Opinion
FA154078156S
08-01-2016
Kamillah Williams v. Corey Holmes
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE APPEAL FROM FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATE
Stewart Johnson, J.
Before the court is an appeal in the above-captioned matter filed on January 19, 2016, by Attorney Tad Bistor, the court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem (GAL). The GAL is appealing a decision of Family Support Magistrate Gilman on the grounds that the order was: (1) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the record; (2) arbitrary and capricious; (3) an abuse of discretion; and/or (4) was a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. Magistrate Gilman denied the request for ancillary fees of $50 on January 4, 2016.
The court heard argument on April 5, 2016 from Attorney Bistor. All other parties received notice of the hearing date and failed to present argument on behalf of the State of Connecticut, the plaintiff or defendant. No memoranda of law were filed after the hearing date.
An appeal from the magistrate court is governed by General Statutes § 46b-231(n)(1) which provides that " [a] person who is aggrieved by a final decision of a family support magistrate is entitled to judicial review by way of appeal under this section." Subsection (7) of § 46b-231 provides that " [t]he Superior Court may affirm the decision of the family support magistrate or remand the case for further proceedings. The Superior Court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the decision of the family support magistrate is: (A) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (B) in excess of the statutory authority of the family support magistrate; (C) made upon unlawful procedure; (D) affected by other error of law; (E) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (F) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."
Such an appeal is confined to the record and is not a de novo hearing. General Statutes § 46b-231(n)(6). The factual findings of family support magistrates are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review, which " provides that [a] [magistrate's] determination is clearly erroneous only in cases in which the record contains no evidence to support it, or in cases which there is evidence, but the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made . . . It is the family support magistrate's function to weigh the evidence and to determine credibility and [the reviewing court gives] great deference to his or her findings." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Social Services v. Joyner, 136 Conn.App. 826, 832, 51 A.3d 1139 (2012). " The clearly erroneous standard imposes on the appellant a heavy burden of persuasion." Id.
FINDINGS
Attorney Bistor was appointed by the court as GAL for two minor children on June 9, 2015. He filed his appearance on June 22, 2015 under contract for services with the Office of Public Defenders. The GAL appeared before the court on July 25, August 25 and September 30, 2015.
On December 15, 2015, the GAL filed a motion for order regarding expenses. The court finds the movant was given an opportunity to be heard. The record is clear that the decision for fees is within the discretion of the family support magistrate. The magistrate inquired as to the record of the appointment. Based on the lack of evidence in the file regarding fees and the argument of the GAL, the motion was denied.
The court has carefully reviewed the transcript of the hearing dated January 4, 2016, and finds that the record is devoid of any evidence from which the court could determine payment of fees to Attorney Bistor.
Based on the factors stated above, the court denies the appeal and enters a judgment upholding the Family Support Magistrate's decision.
SO ORDERED.