Connecticut Appellant Court Grants Post-trial Motions Awarding Sole Custody to Father - BY: ALICIA G.

Opinion only available on Westlaw: https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ide46bc4e2dbe11e28126b738c7cd8808/View/FullText.html?listSource=RelatedInfo&docFamilyGuid=Ide46bc4f2dbe11e28126b738c7cd8808&originationContext=appellatehistory&transitionType=HistoryItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29 Connecticut Appellant Court Grants Post-trial Motions Awarding Sole Custody to Father Based on State Statute and Violations of Parenting Agreement. The father involved filed post-dissolution motion in Tittle vs. Skipp-Tittle, 150 Conn.App. 64, 2014 WL 1687032 (Conn.App.), for the modification the original temporary child custody orders seeking sole custody. The court granted this motion and upon the denial of the mothers pro se motion. Mother appealed against the court’s ruling awarding the father sole legal and physical custody. The Appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling holding that 1) the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to statute C. G. S. A. § 46b-56. 2) That the evidence submitted was sufficient to support the courts findings and modification of custody as being in the best interest of the children and, 3) the court declined to exercise its supervisory authority over administration of justice to evaluate role of court-appointed guardian’s ad litem. Parties to the case Shawn Tittle and Susan Skipp-Tittle married in 1999. The plaintiff served the defendant a complaint for dissolution of marriage on August 2, 2010. Both parties submitted to the court a dissolution of marriage settlement which was accepted by judge trial referee, Hon. Lloyd Cutsumpas. Pursuent to the judgment the party’s shared joint legal custody as outlined in the parenting agreement located within the marriage settlement, of the minor children involved which stipulated the primary residence of the children to be that of the defendants. Following this the plaintiff filed two post judgment motions seeking modification of the custody order citing substantial change in circumstance. The original agreement entered into by both parties and submitted to the court was extremely strict and detailed. In review of the motions, this agreement, and facts surrounding the circumstances the court found that the defendant violated the terms of this agreement. The defendant first contacted the father’s father making “negative, derogatory, mean-spirited and vindictive comments to him,” which thus violated the agreement. Upon further investigation the court found no credibility to the claims made by the defendant concerning a fire arm, the plaintiff allegedly trying to hit the defendant with a motor vehicle, and the safety of the children when with the plaintiff. The court maintained its position on the statute referenced awarding sole custody to the plaintiff and father of the minor children involved based on the children’s best interests.