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


AC43244 - Batista v. Cortes ("The self-represented defendant, Angel L. Cortes (father), appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify his child's primary residence to his residence from that of the plaintiff, Daisy G. Batista (mother). On appeal, the father (1) claims, in essence, that the court abused its discretion by concluding that it was in the child's best interests that she continue to reside primarily with her mother and (2) challenges the results of several payment audits showing that he owes an arrearage in child support. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41790 - M. S. v P. S. ("The defendant, P. S., appeals from the judgment of dissolution and the pendente lite order of the court awarding the plaintiff, M. S., attorney's fees. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in (1) entering an excessive support order that consumes approximately 90 percent of the defendant's income and leaves him with insufficient income to pay for his basic needs, (2) entering an order permitting the plaintiff to relocate thirty-five miles from her current residence rather than the mutually agreed upon thirty-five miles from the other party's residence, and (3) awarding the plaintiff attorney's fees when the amounts billed were excessive and unreasonable. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC42984 - Johnson v. Johnson ("In this matter stemming from the dissolution of his marriage to the plaintiff, Lisa R. Johnson, the defendant, Peter A. Johnson, appeals from the trial court's postjudgment modification of child support and alimony, and entry of an educational support order. The defendant also appeals from the court's judgment finding him in contempt for failing to comply with those orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) committed plain error 'when it imposed its own findings and interpretation' of the parties' separation agreement, and 'failed to act in a manner that projected impartiality,' and (2) abused its discretion when it 'issued numerous contradictory findings without changing its modified orders,' entered orders 'beyond the statutory time frame' and 'found [him] in contempt without making [the] requisite findings.' We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")