Skip to main content
· 4/23/2024

A. A.-M. v. M. Z.

Citations

  • 225 Conn. App. 46

Syllabus

The defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff previously had been dis- solved, appealed from the judgment of the trial court resolving several postjudgment motions. Several years after the judgment of dissolution, the plaintiff filed a motion for modification of the custody of the parties' minor child, who was then seventeen years old, and two motions for contempt. The court denied the defendants' motions for contempt, which had alleged that the plaintiff had violated the court's orders with respect to visitation, and it awarded the plaintiff sole legal custody of the child. The defendant appealed to this court, and, shortly thereafter, the child turned eighteen years old. Thereafter, the defendant filed additional motions for contempt, alleging that the plaintiff violated the court's orders by not encouraging the parties' child to see her and placing obstacles in the way of visitation. In January, 2023, the court denied the defendant's motions for contempt with respect to visitation and the defendant's claim that the plaintiff improperly claimed the child on his tax return. The defendant did not amend her appeal to challenge that decision. This court dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging the trial court's rulings related to custody and visitation, and the plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the defendant had failed to appeal from the January, 2023 decision. Held that the defendant's appeal was dismissed as moot: this court concluded, after a review of the defendant's appellate brief, that the appeal was limited to challenges to the trial court's rulings related to the defendant's rights to custody and visitation with the parties' child and the relevant portions of the defendant's request for relief were entirely dedicated to her access to the child, and, as to these issues, the appeal was rendered moot when the child attained the age of eighteen; moreover; the fact that the present case involved motions for conte

Judges: Alvord; Cradle; Clark

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.