CRADLE, J.

Dana M. Hrelic, Hartford, with whom were Johanna S. Katz and, on the brief, Stacie L. Provencher, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Mary Piscatelli Brigham, Waterbury, for the appellee (defendant).

Bright, C. J., and Cradle and Seeley, Js.

CRADLE, J. In this postdissolution matter, the plaintiff, Danielle Lehane, appeals from the judgment of the trial court modifying the parties’ custody of and visitation with their minor child. The court awarded sole legal and physical custody to the defendant, James Murray, and awarded the plaintiff certain visitation rights. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) improperly delegated its judicial authority to a nonjudicial party by giving the defendant the authority to "alter, change or modify" her visitation schedule, (2) exceeded its authority by ordering her to submit to a psychological evaluation and to provide the results to the defendant, and (3) improperly awarded the defendant the right to claim the child as a dependent for income tax purposes where the dissolution judgment included a clear and unambiguous provision awarding the plaintiff the nonmodifiable right to do so. We disagree with the plaintiff's claim that the court improperly delegated its judicial authority to the defendant, but we agree with her other two claims. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

The following procedural history is relevant to this appeal. The marriage of the parties was dissolved on March 23, 2017, and their separation agreement was incorporated into the judgment of dissolution. Pursuant to that judgment, the parties shared joint legal custody of their four year old son, who resided primarily with the plaintiff, and the parties exercised a two week rotating parenting plan. Since June, 2017, the parties have been engaged in extensive litigation involving custody of and visitation with their son. Commencing November 24, 2020, and concluding December 21, 2020, the trial court, Diana, J ., held a fifteen day hearing on twenty-four postjudgment motions the parties had filed, including motions in which they each sought sole custody of their son. On February 3, 2021, the court issued a memorandum of decision in which, inter alia, it granted the defendant's motion to modify and awarded him sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ son. The court further ordered, inter alia, that "the plaintiff shall have parental access to the minor child" every other weekend and every Wednesday overnight, and that "the defendant may alter, change or modify [that] schedule, along with the location, date and time of the exchanges." The court also ordered: "No holiday or vacation orders shall be entered on behalf of the plaintiff unless consented to by the defendant in writing, except that the plaintiff shall have eight (8) hours of access to the minor child over the Thanksgiving weekend and over the Christmas holiday as is decided by the defendant."

The court ordered the plaintiff to immediately undergo a psychological evaluation and to provide a copy of that evaluation to the defendant. The court ordered that the plaintiff "shall follow all recommendations regarding any and all treatment consultations set forth by the evaluator and therapist."

The court also modified child support, ordering the plaintiff to pay child support in the amount of $122 per week to the defendant in accordance with the Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines set forth in § 46b-215a-1 et seq. of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. The court further ordered that the defendant shall be entitled to claim the child as a dependent for income tax purposes. This appeal followed.

I

The plaintiff first claims that the trial court improperly delegated its judicial authority to a nonjudicial party by giving the defendant the authority to "alter, change or modify" her visitation schedule. We are not persuaded.

The court's authority to enter orders pertaining to the care and custody of minor children, and the factors that must be considered in doing so, are prescribed by statute. General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 46b-56 (a) authorizes the Superior Court in any action involving the custody or care of minor children to "make or modify any proper order regarding the custody, care, education, visitation and support of the children ... according to its best judgment upon the facts of the case and subject to such conditions and limitations as it deems equitable." Subsection (b) of General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 46b-56 provides in relevant part: "In making or modifying any order as provided in subsection (a) of this section, the rights and responsibilities of both parents shall be considered and the court shall enter orders accordingly that serve the best interests of the child and provide the child with the active and consistent involvement of both parents commensurate with their abilities and interests. ..." Subsection (b) of General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 46b-56 also contains a nonexhaustive list of possible orders including a catchall provision permitting "any other custody arrangements as the court may determine to be in the best interests of the child." General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 46b-56 (c) provides in relevant part that, "[i]n making or modifying any order as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the court shall consider the best interests of the child, and in doing so may consider, but shall not be limited to, one or more of [sixteen enumerated] factors .... The court is not

required to assign any weight to any of the factors that it considers, but shall articulate the basis for its decision." (Footnote added.)

Although we typically review a trial court's custody and visitation orders for an abuse of discretion, the question of "whether the court improperly delegated its judicial authority presents a legal question over which we exercise plenary review." Zilkha v. Zilkha , 180 Conn. App. 143, 170, 183 A.3d 64, cert. denied, 328 Conn. 937, 183 A.3d 1175 (2018). "It is well settled ... that [n]o court in this state can delegate its judicial authority to any person serving the court in a nonjudicial function. The court may seek the advice and heed the recommendation contained in the reports of persons engaged by the court to assist it, but in no event may such a nonjudicial entity bind the judicial authority to enter any order or judgment so advised or recommended. ... A court improperly delegates its judicial authority to [a nonjudicial entity] when that person is given authority to issue orders that affect the parties or the children. Such orders are part of a judicial function that can be done only by one clothed with judicial authority." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thunelius v. Posacki , 193 Conn. App. 666, 674, 220 A.3d 194 (2019).

In this case, following a fifteen day evidentiary hearing during which the parties introduced more than 100 exhibits, the trial court set forth extensive factual findings and conclusions, which are supported by the record and have not been challenged on appeal, upon which it based its orders pertaining to the parenting of the parties’ son. The court began by examining various conflicts that had arisen between the parties since the date of dissolution. The court recounted that the conflict included, but was not limited to, two claims by the plaintiff to the Department of Children and Families (DCF), alleging safety concerns and lack of supervision of the child when he is in the defendant's care, and a similar complaint to the Torrington Police Department (police department). Both DCF and the police department found the plaintiff's claims to be unsubstantiated. Despite knowing that no safety concerns were found, the plaintiff wilfully denied the defendant access to the child for three weeks during the period surrounding those unsubstantiated allegations.

On the basis of the significant and consistent conflicts between the parties, the court found: "The plaintiff's behavior consistently ignores and distorts court orders. She has undermined the defendant's relationship with their son by coaching him, not honoring or encouraging access, and by crying when he visits with his father. ... [T]he plaintiff describe[s] her[self] ... [as] the gatekeeper in deciding if the [defendant's] visits [with their son] take place. ... She admitted that she refused to allow the defendant access to their son for a period of time due to safety concerns, despite a finding by DCF to the contrary. The other reason provided [by the plaintiff] is that the minor child refused to go with the defendant." On the basis of the plaintiff's actions, including but not limited to those recited previously, the court concluded that "the plaintiff failed to act in good faith in encouraging the minor child to visit [the defendant] .... Her comments and repeated insulting references to the defendant send a clear message that this perceptive child understands, [and] has mirrored and parroted." (Citation omitted.)

In support of its findings, the court referred to communications between the parties on Our Family Wizard (OFW) for the three years since the date of dissolution, which were introduced as exhibits at the hearing. The court found: "A review of the OFW exchanges between the parties clearly reveals, in the parties’ own words, how they interact with each other. The defendant is neutral, calm, pleasant, informative and appropriate in his language and tone. The plaintiff is at times appropriate; other times she does not reply to specific questions and often takes on a hostile, combative, accusatory and insulting attitude in her exchange." The court further noted that, while the defendant had demonstrated "his willingness and ability to encourage the mother-child relationship," the plaintiff had "shown no such capacity, willingness or ability to understand and meet the needs of the minor child."

The court further found: "The parties’ fun loving child, who wants to please everyone, has struggled since the divorce, as he finds himself stuck in the middle of this high conflict matter. ... The plaintiff's unsubstantiated incident[s] [were] weaponized to manipulate and influence the minor child to achieve absolute control and restrict the defendant's legal role and personal relationship with their son .... As a result of the plaintiff's intentional interference and coaching, the minor child has struggled with the truth. ... The situation demands a reset to correct and heal the distress and confusion that has been escalating for over three years." (Citations omitted.)

The court additionally noted "the progressively deteriorating relationship between the parties" and concluded: "These parties are incapable of and have been unable to present a unified approach in raising their son, in disciplining him and helping him overcome challenges. The plaintiff has undermined the defendant at every opportunity and has no concern about how her conduct impacts the minor child and his relationship with the defendant. And to continue with the custody order of the separation agreement would manifestly work to the detriment of the minor child."

On the basis of the foregoing, the court concluded: "The evidence in this case is abundantly overwhelming and uncontroverted, as the parties have preserved a written and audiovisual record. The court finds the defendant to be credible and the plaintiff without any credibility. The plaintiff's disposition is defiant, manipulative and misguided; she is unwilling to accept and support DCF's findings and the minor child's having a relationship with [the] defendant. She brazenly misrepresents facts, [and] violates and makes up court orders at will to support her long-standing desire to undermine the defendant's relationship with their son. She is found to be emotionally uninsightful regarding the defendant and the minor child's relationship. She actively coaches the minor child by telling him what to say and, therefore, she is incapable of meeting his needs. As such, the court finds that there has been a material change in circumstances since the date of judgment regarding custody between the parties’ minor child and the plaintiff. The court further finds that it is in the best interest of the minor child to modify the plaintiff's access/visitation schedule." The court further reasoned: "The plaintiff has made systematic and continuous efforts to interfere with the minor child's natural love and affection for the defendant ... [and] [s]aid efforts have created a harmful mental health situation for the minor child .... The plaintiff has engaged in behavior which had, as a foreseeable consequence, a negative influence on the relationship between the minor child and the defendant .... The best interests of the minor child would be served by the plaintiff's being evaluated by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist for the purpose of developing a therapy plan designed to minimize or eliminate such negative behavior .... The best interests of the minor child support a modification of the current custodial orders in an effort to minimize the plaintiff's ability to negatively influence the minor child .... The best interests of the minor child support continued work with the mental health professional to assist in adjusting to the custodial changes and assist in dealing with the negative information which has influenced him in the past."

On the basis of the foregoing, the court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ son to the defendant and established a specific schedule of parenting access for the plaintiff. We disagree with the plaintiff's contention that the court improperly delegated its judicial authority when it ordered that the defendant may "alter, change or modify" her visitation schedule. In so ordering, the court did not, as the plaintiff contends, give the defendant "unbridled" authority to modify her right to visit their son; nor did the court give the defendant unilateral authority to suspend or terminate her parenting access to their son. The court's order permits the defendant to modify the plaintiff's visitation schedule , not to modify her right to visitation. The court established specific parameters regarding the plaintiff's visitation with the parties’ son, and the defendant is governed by those parameters in exercising the limited discretion afforded to him by the court. In other words, although the court's order allows the defendant to "alter, change or modify" the plaintiff's visitation schedule , it does not permit him to reduce, suspend or terminate her access to their son. In support of her claim, the plaintiff argues that the court's order allows the defendant to unilaterally "decide the nature and scope" of the plaintiff's contact with their son, which was held by this court, in Kyle S . v. Jayne K ., 182 Conn. App. 353, 373, 190 A.3d 68 (2018), to be an improper delegation of judicial authority. We disagree. In Kyle S ., the trial court expressly stated that it would "rely" on the minor child's therapist, with respect to issues involving the child, to "dictate" the scope of the father's contact with the child in a therapeutic setting. Id., at 361, 190 A.3d 68. The court further ordered that the father's contact with the child was subject to expansion or contraction depending on the child's needs and that the therapist would be "in charge." (Emphasis omitted.) Id. This court held that the trial court impermissibly delegated its judicial authority to the minor child's therapist because it "improperly removed itself from the decision-making process by permitting [the therapist] to decide the nature and scope of [the father's] contact with [the child]." Id., at 373, 190 A.3d 68. This case is distinguishable from Kyle S . because, here, the court's order allowing the defendant to "alter, modify or change" the plaintiff's visitation schedule does not give him the authority to "decide the nature and scope" of her relationship with their son. Rather, after fully and carefully considering the evidence presented by the parties, as well as making the requisite findings regarding the best interest of the minor child, the court exercised its judicial decision-making authority in determining the nature and scope of the plaintiff's parenting access and affording the defendant only a limited amount of discretion to modify the visitation schedule.

Our Supreme Court has recognized that "conflicts frequently develop over relatively minor decisions relating to the day-to-day upbringing and support of minor children, conflicts which in reality reflect little more than a difference of opinion or preference between sometimes hostile parties. ... Frequent litigation of these minor disagreements leads to frustrating court delays ... and, because of the adversarial nature of traditional court proceedings, can work to heighten tensions and engender further conflict." (Citations omitted.) Masters v. Masters , 201 Conn. 50, 66, 513 A.2d 104 (1986). Here, it was the court's judicial determination that it was in the best interest of the parties’ son that the defendant have sole legal and physical custody, as well as the limited discretion to deal with minor day-to-day conflicts that may necessitate an alteration of the plaintiff's visitation schedule but do not necessarily require court involvement. In other words, by affording the defendant the discretion to adjust the plaintiff's visitation schedule, the court implemented a mechanism for the parties, short of returning to court, to deal with the everyday conflicts that arise in high conflict cases and, in fact, have arisen in this case as a result of the plaintiff's obstructionist conduct. Under the unique circumstances presented in this case, specifically, by way of the court's extensive, undisputed findings regarding the history of conflict between the parties in the parenting of their son and the plaintiff's consistent tendency to instigate that conflict, the court's order affords the defendant, as the sole legal and physical custodian, a practical mechanism to react, in real time, to the potentially disruptive conduct of the plaintiff and the needs of the parties’ son.

The trial court's orders in the present case, similar to the trial court's order vesting certain authority in the minor child's guardian ad litem in Thunelius , "[reflect] ... the court's confidence in the commitment ... of the [defendant], and the court's desire to minimize the effect of the parties’ toxic parenting relationship on their child and to discourage [the plaintiff] from heedless and incessant litigation over matters that should not require judicial intervention." Thunelius v. Posacki , supra, 193 Conn. App. at 676, 220 A.3d 194. We conclude that the court properly exercised its decision-making authority in issuing those orders.

II The plaintiff next claims that the court exceeded its authority by ordering her to submit to a psychological evaluation. We agree.

General Statutes § 46b-6 provides in relevant part: "In any pending family relations matter the court or any judge may cause an investigation to be made with respect to any circumstance of the matter which may be helpful or material or relevant to a proper disposition of the case. ..." (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 46b-3 provides that the court in any family relations matter may employ the use of a psychologist, psychiatrist or family counselor in carrying out such an evaluation.

Thus, this court has held that "the [trial] court may require the parties and the child to undergo a psychiatric or psychological evaluation for the purpose of properly disposing of a family matter, in a modification of custody case, [or] to assist in determining the best interest of the child." Foster v. Foster , 84 Conn. App. 311, 323, 853 A.2d 588 (2004). In accordance with the plain language of § 46b-6, however, it is well settled that the court's authority to order such an evaluation is restricted to pending matters to assist in the disposition of the issues presented therein. See, e.g., Janik v. Janik , 61 Conn. App. 175, 180, 763 A.2d 65 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 940, 768 A.2d 949 (2001) ; Savage v. Savage , 25 Conn. App. 693, 700–701, 596 A.2d 23 (1991) ; cf. Martowska v. White , 149 Conn. App. 314, 323, 87 A.3d 1201 (2014) (court properly ordered psychological evaluation for purposes of determining visitation schedule). In this case, the court did not order the plaintiff to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine whether a modification of custody was appropriate or to aid in the disposition of the case. Rather, the court ordered the psychological evaluation after it made the determination to modify custody and established the plaintiff's visitation schedule. Because there were no further matters pending before the court, there was no statutorily valid reason for the court to order a psychological evaluation. We therefore conclude that the court abused its discretion in doing so. See, e.g., Janik v. Janik , supra, 61 Conn. App. at 180, 763 A.2d 65 (postjudgment order for psychological evaluation constitutes an abuse of discretion).

III

The plaintiff finally claims that the court improperly modified the dissolution judgment to permit the defendant to claim the child as a dependent for income tax purposes where, pursuant to the parties’ separation agreement, the dissolution judgment included a clear and unambiguous provision giving the plaintiff the nonmodifiable right to do so. We agree.

"The [separation] agreement of the parties executed at the time of the dissolution was incorporated into the judgment and is a contract of the parties. ... The construction of a contract to ascertain the intent of the parties presents a question of law when the contract or agreement is unambiguous within the four corners of the instrument. ... [T]he construction of a written contract is a question of law for the court. ... The scope of review in such cases is plenary." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Amodio v. Amodio , 56 Conn. App. 459, 470, 743 A.2d 1135, cert. granted, 253 Conn. 910, 754 A.2d 160 (2000) (appeal withdrawn September 27, 2000).

"Once the provisions of a separation agreement ... are incorporated into the dissolution judgment, they can be modified by court order only if the agreement so incorporated does not preclude modification." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. "When a provision in a divorce decree that precludes or restricts a later court's power to modify financial orders is clear and unambiguous ... that provision will be upheld." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 471, 743 A.2d 1135.

Here, paragraph 7 (e) of the parties’ separation agreement provides in relevant part: "The parties agree that for purposes of [Internal Revenue Code] § 152 (e), the [plaintiff] shall be entitled to the dependency exemptions for the minor child for as long as the child is eligible to be claimed as an exemption. ... The [defendant] shall not claim the child on his own federal tax return in any such year. This right to claim [the minor child] as a dependent for tax purposes is nonmodifiable."

Because the separation agreement clearly and unambiguously restricted modification of the child tax exemption, the court erred in modifying that provision and transferring that right to the defendant. The judgment is reversed only as to the court's orders that the plaintiff undergo a psychological evaluation and that the defendant may claim the minor child as a dependent for income tax purposes and the case is remanded with direction to vacate those orders; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.