Swain v. Swain
Citations
- 213 Conn. App. 411
Syllabus
The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court granting in part the defendant's motion to modify the existing child support, custody, visitation and parental access orders with regard to the parties' four minor children. Pursuant to those orders, the plaintiff had sole legal custody and primary physical residence of the children, with a specific visiting and access schedule for the defendant and pay- ment of child support from the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant's motion requested, inter alia, sole custody of the children and a suspen- sion of the support order. After a hearing, the court granted the defen- dant's motion to modify as to access and visitation, issued a revised parenting schedule and reduced her weekly support obligation. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held that the plaintiff could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly modified the orders as to visitation, the parental access plan and child support because the defendant's motion sought to modify only custody: the plain language of the defendant's motion placed before the court the issues of custody, visitation and the parental access schedule, the defendant testified at the hearing that she had difficulties complying with the orders as to child support and the parental access schedule and proposed a new visitation and access schedule, and the plaintiff declined to present rebuttal witnesses to the defendant's testimony; moreover, none of the requests by the plaintiff's counsel for clarifications of the court's oral ruling concerned the scope of the ruling compared to the motion to mod- ify. Argued February 1—officially released June 21, 2022
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- applying plenary review when interpreting motion
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Elgo; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Stephanie Hartmann and Eva Hartmann v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, Debra Hartmann, and Harvey LoochtanSeventh Circuit· 1993-12-09· cited 78×
- Emerick v. EmerickConnecticut Appellate Court· 1992-09-01· cited 77×
- Sosin v. SosinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-02-22· cited 54×
- Kelly v. KellyConnecticut Appellate Court· 1999-06-29· cited 39×
- State v. LawlerConnecticut Appellate Court· 1993-04-06· cited 18×
- Balaska v. BalaskaConnecticut Appellate Court· 2011-08-02· cited 10×
- Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-02-22· cited 4×
- Cummings Enterprise, Inc. v. MoutinhoConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-03-08· cited 1×
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.