§ 46b-6 — (Formerly Sec. 51-337). Investigations.

Connecticut § 46b-6

• Jurisdiction: Connecticut
• Title 46b: Family Law
• Ch. 815: Court Proceedings in Family Relations Matters

Text

In any pending family relations matter the court or any judge may cause an investigation to be made with respect to any circumstance of the matter which may be helpful or material or relevant to a proper disposition of the case. Such investigation may include an examination of the parentage and surroundings of any child, his age, habits and history, inquiry into the home conditions, habits and character of his parents or guardians and evaluation of his mental or physical condition. In any action for dissolution of marriage, legal separation or annulment of marriage such investigation may include an examination into the age, habits and history of the parties, the causes of marital discord and the financial ability of the parties to furnish support to either spouse or any dependent child.

Legislative History

(1959, P.A. 531, S. 10; P.A. 73-373, S. 37; P.A. 76-436, S. 95, 681.) History: P.A. 73-373 substituted “dissolution of marriage” for “divorce”; P.A. 76-436 substituted “pending family relations matter” for “matter pending in a family relations session”, effective July 1, 1978; Sec. 51-182j temporarily renumbered as Sec. 51-337 and ultimately transferred to Sec. 46b-6 in 1979. Decision of a court whether to order an investigation and report is discretionary. 180 C. 533. Cited. 181 C. 622; 212 C. 63; 224 C. 776. “Evaluation” of a physical or mental condition is not equivalent to “treatment” of such a condition. 2 CA 472. Cited. 11 CA 189; 23 CA 509; 25 CA 693. Nothing in section and Sec. 46b-3 authorizes court to order parties in a custody battle to undergo postjudgment psychiatric therapy or other counseling since those provisions apply to pending family matters and trial court improperly ordered a postjudgment psychological evaluation and postjudgment counseling. 61 CA 175. Psychological evaluation was not moot or irrelevant because there was an actual controversy re a final visitation schedule that was in best interest of the child, and the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the evaluation released. 149 CA 314.