AC 45791 - Walton v. Walton ("The defendant, Deepa B. Walton, appeals
from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Robert S. Walton IV. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1)
found her in contempt for various alleged violations of
the court’s automatic and/or pendente lite orders, (2)
awarded the plaintiff his entire federal pension without
assigning a value to it, (3) denied her request for production of an appraisal completed by an appraiser retained
by the plaintiff, and (4) distributed the parties’ property
in a disproportionate and inequitable manner. We affirm
the judgment of the trial court.")
AC 46049 - S. C. v. J. C. ("In this custody dispute, the plaintiff
mother, S. C., appeals from the judgment of the trial
court granting certain postdissolution motions of the
defendant father, J. C. On appeal, the plaintiff claims
that the court erred in (1) continuing a previously issued
emergency order of temporary custody that gave the
defendant sole legal custody of the parties’ two children
and primary physical custody of the parties’ youngest
child, A, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-56f because
(a) the defendant did not prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that there was an immediate and present
risk of physical danger or psychological harm to the
children sufficient to support his application and, therefore, the granting of his application was based on clearly erroneous factual finding, and (b) the court’s
award of temporary custody to the defendant, who had
been ‘‘found . . . to be a domestic abuser’’ was an
abuse of discretion, not in the best interests of the
children, and against federal and state public policy;
and (2) granting the defendant’s motion for contempt
for failure to comply with a court order requiring the
plaintiff to transfer physical custody of A to the defendant. We conclude that the record is inadequate to
review the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant failed to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there
was an immediate and present risk of physical danger
or psychological harm to the children and, therefore,
affirm the judgment as to that portion of the plaintiff’s
first claim. We dismiss the appeal as to the plaintiff’s
claim challenging the dispositional portion of the temporary custody order granting temporary custody to
the defendant because we conclude that it is moot in
light of events that have occurred since this appeal was
filed. We agree, however, with the plaintiff on her claim
challenging the court’s order finding her in contempt
and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of contempt.")