Claffey v. Claffey

• Decision Date: 20 January 1959
• Citation: 148 A.2d 140,146 Conn. 104
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Mary K. CLAFFEY v. Edward A. CLAFFEY et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 140

148 A.2d 140

146 Conn. 104

Mary K. CLAFFEY v. Edward A. CLAFFEY et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 20, 1959.

Frank T. Healey, Jr., Waterbury, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick Healey and James T. Healey, Waterbury, for appellants (defendants).

Arthur M. McDonald, Waterbury, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.

DALY, Chief Justice.

This habeas corpus proceeding was instituted by the plaintiff in August, 1955. In her application for the writ, she claimed that her daughter, Keli Diane Claffey, was unlawfully detained by the defendants, Keli's grandparents, being the parents of the plaintiff's former husband. Judgment was rendered for the defendants on February 9, 1956 (Comley, J.) and modified on April 9, 1956 (Roberts, J.), on June 29, 1956 (Troland, J.), and on July 5, 1957 (Alcorn, J.). By this last modification the custody of Keli was awarded to the plaintiff effective September 1, 1957. The defendants appealed.

Certain corrections in and additions to the finding are sought. We can make none which would materially affect the result. The court found the following facts: The present proceeding is the most recent of a long series involving the custody of Keli. The first was a habeas corpus proceeding, brought by the plaintiff, in which the Superior Court awarded custody to the plaintiff, and, on appeal by the defendants, this court sustained the judgment on February 21 1949. Claffey v. Claffey, 135 Conn. 374, 64 A.2d 540. Thereafter, Keli was in the plaintiff's custody for approximately two years. During that period the plaintiff's husband brought an action for divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty. By his complaint he sought custody of Keli. The plaintiff, the defendant in that action, filed a cross complaint claiming a divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty, the custody of Keli and an order for her support. On February 8, 1950, the court, by its judgment, which has not been modified, granted the defendant in that action, the plaintiff in the instant case, a divorce, awarded her the custody of Keli and ordered the child's father to contribute towards Keli's support. Thereafter, Keli remained in the plaintiff's custody for about a year. At the end of that period the plaintiff delivered her to the care of the defendants. She did it for the reason that she started to work at 8 a. m. on each work day, she was going to take a public health extension course at the University of Connecticut, and Keli was about to enter kindergarten.

In the instant action, the trial court, by the judgment rendered on February 9, 1956, adjudged that the best interests of Keli required that she 'be left in the custody of the defendants * * * at least until such time as the plaintiff's situation becomes more stabilized.' On April 9, 1956, the court modified the judgment, granting the plaintiff limited visitation and custody rights. The judgment was again modified on June 29, 1956, and custody of Keli was granted to the plaintiff for a stated limited period of time. The present motion for modification was heard by the trial court on June 28, 1957. No technical considerations were suggested by either the plaintiff or the defendants. Because of the history of the controversy, the court entertained the motion as the parties presented it, namely, on the sole issue whether the circumstances had so changed that the best interests of the child warranted a further modification of the judgment. Two reports, one dated October 27, 1955, and the other January 6, 1956, were made part of the finding. These reports had been considered by the court before the original judgment awarding the custody of Keli to the defendants was rendered on February 9, 1956. It was stated in the first report that the plaintiff then occupied a three-room apartment on the second floor of a house in Thomaston, that a young man who had pleaded guilty to the crime of statutory rape occupied a room on the same floor, and that the plaintiff intended, if custody of Keli was awarded to her, to have Keli live in her apartment. In the other report, it was noted that the immediate environment in which the plaintiff then lived was 'not the most favorable one to bring up a child who is about to enter adolescence.' No claim was made that the plaintiff was an unfit person to have custody of her daughter.

The plaintiff now lives in Thomaston, where she has conducted nursing courses for 'teen-age' girls. She is active on the local library board and in the parent-teacher association and the local Red Cross, and is very highly regarded. She is employed as an industrial nurse in Thomaston and during the 1955 flood served twenty-four hours a day, nursing, and assisting doctors in emergency activities. She moved into her present home in August, 1956, subsequent to her court appearance in this action in June, 1956. She occupies five rooms on the first floor of a ten-room house located...