Person v. Slocum

Connecticut Appellate Court

Person v. Slocum

576 A.2d 561, 22 Conn. App. 802, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 212

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMay 30, 1990

Docket8384

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 576 A.2d 561 (Person v. Slocum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Person v. Slocum, 576 A.2d 561, 22 Conn. App. 802, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 212 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the defendant mother from the trial court’s award of sole custody to the plaintiff father of their minor child. We affirm.

The child was born on May 26,1985, to the plaintiff and the defendant who are unmarried. The plaintiff and the defendant resided together for a short period of time after the birth of the child and soon thereafter disagreed about the child’s care.

This matter has been extensively litigated by the parties. There have been two child custody investigations by the family relations department of the Superior Court and the child has had his own counsel who was appointed by the court to represent his best interests throughout the proceedings. The family relations department and the child’s attorney are in agreement that the court acted in the best interest of the child in awarding custody to the plaintiff father. In reviewing a decision as to what is in the best interests of a child, the trial court is vested with broad discretion. We cannot interfere with the exercise of that discretion in the absence of a showing that some legal principle or right has been violated, resulted in an abuse of that discretion. Adamson v. Adamson, 181 Conn. 172, 180, 195 A.2d 418 (1963); Palmieri v. Palmieri, 171 Conn. 289, 290, 370 A.2d 926 (1976); General Statutes § 46b-56. No such circumstance appears in the record before us.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the defendant mother from the trial court’s award of sole custody to the plaintiff father of their minor child. We affirm.

The child was born on May 26,1985, to the plaintiff and the defendant who are unmarried. The plaintiff and the defendant resided together for a short period of time after the birth of the child and soon thereafter disagreed about the child’s care.

This matter has been extensively litigated by the parties. There have been two child custody investigations by the family relations department of the Superior Court and the child has had his own counsel who was appointed by the court to represent his best interests throughout the proceedings. The family relations department and the child’s attorney are in agreement that the court acted in the best interest of the child in awarding custody to the plaintiff father. In reviewing a decision as to what is in the best interests of a child, the trial court is vested with broad discretion. We cannot interfere with the exercise of that discretion in the absence of a showing that some legal principle or right has been violated, resulted in an abuse of that discretion. Adamson v. Adamson, 181 Conn. 172, 180, 195 A.2d 418 (1963); Palmieri v. Palmieri, 171 Conn. 289, 290, 370 A.2d 926 (1976); General Statutes § 46b-56. No such circumstance appears in the record before us.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 A.2d 561, 22 Conn. App. 802, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/person-v-slocum-connappct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack