
Originally Posted by
munchkin656
My boyfriend has joint custody of his elementary school age son with his ex-wife in Connecticut. Their custody agreement says that she gets him during the week and my boyfriend gets him on the weekend and holidays. He is also paying child support. His ex-wife has not been living with their son for three years. He (their son) is currently living with his maternal grandmother. His mother has very little part in their life. My boyfriend has been extremely active, never missing a weekend and attending every sporting/school event. She recently got engaged (after dating someone for 2 months) and is planning a wedding in a few months. She told their son that once they were married, he would go live with her. Their son confided in us that he does not want to live with her at all. We couldn't get him to elaborate on why, but he was adamant that he wants to live with us. Both moves would require switching schools. We are not engaged yet but are planning on getting married, we just don't want to rush into things like his mother is doing. What are our options? I know the courts typically favor mothers, but would the fact that she doesn't live with him and has played almost no part in his life affect this? We just want to protect his son.
1. Legally you are no one in that case. Your boyfriend has rights and obligations.
2. Let him file in Court for custody modification.
3. He has to prove that she has not been living with their son for three years.
4.The judge is not under obligation to listen to his son but he/she may decide to listen to him.
5. Good luck.
Modification: “means a child custody determination that changes, replaces, supercedes or is otherwise made after a previous determination concerning the same child, whether it is made by the court that made the prior custody determination.” (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115a(11)(2007).
Some cases from Ct
Janik v. Janik, 61 Conn. App. 175, 763 A.2d 65 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 940 (2001). Modification of custody from joint legal custody to sole legal custody
“We conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the court to find that the defendant did not provide a supportive and stable environment for the child and, therefore, that it was in the best interest of the child for the plaintiff to have sole custody” (p.184).
· Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn. App. 50,56, 732 A.2d 808 (1999). “Because the establishment of changed circumstances is a condition precedent to a party's relief, it is pertinent for the trial court to inquire as to what, if any, new circumstances warrants a modification of the existing order.”
· Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729, 737-738, 638 A.2d 1060 (1994). “To obtain a modification, the moving party must demonstrate that circumstances have changed since the last court order such that it would be unjust or inequitable to hold either party to it. …[I]t is pertinent for the trial court to inquire as to what, if any, new circumstance warrants a modification of the existing order… The power of the trial court to modify the existing order does not, however, include the power to retry issues already decided… Therefore, although the trial court may consider the same criteria used to determine the initial award 'without limitation'… its inquiry is necessarily confined to a comparison between the current conditions and the last court order.”
· Cookson v. Cookson, 201 Conn. 229, 514 A.2d 323 (1986). The standard of proof applicable to modification of custody proceedings is the “fair preponderance of the evidence standard”.
· Evans v. Santoro, 6 Conn. App. 707, 710, 507 A.2d 1007 (1986). “…the burden of proving that a change of custody would be in the child's best interest rests upon the party seeking the change.”
· Hall v. Hall, 186 Conn. 118,122, 439 A.2d 447 (1982). Modification of a custody order must be “based upon either a material change of circumstances which alters the court's finding of the best interests of the child... or a finding that the custody order... was not based upon the best interests of the child.”
· Fish v. Fish, No. FA 00 0339326 S (Conn. Super. Ct. Middletown, June 3, 2003), 2003 Conn. Super. Lexis 1669. Quoting both Borkowski and Kelly.
· Rudolewicz v. Rudolewicz, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. 410812 (August 20, 1986), 1 C.S.C.R. 664. “... the plaintiff has proved by the preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the entry of the decree of dissolution the court had focused its attention primarily on the termination of the marriage relationship and not on the best interests of the child.”