F. S. v. J. S.

310 A.3d 961

223 Conn.App. 763

F. S.

v.J. S.^*

(AC 45698)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 13, 2023

Officially Released February 20, 2024

J. S., self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

Dennis Francis O’Toole, Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Alvord, Seeley and Westbrook, Js.

WESTBROOK, J.

In this marital dissolution action, the defendant, J. S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the plaintiff, F. S., sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor child, O. The self-represented defendant claims on appeal that he is entitled to a new custody hearing because the court improperly (1) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2018),¹ by refusing to continue to provide him with a medical accommodation previously granted to him by the court; (2) terminated the defendant’s presentation of evidence and denied certain motions in retaliation for his exercising his rights under the ADA; (3) relied on the defendant’s mental disability as a basis for awarding custody to the plaintiff and restricting his right to visitation; (4) relied on a stale custody evaluation in determining the best interest of O; (5) required the parties to request leave of the court before filing motions and denied multiple such requests made by the defendant; (6) awarded sole custody of O to the plaintiff despite the fact that the parties previously shared custody and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances; (7) found that the defendant suffered from narcissistic personality disorder; and (8) committed evidentiary errors by (a) admitting the testimony of a social worker from the Department of Children and Families and (b) admitting and relying on an affidavit of O’s former therapist, Damion Grasso. Having carefully reviewed the voluminous record presented,² we conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.

The record reveals the following facts, which were either found by the court or are undisputed in the record, and procedural history. The plaintiff initiated the underlying marital dissolution action in September, 2016. The parties have one child together, O, who was born in May, 2011. By agreement of the parties, the court issued a number of pendente lite orders at the start of the dissolution proceedings, including appointing Attorney Margaret Bozek as guardian ad litem (GAL) for O; awarding the defendant twice weekly supervised parenting time; and ordering the defendant to pay child support to the plaintiff in the amount of $142 per week. On January 3, 2017, the parties reached a subsequent agreement regarding the defendant’s parenting time. The court approved that agreement, which provided the defendant with weekly overnight parenting time and an additional five hours of parenting time on week-ends.³

Early in the proceedings, the parties also filed numerous motions with the court, the bulk of which were disposed of by the court, Simon, J., on March 3, 2017, following a hearing.⁴ Given the volume and nature of the motions, Judge Simon also ordered that neither party could file any additional motions without first requesting leave from the court, except that the parties could file any ex parte emergency request without leave of the court provided that such request also included an affidavit from the GAL stating that she agreed with the request.

On June 29, 2017, the criminal court in the judicial district of Hartford, geographical area number twelve (G.A. 12), informed the court that the defendant had been arrested and arraigned for violating a protective order involving the plaintiff and that he was being held on a $500,000 bond. That same day, the court issued an order in which it granted the plaintiff temporary sole decision-making authority over O’s activities and vacated the then existing visitation order for the defendant, indicating that the defendant’s access to O would revert to the court’s orders of January 3, 2017.⁵ Subsequently, on July 19, 2017, the court suspended the defendant’s parenting time due to court-ordered competency evaluations in his pending criminal matters. The court also granted sole temporary legal custody of O to the plaintiff until further order of the court.⁶

On January 19, 2018, in response to motions filed by the defendant, the court, Olear, J., entered an order restoring the defendant’s parenting time with O to once a week for ninety minutes through a supervised visitation facility. Additionally, by agreement of the parties, the court ordered them to participate in conflict management therapy with Stephen Humphrey, a clinical psychologist, and to undergo a custody/psychological evaluation with Linda Smith, also a clinical psychologist.

On April 3, 2018, the parties entered into an agreement to dissolve their marriage. The agreement, in relevant part, provided the following: "The parties acknowledge that as of the date hereof, they have been unable to resolve the issues related to custody, access and care of [O]. The issues shall be resolved by subsequent proceedings after completion of the custody evaluation being conducted by Dr. Smith." Although the parties were unable to reach a custody agreement, they agreed upon the division of their marital property and debt and that neither would pay alimony to the other. The court, Prestley, J., rendered a judgment of dissolution of marriage that same day that incorporated the parties’ agreement. The court also ordered that the current child support order of $142 per week would remain in effect.

Following a hearing on April 4, 2018, the court, Olear, J., issued an order granting the defendant unsupervised parenting time with O on Thursdays after school. If a Little League practice or game interfered with the Thursday parenting time, the visitation would occur on Monday. The court also granted the GAL’s request for permission to withdraw from this matter. The court, Hon. Gerard I. Adelman, judge trial referee, subsequently denied the defendant’s motion, which objected to the GAL expenses and sought to remove/replace the GAL. The court ordered the defendant to pay the GAL the sum of $22,286.42.

On June 22, 2018, Judge Olear denied the defendant’s request to resume overnight visits with O but granted the defendant additional parenting time on Sundays for two hours. The court also clarified that the previously ordered Thursday parenting time was for two hours.

On October 15, 2018, the defendant sought leave of the court to file several motions. Specifically, he sought to file three motions for contempt in which he alleged that the plaintiff had violated court orders regarding visitation, the nonconsumption of alcohol, and O’s participation in youth soccer. The defendant also asked the court for a hearing on previously filed motions that sought orders to restore his custodial rights, to increase visitation time, and to award costs.⁷ On December 14, 2018, the defendant filed a largely duplicative motion asking again for permission to file a motion for contempt regarding visitation and a motion seeking an order requiring the parties to undergo drug and alcohol testing. He also requested a scheduling order to hear all of his then outstanding motions. Judge Olear denied both of the defendant’s requests for leave to file motions but granted his request for a hearing on his motion seeking an increase in parenting time.

On March 6, 2019, the parties entered into an agreement allowing O to participate in Little League tryouts. Following a hearing on April 5, 2019, the court issued orders that the parties would take O to and from practices and/or games during their respective parenting time. The court increased the defendant’s. parenting time to Tuesdays and Thursdays starting after school to 5:30 p.m. and moved his Sunday parenting time to Saturdays from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

On May 8, 2019, the defendant filed a request for leave to file six motions for contempt and a motion for restoration of custody. The court denied the request for leave without prejudice, indicating that the defendant could "request to have the motions heard at the custody hearing." On July 23, 2019, the defendant filed a request for leave to file four motions for contempt and a motion to restore his parenting time. The next day, he filed another motion for leave to file a motion for. contempt. The court, Nastri, J., granted the defendant’s motions for leave with respect to the motions for contempt but denied leave to file the motion to restore visitation.

On September 10, 2019, the court ordered the parties to go to the caseflow coordinator to obtain a hearing date for the defendant’s pending motions for contempt. The court also granted the defendant permission to file several additional motions, all of which were to be heard at the custody hearing, which, at the time, was scheduled for December 9, 2019.

On December 6, 2019, Dr. Smith filed her custody evaluation with the court. The December 9, 2019 hearing date was continued by the court, and the matter was transferred to the Regional Family Trial Docket and scheduled for five consecutive hearing dates to commence in March, 2020. The March, 2020 custody hearing, however, did not go forward as scheduled.⁸

In addition to filing a variety of motions and objections directed at discovery, on October 13, 2020, the defendant filed a request asking to have all of his pending motions for contempt heard separately from the custody dispute. The court denied that request on October 26, 2020. The defendant’s outstanding motions for contempt and the custody matter were then scheduled for hearing dates to begin on December 14, 2020.

The parties and the plaintiff’s counsel appeared virtually on December 14, 2020, for the custody hearing. Neither party, however, had complied with the court’s standing orders by filing a witness or exhibit list. Moreover, motions in limine...