution of a marriage between the plaintiff, K, and the defendant, R, with the intervenor, B, also involved due to a related New Jersey litigation. The key marital asset was the couple's home in Greenwich, Connecticut, valued at approximately $11 million, and several investment accounts. The defendant had previously pledged these assets as security in a New Jersey court case, which resulted in a $24.7 million judgment against him and his father. The New Jersey court ordered the forfeiture of the Greenwich property and imposed a constructive trust on the investment accounts due to the defendant's misconduct, including transferring $3 million to Slovakia.The Connecticut trial court found that the defendant had dissipated marital assets by pledging and forfeiting the Greenwich property and investment accounts. The court included these assets in the marital estate and ordered their sale, with proceeds to be divided among the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor. The court also found the defendant's annual earning capacity to be $400,000 and ordered him to pay $749 per week in child support, based on his earning capacity rather than actual income. Additionally, the court allowed the plaintiff to relocate with the children to the Czech Republic and granted her motion for contempt against the defendant for failing to support the family during the pendency of the dissolution action.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in failing to afford full faith and credit to the New Jersey court orders, which had removed the Greenwich property and investment accounts from the marital estate. The Supreme Court also found that the trial court improperly calculated child support by not first determining the presumptive amount based on the defendant's actual income. The court's granting of the plaintiff's motion for contempt was reversed due to a lack of clear and unambiguous orders requiring the defendant to provide the support he allegedly withheld. The case was remanded for a new hearing on all financial issues, including the division of the marital assets, giving full faith and credit to the New Jersey court orders. View "K. S. v. R. S." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between divorced parents over the custody and visitation rights of their minor children. The plaintiff father was granted sole legal custody of the children, while the defendant mother was given limited visitation rights. The trial court's order allowed the plaintiff to unilaterally suspend the defendant's visitation with their son, R, if he reasonably determined, after consulting with R's therapist, that the visits were causing negative behavioral or emotional consequences for R.The trial court initially granted the plaintiff's motion to modify custody, awarding him sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the children. The court found that the defendant's behavior, including her mistrust and denigration of the plaintiff, negatively impacted the children. The court's order allowed the defendant to have supervised visits with R, which could become unsupervised if the plaintiff approved. However, the plaintiff was also given the authority to suspend the defendant's visitation if he believed it was harming R.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court's order improperly delegated judicial authority to the plaintiff. The court held that a trial court cannot delegate its statutory duty to decide custody and visitation matters to a nonjudicial entity, including a parent. The court emphasized that only the trial court has the authority to modify visitation orders and that delegating this authority to a parent creates a situation ripe for abuse and misjudgment. The court reversed the trial court's order to the extent that it allowed the plaintiff to unilaterally suspend the defendant's visitation rights and remanded the case for further proceedings on this issue. View "R. H. v. M. H." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over visitation rights for a minor child, L. The plaintiff, Laurie Hepburn, is the sister of L's deceased mother and had lived with L since her birth in 2010. After the death of L's mother in 2021, L's father, the defendant Chandler Brill, took L to live with him full-time. Hepburn filed a petition for visitation rights, which Brill moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Hepburn lacked standing under the third-party visitation statute because she failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that she had a parent-like relationship with L and that L would suffer real and significant harm if visitation were denied.The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the initial petition, concluding that it did not satisfy the requirements of the third-party visitation statute. The court also dismissed, on its own, the amended petition, concluding that its allegations, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, would not establish the plaintiff’s parent-like relationship with L or establish that L would suffer real and significant harm if visitation were to be denied.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff’s amended petition for visitation with L. The court found that the plaintiff had adequately alleged both the existence of a parent-like relationship and that the denial of visitation would cause L real and significant harm. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hepburn v. Brill" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was convicted, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree, criminal mischief in the first degree, and threatening in the second degree, among other crimes. The defendant had unlawfully entered his brother's residence and caused significant damage within it. Upon appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court had committed plain error by not identifying the specific crime or crimes he allegedly intended to commit when he entered the residence during the jury instruction on first-degree burglary.However, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court had not committed plain error. The trial court's instruction accurately recited the elements of the burglary charge and clarified that the intent to commit a crime within the building is a distinct element. Furthermore, the court noted that although it is the better practice for trial courts to name the crime or crimes and define such elements in its instructions, it has never been clearly held to be mandatory.Additionally, the court found that even if there was a patent error in the court’s instruction, the omission did not result in a manifest injustice. The evidence presented at trial established that the defendant had violently forced his way into the residence and caused extensive damage, which satisfied the intent element. View "State v. Kyle A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dissolving Plaintiff's marriage to Defendant, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.At issue in this case was the extent to which a Connecticut court may enforce the terms of a "ketubah," a contract governing marriage under Jewish law. The trial court in this case denied Plaintiff's motion to enforce the terms of the parties' ketubah as a prenuptial agreement on the ground that doing so would be a violation of the First Amendment to the United States constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Plaintiff's motion to enforce the ketubah; and (2) the trial court's alimony order, considered in light of Plaintiff's net earning capacity, was not an abuse of discretion. View "Tilsen v. Benson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's action for a writ of mandamus ordering Defendant, the chief court reporter for the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, to produce transcripts that were sealed by another trial court in a separate proceeding involving unrelated parties, holding that the trial court correctly determined that Plaintiff's action was nonjusticiable.Jennifer Dulos commenced a marital dissolution against Fotis Dulos. Following a hearing relating to the custody of the parties' children the family court closed the courtroom to the public and sealed the hearing transcripts. Fotis subsequently died, and the family court dismissed the martial dissolution action. Plaintiff then commenced this action seeking an injunction compelling Defendant to produce the transcripts. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that to grant the requested relief would require the trial court to overturn the order sealing the transcripts. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's complaint did not present a justiciable claim. View "Schoenhorn v. Moss" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court granting Mother's motion to reinstate her guardianship rights with respect to Child, holding that the trial court correctly applied the proper best interest balancing test.After a hearing on Mother's motion for reinstatement of her guardianship rights, the trial court issued an oral decision stating that parents are entitled to a presumption that reinstatement of guardianship rights is in the child's best interests. Father appealed, arguing that this presumption does not apply in cases between two parents. The appellate court agreed but nevertheless affirmed because it discerned no indication that the trial court had actually applied the presumption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court correctly concluded that the trial court (1) did not apply a presumption in favor of Petitioner when it determined that reinstatement of her guardianship was in the best interests of Child; and (2) did not err in determining that reinstatement of guardianship was in the best interests of Child. View "In re Paulo T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights as to his minor child (Child), holding that the trial court did not violate Father's right to adequate notice when it terminated Father's parental rights after the close of the evidence pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 17-112(j)(3)(B)(ii).At the close of the evidence in this case the Commissioner of Children and Families moved to amend the petition to allege a different ground for the termination of Father's rights. The trial court granted the motion pursuant to Practice Book section 34a-1(d). Thereafter, the Commissioner of Children and Families filed an amended summary of the facts in support of its petition claiming that grounds existed for termination of Father's parental rights pursuant to section 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii). At the conclusion of trial, the trial court granted the petition to terminate Father's parental rights on ground (B)(ii). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not violate Father's constitutional due process right to adequate notice by allowing the Commissioner to amend the petition after the close of the evidence and terminating Father's parental rights pursuant to ground (B)(ii). View "In re Gabriel S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights as to her three children, holding that any violation of the children's alleged constitutional right on the part to conflict-free counsel was harmless error.The trial court terminated Mother's parental rights due to her failure to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that Mother could assume a responsible role in the children's lives within a reasonable time. On appeal, Mother argued (1) her children had a procedural due process right to conflict-free counsel under the state and federal constitutions, and (2) the trial court violated this right by failing to inquire into whether the attorney appointed to represent them had a conflict of interest due to the children's conflicting goals concerning reunification. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that even if the children had a constitutional right to conflict-free counsel, any violation of such a right was harmless error. View "In re Amias I." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting both Plaintiff's motion for modification of alimony and Defendant's postjudgment motion for contempt, which resulted in the trial court finding Plaintiff in contempt and awarding Defendant past due alimony and attorney's fees, holding that there was no error.After a hearing, the trial court awarded Defendant past due alimony in the amount of $249,570 and attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $80,000. The trial court also granted Plaintiff’s motion to modify his alimony obligation and found Plaintiff in contempt for willfully violating the parties' "clear and unambiguous" separation agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) correctly interpreted the parties' separation agreement, and its findings were not clearly erroneous; (2) did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in finding Defendant in contempt. View "Birkhold v. Birkhold" on Justia Law