Logan v. Logan, 26392.
| Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | McLachlan |
| Citation | 96 Conn.App. 842,902 A.2d 666 |
| Parties | Heather V. LOGAN v. Kevin B. LOGAN. |
| Docket Number | No. 26392.,26392. |
| Decision Date | 08 August 2006 |
Page 666
v.
Kevin B. LOGAN.
Page 667
Kevin B. Logan, pro se, the appellant (defendant).
Sandi Beth Girolamo, with whom was Julia B. Morris, Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Jennifer E. Davis, with whom was Barry F. Armata, Bristol, guardian ad litem for the minor child.
McLACHLAN, HARPER and LAVINE, Js.
McLACHLAN, J.
The defendant, Kevin B. Logan, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for contempt and granting the motion for modification filed by the plaintiff, Heather V. Logan. He claims that the court improperly (1) failed to provide him with accommodations in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., (2) denied his motion for contempt and (3) granted the plaintiff's motion for modification, ordering that he be prohibited from driving the parties' minor child in his motor vehicle and ordering that the minor child no longer have overnight visits with him. We agree with the defendant only as to the order prohibiting overnight visits with his daughter.
The facts relevant to the issues on appeal are as follows. On December 23, 1993, the court issued a memorandum of decision ordering the dissolution of the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant. The memorandum of decision resolved financial, custodial and visitation issues.1 On December 2, 2004, the defendant filed a postjudgment motion for contempt, alleging that the plaintiff was interfering with his visitations, vacations and holidays with the parties' minor child. He further alleged that the plaintiff was refusing to allow him to pick up and drop off the minor child and that she was being difficult in communicating with him about their child. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff's actions were in violation of the December 23, 1993 court orders.
On January 3, 2005, the plaintiff filed an objection to the defendant's motion for contempt, stating that his motion should be denied because he failed to exercise the majority of his visitation rights with the minor child in the last six years. On January 4, 2005, the plaintiff filed a postjudgment motion for modification in which she requested that the court modify the December 23, 1993 court orders. Specifically, she stated that there had been a substantial change in circumstances because the defendant's ability to care for the parties' minor child had diminished. She stated that the defendant had been in several car accidents since December, 1993, and that the minor child wanted to have her visitation with the defendant limited to one night per week. The plaintiff requested that the court enter orders that the defendant's parenting time with the minor child be limited to weekly visits without an overnight stay and that the defendant be prohibited from driving the minor child in a motor vehicle.
On February 8, 2005, the court heard testimony, evidence and argument from both parties and the guardian ad litem for the minor child regarding the motion for contempt and the motion to modify. After the hearing, the court issued a ruling denying the defendant's motion for contempt
Page 668
and granting the plaintiff's motion to modify. An additional order was entered by the court, on the basis of an agreement that the parties reached during the hearing, which provided that all correspondence from the minor child's school would be sent to the defendant and that the defendant's contact information would be provided to the school. This appeal followed.
The defendant's first claim on appeal is that the court improperly failed to provide him with accommodations according to the ADA. This claim was not raised in the trial court, and no specific accommodation was requested by the defendant in the trial court. The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKechnie v. McKechnie, AC 31498
...5 A.3d 490 (2010); Corrarino v. Corrarino, 121 Conn. App. 22, 30, 993 A.2d 486 (2010). Additionally, we note that in Logan v. Logan, 96 Conn. App. 842, 845-46, 902 A.2d 666 (2006), we declined to review a party's claim raised for the first time on appeal that the trial court improperly fail......
-
Mckechnie v. Mckechnie, 31498.
...928, 5 A.3d 490 2010); Corrarino v. Corrarino, 121 Conn.App. 22, 30, 993 A.2d 486 (2010). Additionally, we note that in Logan v. Logan, 96 Conn.App. 842, 845–46, 902 A.2d 666 (2006), we declined to review a party's claim raised for the first time on appeal that the trial court improperly fa......
-
Martocchio v. Savoir, AC 31363
...under the ADA during the contempt proceedings. Under these circumstances, we decline to review his claim. See Logan v. Logan, 96 Conn. App. 842,845-46,902 A.2d 666 (2006) (declining to review claim that court failed to provide ADA accommodations during contempt hearing when ADA claim was no......
-
Martocchio v. Savoir, 31363.
...under the ADA during the contempt proceedings. Under these circumstances, we decline to review his claim. See Logan v. Logan, 96 Conn.App. 842, 845–46, 902 A.2d 666 (2006) (declining to review claim that court failed to provide ADA accommodations during contempt hearing when ADA claim was n......