When grandparents are seeking visitation with grandchildren over a parent's objection they have to prove that they had a parent-like relationship and that a denial of visitation would cause real and significant harm to the grandchild. Grandparents were successful in the 2017 case of Boisvert v Gavis 65 Conn.L.Rptr. No. 2, 81 where they used a psychologist to testify that interrupting the child's relationship with the grandparents would cause real harm to the child.
Connecticut Court still retains jurisdiction to enforce the retirement pay distribution
In most divorce cases the distribution of pension and retirement benefits are not finalized for years. A recent Connecticut case of Shaw v. Shaw 62 Conn.L. Rptr. No. 20, 2016 indicates that the Connecticut Court still retains jurisdiction to enforce the retirement pay distribution even when both spouses have left the state. In this case, one spouse refused to cooperate and tried to avoid payment by leaving Connecticut.
Paternity when fraud or duress is involved
In a recent Paternity case the Superior Court ruled that there is no limitations period for a father to challenge a judgment of paternity when fraud or duress was involved. See Tata v Levine, CT Sup Ct 64 Conn.L. Rptr 19, 2017. However, the father must present clear and convincing evidence that he was deceived into signing paternity papers.
The Federal Tax Exemption for a child can be allocated by the Trial Court to the parent who is paying support. Once the tax allocation is court ordered, it is considered a nonmodifiable property settlement and can not be changed.
Hoyt v Hoyt 64 Conn.L.Rptr 13,498(2017)
In a paternity matter a Superior Court held that a court has the inherent authority to open an acknowledgment of paternity solely on the grounds that an accurate determination of paternity would be in the child's best interests. Often men agree to paternity in the absence of a DNA test, have regrets and later obtain DNA results showing that they are not the biological father.
Muhammad v Murphy 62 Conn.L. Rpte 3, 2016
Edelson v Dubinsky 62 Conn.L. Rptr No 18, 2016
Alimony may be terminated upon cohabitation if the separation agreement stated that as the agreement of the parties. Typically alimony is reduced or terminated only after a hearing that the cohabitation changed the financial needs of the receiving spouse. this alimony issue was clarified in Kunschaft v Kunschaft, 2016 in 62 Con.L.Rptr.No14.
A court decision in Wroniak repeated the premise that a pension benefit allocation is a property distribution and is non-modifiable except for fraud , mutual mistake or duress. The parties are free to contract any terms they want and any later regrets of a bad decision will not change the order.
site 59 Conn.L.Rptr. 2009, 2015
Although there is a 60 day limit to challenge a paternity judgment a Superior Court ruled that the best interests of the child permit a paternity judgment to be reopened. But only the child has the right to reopen a paternity judgment to determine their biological parent. To learn morn about establishing or enforcing paternity Click Here
Muhammad v Murphy.