Legal Articles, Divorce & Family Law

In the years following divorce, many custodial parents are faced with the challenge – and the associated legal hurdles – of determining whether they are permitted to relocate out of state or across the country with any minor children of the marriage.  The non-custodial parent may object to the decision and the move, and if the parties cannot agree, ultimately a judge will be empowered to determine whether the relocation will be allowed.  The law governing this decision is set forth in our state statutes and governing case law.

In a dissolution of marriage action, the Court ordered a husband to pay to his wife unallocated alimony and child support for a period of two and one-half years, followed by allocated alimony and child support for a period of six years.  The parties originally met in 1998 and were married for 13 years.  They were the parents of two children, both of whom were minors at the time of trial.

In a post judgment divorce action, the Connecticut Appellate Court ruled that a father was not entitled to reduce his contribution toward college tuition even though the mother received a significant credit due to her employment with the child’s university.  The parties were the parents of two children, and were divorced in 2001 by way of a stipulated judgment of dissolution.  Their separation agreement provided that they would set aside a joint college fund for the benefit of both children, and that they would pay at least one-half of the children’s college expenses as would be required at a state college or university.

In a case involving the Department of Children and Families, the Court sustained an Order of Temporary Custody based on allegations that the child’s mother inflicted physical injury upon her child by disciplining him with a rubber spatula.

In a case involving the Department of Children and Families, the Court removed a child from her home because of the emotional strain the parties’ high conflict post judgment divorce proceedings placed on her.  The parties were divorced in 2009 and had joint custody of their daughter, with the mother having primary physical custody.  According to the Court, after their divorce, the parents fought incessantly and used the child as a means of obtaining or denying access to the other.  The child, who was fifteen years old during the proceedings, did not want to live with either parent due to their constant fighting.

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D), a court may grant a petition to terminate parental rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence there is no ongoing parent-child relationship.  This concept is similar to “abandonment” except to the extent § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) specifies that in order to prove there is no ongoing parent-child relationship, one must establish that “the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child.”

Cases involving the Department of Children and Families typically involve relatively serious allegations of physical and/or emotional neglect.  However, as the following case illustrates, even conduct that does not result in physical or emotional harm to a child can lead to very serious consequences.

In a released decision, the Connecticut Appellate Court upheld the termination of a mother’s parental rights in large part because she failed to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage a belief that, within a reasonable time, she could assume a responsible position in her child’s life.  The trial court record demonstrated that the mother had a very long history of alcohol abuse, which originally led to DCF’s involvement in the case.

You have taken the difficult step of recognizing that a marriage will no longer work – or perhaps you have been served with divorce papers by your spouse.  A world of uncertainty awaits, with questions like: “What will I do now?” “Do I need a lawyer?” “Can we both afford lawyers?” “How ugly will this get?” “What will happen with the children?” “What if I want to retire?” “How long will this take?” “What will I have to pay?” or “What will I receive?” “Will I have to testify in court?” Or perhaps… “Is there another way?” There IS another way.  As an alternative to the traditional divorce model – with dueling attorneys, depositions, motions, court appearances, and skyrocketing costs – many individuals are now turning to private mediation as a means to obtain a divorce judgment.  Mediation is an informal process in which a neutral third party – sometimes a lawyer, sometimes a therapist or counselor – acts as a sounding board and helps the parties identify and resolve their disputes.

In a decision by the Appellate Court of Connecticut, Juma v. Aomo, Judge Sheldon ruled that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action for dissolution of marriage. The defendant in the case argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction by way of three separate motions to dismiss. Each motion containing the same argument, that he had already commenced an action for dissolution of marriage in Kenya, and that the parties’ marriage could only be dissolved by the Kenyan courts.