Skip to main content
· 8/31/2021

Coleman v. Bembridge

Citations

  • 207 Conn. App. 28

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant. The trial court ordered that the parties' minor child would maintain a primary residence with the plaintiff in Connecticut until the child's second birthday. At that time, the child's residence would begin to alternate, so that he would spend one half of each year with the plaintiff and one half with the defendant, who lived in Saskatchewan, Canada. In the event that the parties were unable to agree on a custody schedule, the trial court ordered that the child would spend two months at a time with each party. The trial court further ordered that, following the child's fifth or sixth birthday, he would be enrolled in a full-time academic program in Connecticut and would again maintain a primary residence with the plaintiff. Held: 1. The trial court's physical custody orders did not modify the physical custody of the child prospectively and were not improper: the substance of the trial court's orders reflected that it intended the parties to maintain joint physical custody of the child at all times; moreover, the trial court's order requiring changes to the child's residence did not alter the nature of the joint physical custody award and, accordingly, did not require future modifications to the child's physical custody. 2. The plaintiff could not prevail on her claim that, to the extent the trial court awarded the parties joint physical custody, it lacked the statutory authority to do so and deprived the plaintiff of her due process rights: the trial court had the authority to award the parties joint physical custody notwithstanding that both parties sought only sole physical custody, as the applicable statute (§ 46b-56a) restricted the court's authority to award joint legal custody, not joint physical custody; more- over, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she lacked fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard with respect to the trial c

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding a juvenile is afforded protection from double jeopardy
  • holding a juvenile is afforded protection from double jeopardy
  • “A juvenile is entitled to due process and is thus given double jeopardy protection.”
  • \A juvenile is entitled to due process and is thus given double jeopardy protection.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alvord; Moll; Cradle

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.