Stiwinter v. Roberts

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Stiwinter v. Roberts

215 A.2d 413, 153 Conn. 240, 1965 Conn. LEXIS 428

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 9, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 215 A.2d 413 (Stiwinter v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stiwinter v. Roberts, 215 A.2d 413, 153 Conn. 240, 1965 Conn. LEXIS 428 (Colo. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Shannon, J.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, transferring to him custody of his son, Curtis D. Stiwinter, Jr., who is about three and one-half years of age, from the defendants, who were the child’s maternal grandparents and with whom the child had lived since his birth. The defendants have appealed.

While certain corrections and additions to the finding are sought, we can make none which would materially affect the result.

In a case involving the custody of a child, his welfare must be the controlling consideration, and in determining custody much must be left to the discretion of the trial court. It is not bound by expert testimony even if the testimony is uncontradicted. Clearly in this case the court weighed the circumstances with great care. We cannot hold that the trial court could not reasonably conclude that the plaintiff should have the custody of the child. Claffey v. Claffey, 135 Conn. 374, 377, 64 A.2d 540; Claffey v. Claffey, 146 Conn. 104, 109, 148 A.2d 140.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Shannon, J.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, transferring to him custody of his son, Curtis D. Stiwinter, Jr., who is about three and one-half years of age, from the defendants, who were the child’s maternal grandparents and with whom the child had lived since his birth. The defendants have appealed.

While certain corrections and additions to the finding are sought, we can make none which would materially affect the result.

In a case involving the custody of a child, his welfare must be the controlling consideration, and in determining custody much must be left to the discretion of the trial court. It is not bound by expert testimony even if the testimony is uncontradicted. Clearly in this case the court weighed the circumstances with great care. We cannot hold that the trial court could not reasonably conclude that the plaintiff should have the custody of the child. Claffey v. Claffey, 135 Conn. 374, 377, 64 A.2d 540; Claffey v. Claffey, 146 Conn. 104, 109, 148 A.2d 140.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.2d 413, 153 Conn. 240, 1965 Conn. LEXIS 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stiwinter-v-roberts-conn-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack