R. G.-R. v. S. R.
Citations
- 226 Conn. App. 547
Syllabus
The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant had previously been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the judgments of the trial court resolving several postjudgment motions. On May 26, 2022, the trial court granted, inter alia, the defendant's motion to modify custody of the parties' minor child. After the plaintiff filed her appeal from the May 26, 2022 order, the trial court vacated its order of custody, and returned the minor child to the plaintiff. Subsequently, on October 26, 2022, the trial court awarded the defendant sole legal and physical custody of the minor child and ordered the plaintiff to have no contact with the minor child until further order of the court. The plaintiff amended her appeal to include the trial court's October 26, 2022 order. While this appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed a motion to modify the October 26, 2022 ''custody and parenting time orders.'' The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion to modify as to parenting time only, leaving the custody portion of the order unchanged. The plaintiff did not amend her appeal to include the August 1, 2023 order. Held: 1. The plaintiff's challenges to the May 26 and October 26, 2022 custody and parenting orders were rendered moot because the orders were superseded by the custody and parenting order of August 1, 2023, and, accordingly, there was no practical relief this court could afford the plaintiff: despite the plaintiff's claims to the contrary, the August 1, 2023 order addressed both parenting time and legal custody of the minor child; moreover, the plaintiff's claim that the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine applied, in that her reputation and livelihood would be threatened if those orders were left intact, was belied by the fact that the May 26, 2022 order was sealed by the trial court on the day it was issued, thus, the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that there was a reasonable possibility that prejudicial consequences would o
Judges: Alvord; Cradle; Westbrook
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.