J. Y. v. M. R.
Citations
- 215 Conn. App. 648
Syllabus
The defendant mother appealed to this court from the trial court's adjudica- tion of several postjudgment motions for modification of custody and visitation orders relating to the parties' minor child and its issuance of additional orders related to the same. After the plaintiff father filed a custody application, the trial court approved an agreement between the parties, who had never been married, which provided that they would share joint legal custody of the child, with the child's primary residence being with the mother, and set forth a parenting schedule. Approximately one year later, the father filed a postjudgment motion to modify, requesting an increase in overnight visits and that his residence be designated as the child's primary residence for school purposes. There- after, the parties executed stipulation agreements revising the parenting schedule, which the trial court approved. The mother then filed a post- judgment motion for modification, seeking to impose certain restrictions on the father's parenting time. The trial court heard evidentiary hearings on the parties' motions for modification. Thereafter, it filed interim orders indicating, inter alia, that the parties would continue to share joint legal and physical custody of the child and were required to comply with the applicable rule of practice (§ 25-26 (g)) in filing any future motions for modification. A few months later, in response to health concerns relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, the mother filed an applica- tion for an emergency ex parte order of custody, along with a second postjudgment motion for modification, which requested that the court temporarily deny the father visitation. The trial court declined to award ex parte relief but ordered a hearing to be held on the application and the motion. That hearing was postponed and never rescheduled. Thereafter, the trial court denied the mother's second modification motion and issued final orders relating to the parties' initial modificat
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- disagreeing with defendant’s argument that ‘‘interim [custody] orders’’ under Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 440 A.2d 899 (1981
- challenge to interim custody and visitation orders was moot in light of subsequent orders in which court ‘‘reiterat[ed]’’ orders or left them ‘‘largely unchanged,’’ and proper recourse was to challenge later orders (internal quotation marks omitted)
- ‘‘[w]e are limited in our review to determining whether the trial court abused its broad discretion to award custody based upon the best interests of the child as reasonably supported by the evidence’’ (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Elgo; Moll; Suarez
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Thomas v. ClearyConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-11-05· cited 4×
- Cardona v. PadillaConnecticut Appellate Court· 2025-02-04· cited 2×
- A. A.-M. v. M. Z.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2024-04-23· cited 1×
- R. G.-R. v. S. R.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2024-07-09· cited 1×
- In re Jewelyette M.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-03-21· cited 1×
- D. K. v. D. F.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2025-09-09· cited 1×
- Shear v. ShearConnecticut Appellate Court· 2025-10-14· cited 1×
- L. F. v. S. F.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2025-08-26
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Borkowski v. BorkowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-03-15· cited 184×
- Yontef v. YontefSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-08-11· cited 145×
- Ahneman v. AhnemanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-01-20· cited 63×
- Schult v. SchultSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-07-22· cited 56×
- Ramin v. RaminSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-02-20· cited 55×
- Town of New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-05-19· cited 39×
- Cleveland v. ClevelandSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1971-07-09· cited 28×
- Schult v. SchultConnecticut Appellate Court· 1996-03-19· cited 20×
- Coleman v. BembridgeConnecticut Appellate Court· 2021-08-31· cited 12×
- Wilkens v. WilkensConnecticut Appellate Court· 1987-04-28· cited 12×
- Balaska v. BalaskaConnecticut Appellate Court· 2011-08-02· cited 10×
- Thunelius v. PosackiConnecticut Appellate Court· 2019-10-22· cited 10×
- Barber v. BarberConnecticut Appellate Court· 2019-10-01· cited 8×
- Strobel v. StrobelConnecticut Appellate Court· 2005-12-20· cited 7×
- Russo v. Common CouncilConnecticut Appellate Court· 2003-11-04· cited 7×
- Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. StateConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-01-11· cited 6×
- Dolan v. DolanConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-03-29· cited 6×
- Eisenlohr v. EisenlohrConnecticut Appellate Court· 2012-05-08· cited 3×
- Gonzalez v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-04-05· cited 2×
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.