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 Appellate Court Opinions

by Roy, Christopher


AC41227 - Grogan v. Penza ("The defendant, Jill Penza, appeals from the judgment denying her postdissolution motion for contempt. On appeal, she claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the plaintiff, James K. Grogan, had not violated a 'true up' alimony obligation contained in the parties' separation agreement. The plaintiff cross appeals, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for statutory attorney's fees incurred in defending against the defendant's motion for contempt. We disagree with the parties' claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40438 - Peters v. Senman ("The self-represented plaintiff, Monica L. Peters, appeals from the trial court's decisions denying, in part, her postjudgment amended motion for modification of custody and awarding attorney's fees to the defendant. The plaintiff also challenges the trial court's decision dismissing two motions she filed during the pendency of the custody modification proceedings, in which she sought a declaratory judgment that certain fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States constitution deprived the court of the authority to adjudicate parental custodial conflicts under the best interests of the child standard. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) '[violated her] fourteenth amendment and other rights by terminating a portion of her rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [20 U.S.C. ยง 1400 et seq.] without conducting a fitness hearing'; (2) erred in concluding that she lacked 'standing to request a declaratory judgment to adjudicate her constitutional rights as a fit parent,' and violated her right to due process and abused its discretion by not ruling on her motions for declaratory judgment before trial commenced; (3) violated her and her child's rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution by failing to apply the proper balancing test under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976); (4) erred in awarding attorney's fees to the defendant, Numan Senman; (5) erred in failing to grant her motion for modification of custody; and (6) erred in using its own opinions to infringe on her 'fundamental rights to her child,' circumvented her due process right to cross examine the judge, and made clearly erroneous findings regarding her proposed orders and the needs of the child. We affirm the judgment of the court.")