R. D. v. G. D.

Syllabus

The defendant appealed from the trial court's judgment dissolving his mar- riage to the plaintiff and granting certain other relief. He claimed, inter alia, that the court erred in awarding the plaintiff sole physical and legal custody of the parties' minor children without granting him visitation. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the plaintiff sole physi- cal and legal custody of the parties' children without granting the defendant visitation, as the court expressly determined that a grant of visitation to the defendant would not be in the children's best interests and made detailed findings concerning the defendant's unfitness as a parent and the physical and psychological danger he posed to the children. The defendant's claim that the trial court improperly awarded the plaintiff alimony on the basis of the defendants' postseparation increase in income was foreclosed by this court's decision in Panganiban v. Panganiban (54 Conn. App. 634), and, even if the defendant were correct that it was improper for the trial court to rely on a postseparation, but predissolution, increase in income when entering an initial alimony award, the record did not support his claim that the court's alimony award was based solely on his postsepara- tion increase in income because the court properly considered the factors required by the statute (§ 46b-82) governing alimony awards. The trial court did not err in awarding pendente lite alimony to the plaintiff at the time of dissolution, as the applicable statute (§ 46b-83 (a)) expressly permitted the court to award pendente lite alimony from the date of the plaintiff's initial application for alimony, and this court's decision in Hal- lock v. Hallock (228 Conn. App. 81) established that the trial court had authority to decide the pendente lite alimony motion at the time of the dissolution judgment. The trial court did not err in determining that mandatory distributions that the plaintiff received from an in