The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Family Law


Family Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5596

  • SC20664 - Tilsen v. Benson: (Dissolution of Marriage, "The principal issue in this appeal requires us to consider the extent to which a Connecticut court may enforce the terms of a ‘‘ketubah,’’ which is a contract governing marriage under Jewish law, without entangling itself in religious matters in violation of the first amendment to the United States constitution.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5578

AC45100 - Anderson-Harris v. Harris (Divorce, "In this appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly rendered judgment in the dissolution action before court-ordered evaluations were completed, (2) the court abused its discretion in issuing certain financial orders, including those related to child support and alimony, and (3) a new trial is necessary because she was unable to provide an adequate record for appellate review as a result of the retirement of the trial judge. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5570

AC45226 - Buchenholz v. Buchenholz (Dissolution of Marriage, "On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court abused its discretion when it purportedly amended the plaintiff’s complaint to allege intolerable cruelty, rather than the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, as the ground for dissolution, (2) he did not receive adequate notice that the plaintiff would introduce testimony at trial in support of the purported ground of intolerable cruelty, and (3) the court abused its discretion in awarding alimony to the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court."

AC45268 - Pencheva-Hasse v. Hasse (Dissolution of Marriage, On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly applied the child support guidelines, (2) abused its discretion in adopting the guardian ad litem’s custody recommendations, and (3) abused its discretion in its property distribution orders.2 We affirm the judgment of the court.


Family Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5562

SC20710 - Schoenhorn v. Moss (Mandamus, subject matter jurisdiction, justiciability doctrine, "Accordingly, when a plaintiff brings an impermissible collateral attack on another trial court’s sealing order by way of an action for a writ of mandamus, no practical relief can be granted, and the court lacks the competency to adjudicate the matter."


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5560

AC45242 - Ochoa v. Behling (Child custody, child dependency tax exemption)

"On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred ‘‘in adopting [a] prior court order’’ that allowed the defendant, a custodial nonparent, to take certain federal child dependency tax exemptions for the child because the court lacked the authority to do so. In his view, ‘‘states cannot allocate federal tax liability, as doing so is within the exclusive province of the United States Congress.’’ We decline to review the plaintiff’s claim on appeal because it was not raised before the trial court."


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5538

AC45400 - Stevens v. Khalily (“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly struck counts nine and twelve, which alleged defamation against Shahram and Diana respectively, for failure to plead defamation with the requisite specificity. The plaintiff argues that counts nine and twelve of the operative complaint ‘‘adequately identify the alleged defamatory statements, who made them and to whom they were made, which is what is required of defamation pleadings under Connecticut law and practice.’’ We conclude that the court properly granted the motion to strike counts nine and twelve because the plaintiff has failed to plead reputational harm, an element required to establish a prima facie case of defamation at common law. Because the plaintiff has failed to plead all four elements of defamation, we need not reach the plaintiff’s claim that the court improperly granted the motion to strike on the grounds that he failed to plead the elements of defamation with the requisite specificity. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)


Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Carey, Sean

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5532

SC20745 - In re Paulo T. (“This certified appeal arises from the motion of the petitioner mother, Mae T., to reinstate her guardianship rights with respect to her minor child, Paulo T. In the course of its oral decision granting the motion, the trial court stated that parents are entitled to a presumption that reinstatement of guardianship rights is in the best interests of the child. The respondent father, Horace W., appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, contending, among other things, that this presumption does not apply in cases between two parents. In re Paulo T., 213 Conn. App. 858, 860, 866, 279 A.3d 766 (2022). The Appellate Court agreed with the respondent but nevertheless affirmed the judgment because, after reviewing the record as a whole, it discerned no indication that the trial court had in fact applied the presumption. See id., 866, 877–78, 892. The respondent filed a petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which we granted, limited to the following questions: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the presumption that reinstatement of guardianship is in the best interest of the child does not apply in cases in which both parties are the parents of the minor child?’’ And (2) ‘‘[d]id the Appellate Court correctly conclude that, notwithstanding the trial court’s statement that a presumption applies, the trial court did not apply the presumption but, rather, correctly applied the proper best interest balancing test?’’ In re Paulo T., 344 Conn. 904, 281 A.3d 460 (2022). Under the circumstances in which this case is presented to us, we need not address the first certified question, and we answer the second question in the affirmative. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5527

  • AC44803 -Netter v. Netter ("In this marital dissolution action, the defendant, Donald Netter, appeals from the trial court’s order on the pendente lite motion of the plaintiff, Stephanie Netter, requesting access to the marital residence to retrieve her personal belongings and from the judgment of the court holding him in contempt for his failure to comply with a provision of the court’s pendente lite parenting plan. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) issued the order permitting access to the marital residence, and (2) granted the plaintiff’s motion for contempt.")