Prioleau v. Agosta

• Docket Number: AC 45317
• Decision Date: 04 July 2023
• Parties: KEITH PRIOLEAU v. NITZA AGOSTA
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

1

KEITH PRIOLEAU v. NITZA AGOSTA

No. AC 45317

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

July 4, 2023

Argued March 1, 2023

Application for custody as to the parties' minor child, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the court, Klau, J.; judgment issuing certain orders regarding custody; thereafter, the court Klau, J., granted the defendant's motion for reconsideration and amended its orders, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Keith Prioleau, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).

Kelly S. Therrien, for the appellee (defendant).

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

OPINION

BRIGHT, C. J.

In this contested custody action, the self-represented plaintiff, Keith Prioleau, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding him and the defendant, Nitza Agosta joint legal and physical custody of their minor child, Kayla. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) lacked jurisdiction to grant the defendant's motion to reconsider the court's original judgment or abused its discretion in doing so and (2) abused its discretion in allocating parenting time between the parties.^[1] We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In its memorandum of decision, the court set forth the following relevant facts, which are undisputed. "The parties are parents of a daughter, [Kayla], born June, 2009. The plaintiff . . . was present at [Kayla's] birth and signed a paternity acknowledgment. He is also listed as [Kayla's] father on her birth certificate. . . . Although the parties never married, they were in a romantic relationship for eighteen years. They separated in 2013. For several years after [Kayla's] birth, the [plaintiff] was the stay-at-home parent and primary caretaker. After the relationship ended in 2013, the parties continued to be effective coparents and, as a practical matter, exercised joint legal custody. They agreed that [Kayla] would reside primarily with the defendant . . . and that the plaintiff would have parenting time every weekend from Friday after school until Monday morning.

"This voluntary, mutual arrangement worked well for the parties and [Kayla]-until October, 2019, when the [defendant] filed a child support action. The [plaintiff] responded by filing [the underlying] custody application two months later. Through the application, the [plaintiff] sought to formalize the joint legal custody arrangement and proposed a shared parenting plan in lieu of the long-standing every weekend plan.

"In February, 2019, the court, Connors, J., referred the parties to Family Services for a comprehensive custody evaluation. . . . [U]nfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in court proceedings, not to mention the parties' lives. Even so, the parties adapted. For a substantial period, while the parties stayed and/or worked from home, and [Kayla] attended school virtually, the parties followed an alternating week parenting schedule. In May, 2021, a change in the [plaintiffs] employment status-he took a job with Raytheon in Massachusetts-necessitated a change in the parenting schedule. However, the [plaintiff] pursued reassignment to Collins Aerospace in Connecticut, where he commenced working in mid-October of 2021.

"Having returned to Connecticut, the [plaintiff] wants to return to the alternating week parenting schedule.

In response, the [defendant] proposes that the [plaintiff] have parenting time on alternate weekends and on two afternoons each week. Alexa Joseph, the Family Relations Counselor who conducted the comprehensive custody evaluation, proposes the same parenting schedule as the [defendant].

"A main point of contention is how the parties' respective parenting time proposals will affect [Kayla's] academic performance in school. . . . In 2018 or 2019, [Kayla] began to struggle in math and literacy. The [defendant] asked the school to schedule Student Assistance Team (SAT) meetings. There were five meetings through October, 2020, which both parties attended. Updated information shows that [Kayla] is performing well in her STEM classes and improving in literacy but struggles at times completing homework and class assignments in a timely manner. She also allows herself to be drawn into her peer's personal dramas, has experienced behavioral issues in her class, and speaks poorly about other students on social media.

"The [defendant] contends that her proposed parenting schedule will provide a more stable home situation for [Kayla], which the [defendant] believes will lead to improved school performance and lessen the behavioral issues that [Kayla] is experiencing. The [defendant] also asks the court to find that, although both parents 'have historically been and currently are significantly involved in the child's life, the [defendant] very clearly takes the lead with regard to the child's academics as well as other areas of life.'

"The court agrees with and adopts the first proposed finding, but not the second. That is, the court finds that both parents are actively engaged with [Kayla's] education and her school. Dr. Lauren Daveron, the Assistant Principal at [Kayla's] school, testified that the [plaintiff] 'has definitely been involved with [Kayla's] school,' that both parties attended SAT meetings and that the [plaintiff] has 'always been available for meetings by phone or in person.' "

After noting that it had considered the statutory factors relevant to its determination as to the best interests of Kayla; see General Statutes (Rev. to 2021) § 46b-56 (c); the court found "that the regular weekly parenting schedule the parties followed for many years before October, 2019-by mutual agreement and without the need of court intervention-is in [Kayla's] best interests. That schedule worked well for the parties and, most importantly, for [Kayla]. Indeed, although the [plaintiff] initially resisted the 'every weekend' parenting schedule when the [defendant] first proposed it, he admitted that 'he grew to love it and the relationship [it fostered] with his daughter.' But for the [defendant] filing the child support action in October, 2019, and then the COVID-19 pandemic, it is likely that the parties would have continued to follow that schedule for the foreseeable future." Accordingly, the court issued the following orders. "The parties shall share joint legal custody of [Kayla]. . . . The [defendant] shall have primary residence. . . . Except as amended below, the [defendant's] proposed orders dated September 24, 2021 . . . are fair, just and equitable and in the best interests of [Kayla]. Subject to the following amendment, the court adopts the [defendant's] proposed orders and incorporates them by reference. . . . Paragraph two of the [defendant's] proposed orders [is] amended as follows: the [plaintiff] shall have parenting time every weekend from Friday at 6 p.m. until Sunday evening at 7 p.m." (Footnote omitted.)

Paragraph two of the defendant's proposed orders provided that "the plaintiff . . . shall have parenting time with the minor child every Tuesday and Thursday from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. and every other Friday at 6 p.m. until Sunday at 7 p.m. The defendant . . . shall have parenting time during all other times."

The court issued its decision on January 6, 2022, and the defendant filed a "motion for clarification, articulation, and reargument, postjudgment" on that same date. The defendant amended her motion on January 11,2022, to correct a clerical error.^[2] In her motion, the defendant claimed that awarding the plaintiff parenting time during every weekend is not in the best interests of Kayla. The defendant argued that the evidence presented at trial "supported the fact that the plaintiff . . . does not allow the minor child to attend social or educational activities on the weekends she spends at his home."^[3]She also argued that the court's order prevents the defendant from spending quality time with the child because she works Monday through Friday each week. The defendant requested "that the court grant [the] motion and amend its orders dated January 6, 2022, such that the defendant ... be allowed to have parenting time at least one weekend per month (specifically the third weekend) with the minor child."

On February 2, 2022, the plaintiff, who was represented by counsel before the trial court, filed an objection to the defendant's motion. In his objection, the plaintiff argued that the defendant was not seeking a clarification or an articulation of the court's judgment and, instead, was "requesting a modification of the January 6, 2022 order." Therefore, according to the plaintiff, "[t]he appropriate procedural vehicle to modify an existing order is a motion for modification-not a motion for articulation." The plaintiff also argued that the defendant's request for reargument should be denied because she failed to establish "that the court either overlooked controlling law or misconstrued the factual evidence before it."

On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order denying the defendant's motion insofar as it sought clarification and articulation of the original judgment. The court however, treated the defendant's motion to reargue as a motion for reconsideration; see Antonio A. v. Commissioner of Correction, 205 Conn.App. 46, 74, 256 A.3d 684 ("[m]otions for reargument and motions for reconsideration are nearly identical in purpose"), cert, denied, 339 Conn. 909, 261 A.3d 744 (2021); see also State v. Taylor, 91 Conn.App. 788, 791-92, 882 A.2d 682 ("a motion is to be decided on the basis of the substance of the relief sought rather than on the form or the label affixed to the motion"), cert, denied, 276 Conn. 928, 889 A.2d 819 (2005); and ordered: "Upon...