Bretherton v. Bretherton

11 Citing cases

  1. Oliver v. Oliver

    85 Conn. App. 57 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    We affirm the judgment of the trial court.The defendant raised additional claims that the court (1) improperly concluded in an alternate holding that it could ignore the burden shifting scheme in Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413, 717 A.2d 676 (1998) (en banc), to permit the plaintiff's relocation and (2) incorrectly relied on this court's decision in Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn. App. 528, 805 A.2d 766 (2002), because the facts of this case are distinguishable.In support of those assertions, the defendant not only argues that the weight of the evidence does not support the holding, but he also appears to have fastened on a comment made by the court: "I'm not totally convinced that you moved a long distance from the father for a good reason."

  2. White v. Portuondo

    FSTFA176031011S (Conn. Super. Ct. Sep. 27, 2018)

    (Citations omitted). Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn.App. 528, 536 (2002). After analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413, 716 A.2d 676 (1998), the Bretherton court concluded, "Relocation cases cannot be decided in a vacuum.

  3. Regan v. Regan

    143 Conn. App. 113 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 11 times

    Our review of such claims, therefore, is plenary, and we must determine whether the court's conclusions were legally and logically correct. See Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn.App. 528, 535–36, 805 A.2d 766 (2002). I

  4. Daddio v. O'Bara

    97 Conn. App. 286 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 16 times
    In Daddio v. O’Bara, 97 Conn.App. 286, 904 A.2d 259, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 932, 909 A.2d 957 (2006), the Appellate Court reviewed an order of sole custody and stated that "[o]ur review of the record reveals that the court’s determination that it was in the child’s best interest for the plaintiff to have sole legal custody had a basis in the evidence.

    " (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn. App. 50, 55-56, 732 A.2d 808 (1999); see also Hall v. Hall, 186 Conn. 118, 122, 439 A.2d 447 (1982); Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn. App. 528, 543, 805 A.2d 766 (2002). The following additional facts are necessary for the resolution of the defendant's claim.

  5. Brennan v. Brennan

    85 Conn. App. 172 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 5 times

    On the basis of our analysis in part I, we agree with the defendant.As we explained in Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn. App. 528, 536, 805 A.2d 766 (2002), "relocation cases . . . present some of the most complicated problems that courts are called on to resolve. See Ireland v. Ireland, [246 Conn. 413, 421, 717 A.2d 676 (1998) (en banc)]; Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 736, 665 N.E.2d 145, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575 (1996) . . . . Usually, in relocation cases, there is no good or right answer, especially for the child.

  6. Norrman v. Bonk

    FA154015643S (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 14, 2016)

    (Citations omitted.) Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn.App. 528, 544-45, 805 A.2d 766, 775 (2002). The court is required to weigh the factors set out in C.G.S. section 46b-56 in making a determination as to the best interests of the child.

  7. Haynes v. Poulard

    No. KNOFA114117488S (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 6, 2016)

    controversy before the Superior Court . . . the court may at any time make or modify any proper order regarding . . . custody and visitation . . . That section further provides that in modifying any order with respect to custody or visitation, the court shall (1) be guided by the best interests of the child . . . General Statutes § 46b-56(b). [Our Supreme Court ] has limited the broad discretion given the trial court to modify custody orders under General Statutes § 46b-56 by requiring that modification of a custody award 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 sought to be modified was not based upon the best interests of the child . . ." 123 Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn.App. 50, 55-56, 732 A.2d 808 (1999); see also Hall v. Hall, 186 Conn. 118, 122, 439 A.2d 447 (1982); Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn.App. 528, 543, 805 A.2d 766 (2002). This court finds that both situations apply to this case.

  8. Rogers v. Rogers

    LLIFA104009253S (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 1, 2016)

    Undoubtedly this is because the third-party claim for fraudulent conveyance was a civil claim which was joined with a marriage dissolution action. Of course, the civil rules of practice would apply to the civil claim of fraudulent conveyance. The final case cited by the defendant in support of his motion to reargue is Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn.App. 528, 805 A.2d 766 (2002). This was a relocation case involving the proper application of Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413, 717 A.2d 676 (1998).

  9. Jones v. Jones

    2003 Ct. Sup. 13240 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003)

    To predicate a decision whether to permit relocation on the basis of parental conduct only, even when that conduct appears unreasonable or illegitimate, would be to ignore the needs of tie child and to reduce the court's inquiry to assessing the parents' action only." Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn. App. 528, 537-38, 805 A.2d 766 (2002). II. What is in the children's best interest?

  10. Stollak v. Stollak

    2003 Ct. Sup. 10071 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003)

    The others are approximately sixteen and ten years of age. The plaintiff offered the testimony of the children who were present in the courthouse but not present in the courtroom, which the court declined to hear. The court after having reviewed the evidence as cited above has also considered the standards as articulated by the Connecticut Supreme Court in the matter of Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413, 717 A.2d 676 (1998); and the Appellate Court in Bretherton v. Bretherton, 72 Conn. App. 528 (2002) After said review, the court hereby grants the plaintiff's motion.