Opinion
No. FA-02-0729552-S
March 3, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff, representing herself, has filed a motion for post-judgment modification of the child custody orders now in place. The defendant, represented by counsel, objected to the motion claiming that there has not been a substantial change of circumstances
In modifying custody the court must either find a material change of circumstances or that the order sought to be modified was in the best interest of the child. Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn.App. 50, 55-56 (1999); Hall v. Hall, 186 Conn. 118 (1982); see also Kennedy v. Kennedy, 83 Conn.App. 106, 114, cert. denied, 270 Conn. 915 (2004) (finding that the joint custody arrangement was no longer in the best interest of the children). "The burden is on the party seeking modification to show the existence of a substantial change in circumstances." Jaser v. Jaser, 37 Conn.App. 194, 204 (1995); Emerick v. Emerick, 28 Conn.App. 794, 802, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 915 (1992); see also Walshon v. Walshon, 42 Conn.App. 651 (1996) (dismissing plaintiff's motion for modification for failure to make out a prima facie case of a material change in circumstances).
A hearing was held on February 24, 2009, which was limited at that time to the issue of whether there had been a substantial change of circumstances or whether the order in place was no longer in the best interest of the child. Both parties testified at the hearing.
Chief among the plaintiff's claims is that there is a change in circumstances because the defendant now has a residence in North Carolina and a residence in South Carolina. A review of the agreement between the parties, dated March 17, 2009, shows that it contemplated that the defendant might live in either state. Thus there has not been any change in circumstances, let alone a substantial one. Although the plaintiff claims that it is now difficult to adhere to the agreement as it pertains to the airline schedule, the circumstance have not substantially changed nor has the court been persuaded that the existing agreement is not in the child's best interests.
The plaintiff also claims that because the child has changed schools, there is a substantial change in circumstances. She testified, however, that the vacation schedules have remained the same as they were at the time of the agreement.
The plaintiff also claims that the agreement should be modified to require the defendant to attend the child's medical appointments here in Connecticut either in person or via telephone. The court is not persuaded that there has been a change in circumstances or that the original order is not in the best interests of the child.
In sum, and for all the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff has not met her burden in showing a material change in circumstances or that the agreement is not in the best interests of the child.
The motion is denied.
SO ORDERED.